As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to struggle with the Democratic primaries and John McCain seems set to be the Republican nominee, a more fundamental debate is taking place. Clinton and Obama present two very different visions of leadership to the Democratic voters. When Clinton argues that “you campaign in poetry but you govern in prose”, she is expressing her belief that the presidency is more about pushing difficult legislation through a divided Congress than transforming society. Clinton has likened the job of president to that of a “chief executive officer” who has “to be able to manage and run the bureaucracy”. Obama, on the other hand, makes the case that the presidency has little to do with running an efficient office, arguing that “it involves having a vision for where the country needs to go. and then being able to mobilise and inspire the American people to get behind that agenda for change.” Similarly, on the Republican side, Mitt Romney, who has now suspended his campaign, pointed to his record as a business leader and governor of Massachusetts. He suggested that given the impending economic recession, America needs a president who understands the ins and outs of economic policy, taking a jibe at McCain who is said to be not very interested in economic and domestic policy issues. McCain responded that he was a leader, not a CEO, and a president can always hire policy wonks to run his agenda. Thankfully for the Republicans, McCain’s substantial lead over his rivals sorted this debate out, at least in the near term. But the debate continues in the Democratic camp, and their indecisiveness shows how difficult it is to come to any conclusion on this issue. There is little doubt that Obama evokes a kind of reverence and fascination in the younger generation not seen in decades, at least since John F. Kennedy. He is being viewed as a transformative figure who can bridge the deep divisions afflicting American society. And when he speaks, you hear the cadences of a sermon, not the nuances of policy.Policy, however, is Hillary’s strong suit, who views politics “as the art of making what appears to be impossible possible”. She is touting her long career as an advocate, First Lady, and Senator that has taught her to bring progressive change in an incremental manner. She cannot match Obama in poetry but hopes to trump him in competence. She has argued that Martin Luther King’s vision of racial equality in the US needed President Lyndon Johnson to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the US Congress. Though this statement generated controversy, it remains historically sound. Even Hillary’s detractors admit that her record as a senator is outstanding, emerging as a centrist, cooperating with Republican colleagues and forging a national agenda beyond the extremes of the Left and the Right. It is this that gives her an edge over Obama, whose rhetoric, for all its ability to uplift, hasn’t moved beyond lofty idealism. On most important issues, his views remain blurred and incoherent. This is especially true of foreign policy, where he has moved from being ready to bomb Pakistan to agreeing to sit across the table with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While the Democratic base might love his anti-Iraq war declarations, the fact remains that his absence from the US Congress saved him from making tough choices on the Iraq war.The Democrats will continue to struggle with the two differing conceptions of leadership and presidency that their front-runners project for weeks, possibly months. However, the search for an ideal leader will not end. The writer teaches at King’s College, Londonharsh.pant@kcl.ac.uk
