& D.J. Brink Prof. dr. D.F.J. Bosscher S1279165 Supervisor Final thesis Version I American Studies Word count: Rijks

(1)

&

D.J. Brink Prof. dr. D.F.J. Bosscher

S1279165 Supervisor

Final thesis Version I

American Studies Word count:

(2)

“There are no easy matters that will come to you as President. If they are easy, they will be settled at a lower level.”1

- President Eisenhower

1

(3)

Preface

Writing my final essay was like an academic dream come true. For the first time, I had the complete liberty to research and analyze a topic of my own choosing. Before, essays and assignments were limited to either the course or the instructors wishes. Now, I have looked into a subject that has fascinated me for years and have led me to read many interesting accounts of experiences, academic theories of leadership and decision-making, and much more. The process of the final essay is a sensation to me and I was thrilled to research, discover, and analyze the deeper leadership aspects of the American presidency. It has also been difficult, since discipline has long been a challenge to me.

I believe students, young adults go through a series of indispensable developments. First, there is the academic or professional

development. This means that individuals learn (academic) skills, thinking on a certain level, and being able to conduct professional business. Second, there is the organizational or

governmental development. This means that an individual learns how to take responsibility, speak in public, meet professionally, etcetera. Third, there is the socio-emotional development. This means that one learns his or her insecurities, to make friends, and further develop as a

(5)

I have had the pleasure to go through all of the four developments. I have served in –among other things– the University Council, have made lots of valuable friendships, have had great

relationships, done three incredibly interesting internships, and have developed skills that hopefully make me a good public speaker, American political analyst, teacher, and perhaps someday a

politician.

(6)

Introduction

There is perhaps just one job, or institution, in the world that encompasses both high visibility and loneliness: the presidency of the United States. Its forty-three occupants, so far only men, have had to deal with the enormous responsibility of leading a powerful and ever evolving country which began as a freed colony and became a power in waiting, a leader of the free world during the Cold War decades, and is today the both powerful and controversial leader of the world. Its powers, responsibilities, opportunities, and ambitions have grown ever since its foundation and made the United States the most powerful political, military, economic, and cultural force in the world. Besides the relatively free reign of business and cultural entities, the American power is led by the three branches of government. Of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches only the latter has a sole occupant. Supported though by a large administration, departments and agencies, the

president commands the executive. The country’s only nationally elected official who is provided with a powerful and personal mandate, the president wields his power over a dynamic political process.

In this final thesis, I will examine what kind of leadership styles four American presidents have used, how they can be compared and how they fit within a framework (based on the

experiences of two Presidents) of overall American presidential leadership and decision-making. For this purpose, I have chosen two Presidents to be subjected to analyses of leadership and decision-making: President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and President George Walker Bush. Both Presidents are distinguished men who served their country to the best of their abilities. There is no intend from my part to question their loyalty to the best interests and the security of the United States.

For the purpose of setting limits to what should be discussed and analyzed in this final thesis, I have selected two presidents. My first selection was to choose presidents from the time of the “active presidency”, which roughly began with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal.2 My second selection was the decision to choose a Democrat and a Republican. The third selection was based on the individual presidencies and the way in which they can be compared and analyzed in the best possible way. President Kennedy and President Bush were the country’s chief executive during unprecedented times of dangers and crises. The unfortunate assassination of President Kennedy prevented him from serving out his first term and the possibility of getting re-elected. A final evaluation of President Bush’s complete tenure has not yet been made. Both Bush and Kennedy faced great threats to the national security of the United States.

2

(7)

(8)

Theory

“(…) White House decision-making is not a science but an art. It requires, not calculation, but judgment.”3

- Former Special Counsel Theodore C. Sorenson “(…) wise decisions can only be

made by those whose wisdom is constantly challenged.”4

- Former Special Counsel Theodore C. Sorenson “If you have integrity, nothing else

matters. If you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.”5

- Former Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wy) “Leadership is the deliberate attempt to

structure political situations so that

opponents will either submit or be trapped.”6 - William Riker

“Governments are what politicians make them. … Government is not a body of blind forces [but] a body of men … not a machine but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton.”7

- Former President Woodrow Wilson

The art of leadership is a very broad field of expertise. Its many forms include military leadership, business leadership, political leadership, and many more. To distinguish themselves, the many fields differentiate on the content of leadership as well as the performance of leadership. To this thesis the most relevant form of leadership is political leadership. However, even that field is too broad a definition. Therefore, the term presidential leadership might apply better. It involves the art of leadership and the leadership style of a President, a country’s chief executive. Presidential leadership is more narrow than political leadership, which might involve legislative leadership or local public leadership. The dealings of presidential leadership applies to the acts of a President. To theorize presidential leadership, I will study presidential power, decision-making, White House organization, and different leadership styles. Presidential power, in its many forms, is instrumental

3

Theodore C. Sorenson, Decision-making in the White House: The Olive Branch or the Arrows (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 10.

4

Sorenson, xxiv.

5

David Gergen, Eyewitness To Power: The Essence of Leadership: Nixon To Clinton (New York: Touchstone, 2000), 346.

6

Erwin C. Hargrove, The President as Leader: Appealing To the Better Angels of Our Nature (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1998), 32.

