How Bush Leadership Style Change the World?

It is unquestionable that the hegemony of international politics post Cold War, the United States out to be a winner in other words as a superpower in the world. Behind the power of the United States in the world, can not be denied is strongly influenced by the decisions of its leader until now.

Leadership factor becomes important to determine the direction in which a country will strengthen its position. Including the US, as a big country and advanced many problems both home and abroad whose settlement is very dependent on the leader figure.

We return for a moment in the US period led by George Walker Bush, the 43rd US President of the Republicans can be said to be controversial because of his central issue of "War on Terrorism" and "Iraq War".

Democratization has become an important feature in George W. Bush's foreign policy after the September 11, 2001 WTC that killed many civilians. However, many US political leaders say that this 43rd American president is the worst president in US history.

The Republican president is considered to have blundered by issuing unpopular policies after the tragedy of World Trade Center (WTC) 11 September 2001 ago.

The US balance sheet that had touched a surplus in the time of its previous president, Bill Clinton, has now reached a deficit of more than 400 billion dollars, a fantastic climax at the end of George W. Bush's leadership era. The US budget deficit is much sucked in the fight against "terrorism" in Afghanistan and Iraq that has not been won by the allies.

Based on a survey, George W. Bush's popularity reached the lowest percentage since post 2001. Especially if coupled with surveys conducted in the world, especially Islamic countries, most of them generally expressed dislike about Bush's foreign policy towards Islamic countries.

Bush leadership style does reflect something very distinctive, though not exactly beautiful. After all, leaders are not rulers. For, the born leader is not just about to master, but leaders are born to guide the people to peace and prosperity.

Whatever the leader does, must be good, judged from any point of view. So, instead of just aiming for a blind prosperity. Leaders who only want to prosper their people in all sorts of ways, including violence, will certainly bring disaster.

Unfortunately, Bush leadership style in doing the action. Most policies undertaken highlight violence. One such way to control the oil fields in Central Asia and Middle East.

Bush prefers a violent way of exploiting the tragedy of September 11, 2001, rather than using a clever diplomacy pattern. This kind of leadership is in stark contrast to Bill Clinton's presidency, which tends to promote cultural and diplomatic ways.

Bush leadership style is widely known as a style of leadership that is synonymous with a sense of doubt and doubt. Initially, Bush is a figure of politician who has a good track record in Washington. For example, Bush is an experienced person who is a member of Congress, an Ambassador in China, a Republican Chairman, a Director of the CIA, and a Vice President for 8 years, accompanied Ronald Reagan, President of the 40th (1979-1988).

It's just that, after becoming President, Bush lost many impressive impressions or just leave little memories. Bush, who is educated at Yale is a type of man who does not know the gray area.

Read also: Blanchard Hersey Leadership Situational

Bush was elected after the success of the Reagan revolution, but he was not a true Reagan follower. Bush leadership style is softer, more compromising, more pragmatic than Reagents.

Bush is the type of leader of a manager when his country needs a leader-minded leader, be static in dealing with big changes, and minimalist decisions when momentum is so valuable.

Bush led the United States when the Cold War ended with the breakup of the Soviet Union (1989) which actually provided an opportunity to create impressive creative leadership. However, he inherited a disastrous economic situation after the death of Reagan and eventually Bush failed to provide a great vision for America's next role.

When President Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded Kuwait (1990), Bush successfully pushed the UN into a resolution for intervention. A multinational force was formed under the control of the United States and Iraq was forced out of Kuwait.

That's a bit of Bush's success story in the international arena, but he's lost his domestic priorities so the economy is chaotic and impressed stagnant, undermined by Japanese powers. When domestic politics demanded him to vote, set priorities, break an order, Bush said nothing.

Bush's cautious, controlled, and managerial style leadership, hurting himself when the country needs a vision. His presidency to be a decision-making process is not determined by the determination of ideas. Time needed leadership, but Bush hesitated and hesitated.

Many new phenomena that time came. Like, for example, united Germany (1990) and America enough to be a spectator, China behaves repressively (Tiannamen's tragedy) and simply denounces "insufficient"; the repressive military of Myanmar against Aung San Syuuki, the Americans are not vigorously defending; Eastern Europe is divided, and America is quite an observer; the Latin American country is again democratized but the Americans are not good at managing roles.

Bush was ridiculed by the term "Revlon president", who often offered only cosmetic solutions to serious problems. Bush is surrounded by professional close aides.

However, Bush's decisions are closed and he only draws on key counterparts such as Foreign Secretary James Baker, National Security Adviser Brent Scoweroft, Defense Minister Dick Cheney (later Vice President when his son comes to power), and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Armed Forces Collin Powell (later to become Secretary of State when his son came to power).

Bush's decision tends to be strong for foreign affairs but soft in domestic affairs. Bush's aides make the decision not to offer great achievements, but to maintain and maintain the status quo.

Watching the world change rapidly, Bush should be reasonably expected to rationally offer new approaches. Bush is expected to develop efforts to define a new world that reflects a new approach to new situations. But Bush is worried about missteps, so he loses hope for a new model and abandons the spirit of war that always haunts him.

Bush actually controlled the time that can act independently in the international arena, exactly experienced after the victory of America in World War II during the era of President Harry S. Bush leadership style is clearly visible in the phenomenon or action, President uncertain and doubt, failed to record the history of gold to taking on new ideas and roles in a rapidly changing world. Bush enjoys a commando style that offers a temporary solution to a variety of problems to a "lost opportunity."

Photos: georgewbushlibrary.smu.edu
Powered by Blogger.