7

(9)

to presidential leadership, because it is both the legitimation of the exercise of presidential

leadership as well as its founding. Decision-making is a direct result of leadership and the role that decision-making plays on the process of leadership is instrumental to making grounded arguments. White House organization is very important, because it must provide the conditions in which a President can exercise his leadership, on whose support and advice he can base his decisions, and through which these decisions are executed. In the following paragraphs, I will analyze many concepts of leadership, both theoretical and practical, in order to be able to establish a new framework of presidential leadership.

One of the foremost leading authorities on presidential power is Richard Neustadt, who has written Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan. He sees the power to persuade and bargain as the core of presidential power and believes in strategies in which presidents can help themselves.8 They can do that by the exercise of personal politics. Neustadt therefore focuses on people’s relationships rather than institutional relationships.9 His power approach has been rather top down, but looking at the way Presidents exercise power over actors inside and outside of government and regarding the human relations has inspired many scholars.10 Neustadt defines power as “personal influence of an effective sort on governmental action.”11 This definition also sets the tone for the approach of the exercise of power by Presidents. Neustadt wishes to focus on presidential power by looking at its weakness and by describing the gap between expectations and capacity. A President himself, John F. Kennedy concurs: “Every President must endure a gap between what he would like and what is possible.”12 Perhaps Kennedy’s consent is not surprising, since Neustadt used to serve as a special outside advisor to him.

According to academic Fred I. Greenstein, Neustadt defines three means to advance the President’s purpose (in which the President can help himself): bargaining the resources of formal and informal powers with other political actors, showing the will and skill to get his way to other members of the political community, and demonstrating a high level of public support to his fellow policy makers.13 Indeed, these means all focus on the power relationships between different

political actors. According to presidential scholar George C. Edwards III, Neustadt argues that the “President is operating in a pluralistic environment:” there are numerous actors with independent

8

George C. Edwards III, “Neustadt’s Power Approach to the Presidency”, in: Robert Y. Shapiro, Martha Joynt Kumar, Lawrence R. Jacobs, eds., Presidential Power: Forging the Presidency for the Twenty-first Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 9.

9 Ibid, 9-10. 10 Ibid, 9-11. 11 Neustadt, ix. 12 Sorenson, xxx. 13

Fred I. Greenstein, “Plumbing the Presidential Psyche: Building on Neustadt and Barber”, in: Larry Berman, ed., The

(10)

power bases and different perspectives.14 As Neustadt states himself: “to share is to limit.” These limitations are imposed by Congress, the courts, states, the press, private interests, and foreign governments.15 Neustadt has approached presidential power in a breakthrough way by looking at it from a political power approach on a strategic level and focusing on the relationships between people.16 Therefore, Neustadt argues, “a President who seeks to guard his prospects for

effectiveness should think about his power stakes in every act of choice.”17 Thus, a President must maintain a strategic vision while engaging in tactical choices. Neustadt further defines certain basic qualifications for a President in order to be able to exercise the full bargaining power: being “well grounded in the ways of American politics”; having “a high level of sensitivity to power relations,” being “self-confident about his own suitability for the presidency,” and being “resolute in his desire to place his stamp on political outcomes.”18 The overarching theme of the character attributes mentioned above is the ability to work with the gap between expectations and capacity. In other words, working with what a President can do and what he wants to do.

Neustadt’s theory and political power approach is widely seen as important and

instrumental. Greenstein has used the political power approach for his framework on analyzing the presidential psyche by looking at: public communication, organizational capacity, political skill, policy vision, cognitive style, and emotional intelligence.19 However, over the years critics have sought to amend his work. Peter W. Sperlich has criticized Neustadt’s overemphasis on the importance of bargaining. He adds that shared ideology, a personal commitment to the President, and the role of presidential aides must be taken into account.20 It must be said, however, that Neustadt’s landmark work Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents was first published in 1960 and that in those days the West Wing support of a President was considerably less ominous than it is today. Some other critics have argued that the political power approach is too top-down and too Machiavellian.21 This is a continuation of the critique on the importance of bargaining.

Perhaps America’s best known and most respected scholar on leadership is James

MacGregor Burns, who’s books include Leadership and Running Alone. Presidential Leadership JFK to Bush II. Burns holds complementary views on power and he argues that it contains two essential and interrelated elements: motive and resource.22 His ideas on motive and resource are similar to the theory of Neustadt and the experience of President Kennedy about (the gap between)

14

Edwards, in Shapiro, 9.

15

Neustadt, Presidential Power, x.

16

Edwards, in Shapiro, 10.

17

Neustadt, Presidential Power, xiv.

18 Greenstein, in Berman, 19. 19 Ibid, 22. 20 Ibid, 19. 21

Hargrove, The President as Leader, 9-13.

22

(11)

expectations and capacity. All together, this means that there is a want, a desire from the President to act in a certain way or to accomplish something and the sheer possibility of acting that way or accomplishing something.23 It is thus inevitable that a President must balance between what he wants and what is possible. Only a clear understanding of that balance will resort in the effective exercise of (available) power. Burns continues to describe and define power. He describes the process of power as “in which power holders (P), possessing certain motives and goals, have the capacity to secure changes in the behavior of a respondent (R), human or animal, and in the environment, by utilizing resources in their power base, including factors and skill, relative to the targets of their power-wielding and necessary to secure such changes.”24 Wielding power is when people “draw from their power bases resources relevant to their own motives and the motives and resources of others upon whom they exercise power.”25 Burns views power as a human relationship. Even though the power relationships can exist on different levels, such as love and sexuality, it is the behavioral aspect that is the quintessence of the exercise of power. More specifically, Burns defines presidential power as “a function of the leader’s will to arouse and tap the needs and wants of followers and his capacity to mobilize resources to meet those needs and wants, thereby

contriving to retain followers’ support and to continue in power.”26 Again, there is the use of resources, as a way to meet the wants of a leader.

Burns is critical of Neustadt’s power theory. He focuses too much “not on formal, institutional powers, but on informal, personal powers to master power within the executive

branch.”27 Burns describes a personal leadership style in which a President influences subordinates, because it is in their interest to do so.28 The most apparent differences are notable during the Bay of Pigs events and the Cuban Missile Crisis, which I will both discuss in more detail later. Burns describes a “Neustadtian style of leadership” during the decision-making on the Bay of Pigs invasion in which the president is cut off from dissent and alternatives. The decision-making

process was centered squarely on the president. Burns favors less competition between advisors and a more inclusive style in which the president consults a wide range of people. This kind of style seems to have evolved in the Kennedy White House, so when the Cuban Missile Crisis took place, the process of decision-making was fundamentally different.29

Political science professor, Richard E. Neustadt Award winner, and the author of The President as Leader: Appealing To the Better Angels of Our Nature, Erwin C. Hargrove, comments 23 Ibid, 12-13 24 Ibid, 13. 25 Ibid, 17. 26 Ibid, 12-17. 27

Burns, Running Alone, 45.

28

Ibid, 46.

29

(12)

on Neustadt by stating that there are other actors in the system. He believes the most effective exercise of power is the appeal to interests rather than shared beliefs. That works both ways. To appeal to common interests is to find power in a mutual benefit from a certain success.30

As Neustadt asserts that “to share is to limit” and mentioned earlier, a President must share his powers with Congress, courts, states, press, private interests, and foreign governments.31 Those other actors are involved in what a President can do and how far he might go. This is a direct influence of the decision-making process, which might very well be guided by the real or imagined possible steps a President can take. Neustadt discerns three vital elements for the exercise of power: power itself, reputation, and prestige. The power itself is based upon the official authority of the office, subjective views of others, and actual power in the form of personal effectiveness.32

According to Neustadt, the President enjoys a unique combination of constituencies. He is the only federally elected official which provides him with a nationwide mandate. He must thus master the public and his support among the voters often proves to be essential in exercising power over actors inside and outside of government.33

In many circumstances, managers, or other power holders, increase their power and control over time. In case of the U.S. presidency, there is a power reversal: presidential power erodes after time. The President’s most powerful and effective time is right after his election to office.34 His power quickly diminishes due to upcoming midterm elections and, two years later, a re-election campaign. In those times, not only the President needs the support and approval of the public, most members of Congress do too. That means that every Congressman or –woman, and many Senators have to weigh their support of a President during times in which their position is up for re-election. When from the same party, a president and members of Congress might either stick together to show successes or they might distance themselves from one another for reasons of, for example, scandals or low approval ratings. When a President gets re-elected he enjoys a short power increase, only to lose most of that regained power as soon as new midterm elections approach. After that, the President often becomes a ‘lame duck.’ Due to term limits the President will leave office in two years and the public’s attention is directed at his successor. In this power model, most Presidents start their presidency with a firm domestic program. In the beginning, there is politically more possible on the domestic policy side, while later, when powers start to erode, Presidents often turn to foreign policy, because they regard that terrain as the sole prerogative of the President. This movement can also be attributed to the fact that some recent Presidents have had little to few foreign policy expertise prior to becoming President, so when they took office, they stayed on their

30

Hargrove, The President as Leader, 29.

31 Neustadt, x. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34

(13)

trusted side of domestic policy. In these terms, Clinton is a good example. Moving from the Governors mansion in Little Rock, Arkansas, he went to the White House with huge domestic policy ambitions, including overhauling the nations healthcare system. In the last two years of his presidency, plagued by the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment trial, President Clinton dealt more with foreign policy issues. Over the years he had gained more experience there and these were fields (Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Kosovo, Israel and Palestine) where he still had some

credibility and power left.

There are factors that might increase a President’s power among members of Congress. One might be that the President wins office with large coattails, meaning his election helped many others to get elected too. President Ronald Reagan won election to the presidency in 1980 and his party also won a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. In addition to that, Reagan won in higher percentages in many congressional districts than the Democrats that held those seats. This bought him enormous leverage among members of Congress and allowed him to implement large parts of his agenda.

It is very important for a President to see himself within the framework of the historic times. According to the father and son Schlesinger, both two famous historians, there are cycles of

political eras: “the prime mover in American political life [is] the alternation of periods of concern for the rights of the few and periods responsive to the rights of the many.” The older Schlesinger divided the eras in terms of liberal and conservative. The younger Schlesinger made a more narrow definition of eras in terms of democracy and capitalism. With democracy he meant the emphasis on democratic values, equality, freedom, general welfare, and the concern of the public good. With capitalism he meant the emphasis on the importance of private interests, and institutions that promote them (markets). The Schlesingers described it as a self-generating cycle: internally generated, but with acknowledgement of important external events. Hargrove supports the idea of cycles of political eras, but falls short of supporting the internal generation. Instead, he says, political eras are “triggered by historical events.”35

36

As shown left, the Schlesinger-Hargrove model discerns three major political eras. The era of preparation contains the conditions on which later achievement can be accomplished. Restoring the economy, introducing legislation, balancing the budget, and creating a budget surplus, for example. These conditions have to

35

Hargrove, 60-61.

36

(14)

be met in order to achieve either social progress or tax cuts, dependent of the visions of the White House occupant. The era of achievement is the era in which major plans are pushed through. Whether they are socially progressive, ideologically liberal, or based upon strong conservative ideals, they draw upon a period of preparation to achieve the maximum of a President’s agenda. The era of consolidation draws upon the successes of the era of achievement without adding anything or starting significant new initiatives. It is also a resting period for the nation after a couple of

intensive years in which major changes have been made. After the Reagan years, the public chose George H.W. Bush as their next President for rest and stability. Bush did not undertake major plans, but was meanwhile unable to stop the economic fallout of the Reagan legacy. Thus, the country chose a promising young Arkansas Governor to rebuild and repair the economic damage of the previous years. Clinton largely won because of the economy and has since lived up to his promises to increase the economic prosperity.

It is important for each President to acknowledge the era his presidency is in. When a President wants to come up with major legislative plans, while there has been no preparatory work, his ambitions might very well fail. For example, President Bill Clinton introduced major health care legislation without having the economy doing well. Instead, he should have focused on social security first and balancing the budget as he later did. President Clinton’s plans were too ambitious for a time in which first the ground work for achievements had to be made.

Leadership lessons

Currently serving as a Harvard University professor and CNN’s Senior Political Analyst, David Gergen used to serve four Presidents: Nixon, as Speechwriter; Ford, as Special Assistant; Reagan, as Communications Director; and Clinton, as Counselor. With the utmost respect for his former bosses, he has written a comprehensive book on leadership: Eyewitness to Power. The Essence of Leadership. Nixon to Clinton. Besides the compelling personal accounts on his work in the White House, Gergen sums up a series of leadership lessons. He has drawn upon his many years in public service to write down the essential elements of presidential leadership. Gergen thus offers a

framework in which a presidency might be analyzed.

(15)

leader is instrumental into shaping his political and moral radar. It is what Hargrove

describes as “appealing to the better angels of our nature,” the inner strength to search hope and optimism instead of reaching to the dark sides of our nature. Hargrove thus distances himself from Niccolo Machiavelli, who advocates manipulation in order to appeal to peoples selfishness, by pleading that manipulation is never stronger than appealing to the best in people.37 Gergen rightfully quotes Former Senator Alan Simpson when the latter introduced former president Gerald Ford at Harvard University in 1999: “If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.”38 These words might have been true to the character of Gerald Ford, who, according to Gergen, led the country with integrity and decency during one of the most painful times in its history, it also reflected on the ongoing scandal that nearly cost Bill Clinton his presidency.

2. A Central, Compelling Purpose. Hargrove also noted that it is essential “to combine purpose and politics.” When the main goal of political leadership is the practical and political

approach to public problems, politicians must balance the line between what one wishes for and what is politically possible.39 Hargrove advocates a pragmatic approach to use the strengths and limits of politics to accomplish as much of ones ambitions. Gergen adds to that by stating that any plan should be consistent with the country’s core values and that a strong ideology might serve a President as a frame of reference to guide him in decision-making.40

(16)

In the American political tradition there often is the use of prophetic rhetoric. In this tone, presidents have invoked narratives, national stories, national ideals, and crucial choices as part of their speeches.42 In subsequent chapters, I will discuss the various speeches in which Presidents have invoked the kind of rhetorical language mentioned above.

4. An Ability to Work within the System. Neustadt already defined other players in the political field with whom the President must share his powers. In addition, there are both external factors like the press and internal factors like the complete executive branch, consisting of numerous departments and agencies. A classical example of how mistrust can lead to a fall from power is the presidency of Richard Nixon. President Nixon, for long, mistrusted Washington and its insiders. He always felt an outsider while being in. His mistrust only fed his already increasing paranoia and led to the events of Watergate. On a more abstract level, James MacGregor Burns writes in his latest book, Running Alone, that since President Kennedy most presidents have largely operated outside the party system. Presidents have either organized their campaigns around or even against the established party structure or have had to deal with such difficult political circumstances, while being in office, that they were rather alone.43 To name a few examples: Kennedy build (financed by his father) a complete campaign structure outside the regular democratic organization; Reagan first ran against his party’s own president during the 1976 republican primaries; and Clinton

campaigned as an outsider to get the democratic nomination in 1992 and he had to deal with a largely hostile republican congressional majority two years after taking office. Gergen asserts that Roosevelt’s New Deal, Truman’s Marshall Plan, Johnson’s civil rights victories, and Reagan’s economic successes are school book examples of how Presidents can

effectively lead while others like Nixon, Carter, and Clinton have fought too many wars with Congress, the press, and Washington’s political elite.44

5. A Sure, Quick Start. Gergen, as well as Neustadt, emphasizes the importance of a good start of a new presidency, or even a new term.45 It begins with the presidential transition when government changes hands from one administration to another. Preparing the presidency of Ronald Reagan, Gergen was tasked with researching and analyzing the famous First

Hundred Days of five past Presidents who had been freshly elected.46 Burns quotes President Johnson as he instructed his legislative aides ten days after his inauguration in 1965: ““I want you to get all my legislative proposals during my session, now!” And he

42

Hargrove, 23, 51.

43

See: James MacGregor Burns, Running Alone: Presidential Leadership from JFK to Bush II: Why It Has Failed and

How We Can Fix It (Cambridge, MA: Basic Books, 2006).

(17)

meant now–in weeks. He warned them that every day he was in office, “I lose part of my power. Every day that I use that power, I have less power left…. I want you to get this legislation through now–while I still have that power.””47 Gergen thinks that a presidential campaign should be focused on governing, and preparations for the transformation should be made.48 Hargrove states that both Carter and Clinton arrived in Washington with a relatively inexperienced staff.49 Gergen supports that and goes further. In addition to not bringing more experience to his team, Clinton had no plan for the first couple of weeks in office, and was personally exhausted after the vigorous campaign. According to Gergen, these three elements prevented Clinton from having a well enough start.50

6. Strong, Prudent Advisors.51 As I mentioned above, President Clinton started his White House years with a relatively inexperienced staff. Only after matters went seriously wrong, he hired more experienced Washington insiders, like David Gergen, to help him. Most scholars seem to agree that the President needs a least one trustee to whom he can confide his private thoughts. Whether that be his spouse, brother, or Chief of Staff, the President needs a sparring partner to keep him from complete isolation. The presidency is often

referred to as the loneliest job and many Presidents are, at least by the outside world, seen as isolated. The complete and often unknown burdens of the office, the huge responsibilities, and the vigorous working ethic tend to have their impact on each White House occupant. It is thus very important that a President can rely on a series of loyal and

dedicated men and women on his staff to carry out his orders and decisions and to advise him.

7. Inspiring Others to Carry On the Mission. Gergen refers to political scientist Stephen Skowronek who has described a model of the way Presidents have created new politics. It means the replacement of an old orthodoxy by replacing it with a “new paradigm.” Terms like New Deal and Great Society still resonate today. They represent the plans and

ambitions of previous presidents who have cast their shadow over successive politics and its leaders.52

47

Burns, Running Alone, 82-83.

(18)

Not mentioned in his summary of valuable leadership lessons, Gergen refers to the use and

knowledge of history as a vital part of strong leadership. Realizing that if you have no knowledge of the past, you have no map for the future, both Nixon and Kennedy were students of history and, according to Gergen, many great leaders have been away from power for a while, studied (history), and returned to power stronger than ever before. He mentions De Gaulle, Churchill, and Nixon.53 But Kennedy might also apply, because of his many illnesses that have kept him home or in hospitals for many parts of his life. The occasions have given him the time to read and write. Churchill was besides a war time leader a Nobel Literature Prize laureate. After losing the

presidential election to Kennedy in 1960 and the subsequent gubernatorial race in California, Nixon went into private practice and study.54 When he saw his political moment arrive in 1968, he knew what to do and how to win.

The art of decision-making

A key part of leadership is the process of decision-making. Key elements of a leadership style have significant influences on the way decisions are being made and how the process around it evolves. Longtime Kennedy confidant Theodore C. Sorenson, who served as Special Counsel to the

President and as his Chief Speechwriter, wrote down the most important decision-making elements in his book Decision-making in the White House. The Olive Branch or the Arrows. One of the main arguments in his book is that a President needs to be fully and broadly informed, based on facts, by a wide array of advisors.55 This theme seems to concur with Burns, who also advocates an inclusive decision-making style.56 Sorenson continues with the argument that a president needs to keep his options open.57 His experiences are based upon many years in the White House during which several crises have taken place. Keeping your options open is a vital element for a President to be able to maneuver. It is the same conclusion Burns has drawn from the Kennedy leadership style as Kennedy moved away from the disastrous Bay of Pigs events into the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both Khrushchev and Kennedy needed room to maneuver and that was only possible when a decision-maker keeps his options open and realizes what he excludes or includes with every new step. Based on past experiences and a wide array of principles (to be discussed in the next chapter) Kennedy has developed a leadership style that served him well during extraordinary times of decision-making.

Issues to be brought to the president often involve conflict, because it is “the one quality which characterizes most issues likely to be brought to the President.”58 It can be conflict between 53 Gergen, 41-46. 54 Gergen, 41-46. 55 Sorenson, xxiii-xxvii. 56

Burns, Running Alone, 48-51.

57

Sorenson, xxi.

58

(19)

various people or institutions. President Eisenhower told his successor: “There are no easy matters that will come to you as President. If they are easy, they will be settled at a lower level.”59 President George W. Bush likes to call himself “the decider”, which is, in fact, an excellent title for a

President. The most important decisions are being made by the president and the handling of smaller decisions is done at his discretion and with his best political interests in mind. So, when does the President have to make a decision? Sorenson argues that a presidential decision is essential, when: the prestige of a President is at stake or when it is instrumental that the president handles that kind of situation.60 These kind of situations often involve conflict between the various actors in the (international and domestic) political environment.61 Truman and Kennedy have also realized that being “the decider” actually makes the presidency the loneliest job in the world, because on his shoulders rests the enormous burden of decisions taken or to be taken.

Theodore Sorenson has used his experiences and knowledge to comprise eight component steps in White House decision-making:

1st “agreement on the facts;

2nd agreement on the overall policy objective; 3rd a precise definition of the problem;

4th a canvassing of all possible solutions, with all their shades and variations; 5th a list of all the possible consequences that would flow from each solution; 6th a recommendation and final choice of one alternative;

7th the communication of that selection; and 8th provision for its execution.”62

White House organization: the West Wing staff

As already mentioned above, it is very important for a President to receive good counsel. In order to be advised, supported, and have his actions implemented and executed, the President needs an experienced and loyal staff. The President’s staff and its support reside in the West Wing of the White House, the Old Executive Office Building, and the New Executive Office Building. Over the past decades the number of White House staffers has increased. Over time the presidency itself developed into the foremost political force in Washington. With 24-hours news coverage, nuclear armed adversaries, a leading cultural, economic, and military position in the world, and with a national mandate from the American public, the President needs an continually growing team to

(20)

face the modern challenges. The expansion of the Executive Office has led to a centralization of policy control.63

Kennedy was the first President to hold live news conferences and addresses to the nation. Now, through high speed internet, every move in the White House is closely and directly followed by millions, if not billions, of households all over the world.

On top of the organization stands the Chief of Staff with, possibly one or two deputies. Most often, other senior staff members include the Press Secretary, the Counselor, the Counsel (legal advise), the Communications Director, the Chief Speechwriter, the Political Director, the Chief Economic Advisor, the Legislative Liaison, the Senior Advisor, and the National Security Advisor (who also presides over the National Security Council in the absence of the President). They are all Assistants to the President, assigned to specific tasks and directed to oversee White House

departments.

The Chief of Staff is the “number-one duty officer” in the West Wing and has “evolved into a power center with more clout than that of all but the most powerful Cabinet Secretaries and Members of Congress.”64 Often referred to as the Prime Minister or Assistant President, the Chief of Staff is the doorkeeper of the President. His, until now also only men, main responsibilities are controlling access to the President, serving as his main trustee in the West Wing (because there is also another main trustee elsewhere in the White House: the President’s spouse), and overseeing the senior staff. According to James W. Davis, the President needs a Chief of Staff, but one “who emphasizes management and process rather than policy advocacy.”65 When James Baker III prepared to become President Reagan’s Chief of Staff after Reagan was elected, he interviewed all his predecessors. One of them was former Ford Chief of Staff Dick Cheney who advised Baker “to be an honest broker” and to keep a low profile.66 Davis’s arguments that the Chief of Staff would rather serve the process than the policy was in accordance with the recommendations from Cheney: “don’t use the process to impose your policy views on pres.” he warned Baker.67 Not all presidents, subject in this thesis, have had a Chief of Staff. Kennedy used to work without one and rather served as his own Chief of Staff. As principal confidant he had his brother Robert F. Kennedy as the Attorney General. President Reagan appointed the confidant of Vice-president Bush and

Washington insider, James Baker III, as his Chief of Staff, but also chose is two most intimate California aides, Michael Deaver and Edwin Meese to serve as, respectively, Deputy Chief of Staff and White House Counsel. The three men worked closely and successfully together and became

63

Patterson, The White House Staff, 421.

64

James W. Davis, The American Presidency 2nd ed. (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1995), 174.

65

Davis, 176.

66

“The James A. Baker III Papers, Seeley G. Mudd Library, Princeton University”, The Washington Post, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/sidebars/cheneys_advice_to_baker/.

67

(21)

known as the “trojka.” Clinton had four Chiefs of Staff. Beginning with his boyhood friend Mack McLarty, Clinton failed to appoint a Washington insider. It is an example of how a confidante may not always be the right choice. In those respects, George W. Bush was able to pick a former trustee of his father and a Washington insider as his first Chief of Staff: Andrew H. Card, Jr. John Barnes advices to find your own “Bobby,” referring to Robert Kennedy, serving as loyal advisor to John Kennedy.68 Burns goes further and asserts that Robert Kennedy served, in fact, as his brother’s Chief of Staff.69

President Bush especially favors loyalty in his staff. They get his loyalty and support in return. There used to be an old saying in the Bush family when the older Bush was President: “If a grenade is rolling by the Man, you dive on it first.”70

A new framework

To put all the theories and experiences mentioned earlier in some sort of new framework or model is both challenging and difficult. It is, however, necessary to combine the different experiences and perspectives to get a comprehensive view on presidential leadership. The definitions, organization, and approaches to the subject, differ widely from each scholar. Therefore, I will come up with a new model that will include the best of all theories. In the following chapters I will analyze in what way a President may contribute to the model or might fall short of certain leadership qualities.

The model is double layered. The first layer is the abstract level of presidential leadership and consists of: presidential power, personal requirements, the art of decision-making, and White House organization. These are vital components of presidential leadership and determined how leadership is exercised and perceived. Each position is subdivided into different aspects and the

68

John A. Barnes, John F. Kennedy on Leadership: The Lessons and Legacy of A President (New York: Amacom, 2005), 115.

69

Ibid.

70

(22)

whole serves as a funnel. Certain decisions or actions can be funneled through the different aspects of the model in order to estimate, measure, or evaluate the level of good leadership. The second layer requirements are based upon the theories and experiences of the people mentioned and described in the paragraphs above. Each item is a condition for presidential leadership. In the following chapters, I will analyze the presidential leadership of Kennedy and Bush according to the model above. They will either contribute valuable lessons or items or they will fail to fit within my leadership model. Of course, there are different levels as to how a President fits within the model and one might be in line within one component and have a different approach when it comes to those items.

Presidential Power. This component is important because it is essential to the exercise of leadership. Without power, there is no use of having or exercising leadership. In turn, leadership must be based on the different aspects of power in order to be effective. These items contain the balancing acts between purpose and politics, the line between idealism and realism. The question what you do it for and how you can get it done. It is a delicate line, which needs to be precariously handled. This theme comes within inches of the line between expectations and capacity. Again, it deals with what you want, or what you must, and with what you can do. In addition, power is not only that what others attribute to a person or an institution, but derives also from formal authority. In addition to the institutional powers, or lawful powers, there can be personal powers to the extent of personal effectiveness. If a President is a clever power broker, that might only increase his political power or, for example, his legislative effectiveness. Some factors might contribute to the power increase, like being (re-)elected with a landslide or enjoying large approval ratings. The latter guarantees the president media attention and support from Members of Congress for his plans. Another matter is the President’s ability to recognize the political era his presidency is in. Knowing the political time and adapting to the possibilities and challenges to that time is, again, working on the balance of what he wants and what he can.

Personal Requirements. This component is essential to the successful execution of all the other components. If a president does not have the right characteristics or lacks the skills to exercise presidential power, the latter becomes unimportant. It also means that a president must be in

balance with himself, meaning discipline, good faith, and a moral compass. These elements are the character elements which, over time, have proven to be invaluable (e.g. Nixon and Clinton). There are also elements of communication, like the gift of speech and charisma. Personal development in the areas of history and political judgment are important as well.

(23)

process in which these and other decisions are made is important to the overall leadership qualities for these decisions and the way there are made are important to the elements of power and success. In addition, decision-making during times of crisis is very important and will play a large role in the analysis of leadership and will be further discussed in the following chapters.

White House Organization. To manage the executive branch, the President needs able and trusted aides. At the top of this chain, the West Wing staff consists of the most important Advisors and Assistants to the President. This inner circle is responsible for providing the President with the tools and resources to exercise his leadership. They are responsible for the way the President can make his decisions and to execute the decisions he has made.

(24)

President John F. Kennedy

“Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.”71

- President John F. Kennedy

Campaigning for President, John F. Kennedy laid out his plans for a presidency in which “a Chief Executive (…) is the vital center of action in our whole scheme of government.”72 “For only the President represents the national interest. And upon him alone converge all the needs and aspirations of all parts of the country, all departments of the Government, all nations of the world.”73 “Only the president, could provide the leadership–political, legislative, moral–to “summon his national constituency to its finest hour.””74 Kennedy went on to win the general election and became the United States’ 35th President in January 1961. He is best known for his great rhetorical skills and his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the following paragraphs, I will look at how he –as he initially envisioned– finally “summoned his national constituency to its finest hour.”

The path to power

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was born the second son in a political immigrant family in Boston, Massachusetts. His father, Joseph Kennedy was the son of… and his mother, , the daughter of . As a businessman, Joe Kennedy made a lot of many. Because of some dubious affairs concerning his business dealings, Joe Kennedy knew he could never make it far in politics himself. Therefore, he had set out a path for his family to become America’s foremost family. Originally, Joe Kennedy had laid plans out for his eldest son, Joe Jr., but he died during World War II, as a pilot. Joe Sr. subsequently set his eyes on his second oldest son, John. After an upbringing in Boston, John

71

John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address (January 20, 1961).

72

73

Kennedy, The Presidency in 1960 (January 14, 1960 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.).

74

(25)

discovered much more of the world. His father served as the first-ever chairman of the Security and Exchange Commission and later as U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom (1938-1940). Thus the young Kennedy not only grew up in the wealth of the Kennedy family, but was also early exposed to government responsibilities. When his father was ambassador to the UK, he was often chided for his anti-Semitic comments and his support of the appeasement policies of Neville Chamberlain. The young Kennedy however, became a huge supporter of Winston Churchill, who warned against renewed German aggression. On the eve of World War II, John Kennedy made a trip through Europe with a friend. During that trip they had an awful accident after which Kennedy started to suffer from heavy back pains. After the preparatory Choate boarding school, Kennedy went to Harvard University to study government. It was there, where he further developed his opposition to appeasement. His bachelor thesis was named Why England Slept and was published as a book. In the book, Kennedy takes aim at the British position regarding Nazi Germany and their failure to contain the German threat. At the Conference of Munich in 1938, Germany was granted rights to capture parts of Czechoslovakia. Kennedy saw these concessions as a fatal mistake of giving in to the demands of an insatiable dictator.

Kennedy went on to study history at Stanford University and wanted to become a journalist. In that profession, he reported on the founding of the United Nation in San Francisco in 1945.

John F. Kennedy made his entrance in politics in 1946 by running for the Massachusetts 11th Congressional District seat. With the extensive help of his family, Kennedy won the election. He got reelected until he defeated Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (who later would become Vice-president Nixon’s running mate and U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam in the Kennedy Administration) in 1952. Six years later, Kennedy got reelected. By the time he ran for President, Kennedy had served fourteen years in Congress, eight of which he spent in the Senate.

In 1956, Adlai Stevenson wanted to run against Dwight Eisenhower for a second time. He did not choose his running mate by himself. Instead, he asked the Democratic National Convention to appoint the number two to the ticket. Against the advice from his father, Kennedy decided to put his name forward. During the convention, he ran a campaign to become Stevenson’s running mate. Eventually, Kennedy came up short and the Democrats chose Senator Estes Kefauver as their Vice-presidential candidate. Kennedy accepted this loss realizing that his profile was raised. Four years later, he would not vie for the number two slot, he went for number one.

Cold War

Though historians may disagree on its exact start of the Cold War, but it was surely in full swing during the Kennedy Administration. After 1917, the rise of communism started in what then

(26)

Soviet sphere of influence meant not only a military presence of Soviet troops and missiles, but also communist political leadership. This development alarmed many Western European countries and the U.S. They reaffirmed democratic, capitalist societies after World War II and the U.S. actively advocated decolonization and the opening of new markets. Thus two major power blocks rose opposite one another and became each other’s nemesis for decades to come. Few moments during the Cold War brought the world on the brink of the so called Mutually Assured Destruction, lesser tensions meant heightened security alerts and at various peripheral places the Cold War actually erupted into hot action in such places as Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Prior to Kennedy’s presidency, the world had seen some formidable confrontations between the East and the West. The Berlin Blockade (June 24, 1948 – May 11, 1949) and the subsequent Berlin Air Lift indicated that the frictions between the two superpowers would be visible at such confrontational places as Berlin, a city divided by the Allied forces after World War II. Soviet and American resolve during the blockade of Berlin showed that both superpowers were willing to confront each other. When the Soviets developed nuclear weapons, these confrontations could easily spiral into a nuclear war and total destruction. After the blockade, Berlin remained a source of clashes between East and West. During the Kennedy presidency, in 1961, the East-Germans began to seal-off East-Berlin from West-Berlin. Soon, these fences were replaced by a wall, that would forever illustrate the iron curtain between East and West. The balance between war and peace, between deterrence and destruction was a very delicate one. It often rested on the shoulders of the two leaders of the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Their actions, (mis)perceptions, and powers could lead to nuclear war and mutually assured destruction. Despite the high level of mistrust between the two superpowers, there existed some sort of understanding between the two leaders. Their responsibilities were largely the same and they sometimes felt equal pressures for action. This level of understanding may have led to some sort of trust, as President Kennedy clearly illustrated when he shouted “he can’t do that to me!” when he found out about Khrushchev’s missiles in Cuba.75

The individual events of the Cold War, whether for the purpose of studying presidential leadership and decision-making or for a different purpose, should be studied within the larger context of the Cold War. For instance, there were events that led to the Cuban Missile crisis (the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit in Vienna, etc.) and results of the handling of the Cuban Missile crisis (the installation of the hot-line, etc.) that are equally important as the events themselves. Moreover, the context provides a much clearer understanding of the events themselves and the study of presidential leadership. The historical events are significant for their instructiveness in analyzing the different styles of presidential leadership.

75

(27)

Bay of Pigs

During the Cold Was tensions between the West and East we often high. One major point of argument and frustration was the island of Cuba, just south of Florida. Having overthrown the U.S. backed government of President Batiste, Fidel Castro and his aides turned Cuba into a communist stronghold. This became a major thorn in the eye of the U.S. Not only did the significant Cuban exile community in Florida and some major companies demand firm action against the loss of their interests in Cuba, the island also posed a strategic risk as a base for America’s adversary at the time, the Soviet Union.

During the Eisenhower Administration, the CIA developed a plan that would call for an invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles. They would form a bridgehead on the island, proclaim the independent government of Cuba and immediately request the assistance of American forces. Upon assuming office, President Kennedy insisted that no U.S. forces could be used. Despite a huge interest in and knowledge of foreign affairs, newly inaugurated President Kennedy was unprepared for the charm offensive of the CIA. Their selling of the invasion of Cuba was full of promises, but without the military’s planning back-up.76 As the invasion led to the slaughter and capture of many of the U.S.-trained Cuban exiles, it became painfully clear that President Kennedy had been isolated from much needed different opinions. “Having depended on the national security apparatus alone in making the fateful choice about the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy insisted thereafter that no major national security decision be made without including RFK and Sorenson in the process.”77 Moreover, “it had taught him, he said, the immense importance of being able to evaluate properly the

recommendations of others. For example, he said, he always knew what weight he could give to report by brother Bob; but, at the time he was forced to make a decision on the Cuban expedition, he could not give proper appraisal to reports from people whose capabilities, reliability, and powers of observation and judgment were not well known to him.”78

The whole operation turned into a nightmare for the Americans. Castro’s army squashed the invasion and numerous exiles were killed or captured. Kennedy’s refusal to send U.S. forces in support, led to the further failure of the operation. The U.S. were internationally embarrassed, as it was clear to the rest of the world that the U.S. has had its hand in the entire operation, and President Kennedy took much of the blame. The media depicted him as a faulted leader, but Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara came to his defense.

“The next day, I went to the Oval Office and said, “Mr. President, I know where I was when you made

76

Freedman, 129-132.

77

Neustadt, Allison, Afterword in Thirteen Days by Robert F. Kennedy, 114.

78

(28)

the decision to launch the invasion. I was in a room where, with one exception, all of your advisors –including me– recommended you proceed. I am fully prepared to go on TV and say so.” Kennedy heard me out. “Bob,” he said, “I’m grateful to you for your willingness to assume part of the responsibility. But I am the president. I did not have to do what all of you recommended. I did it. I am responsible, and I will not try to put part of the blame on you, or Eisenhower, or anyone else.”79

There was another, prior, incident that involved Secretary McNamara and where President Kennedy forgave a mistake he had made. It was due to the strategic overview with which the President commanded his Cabinet and with which he oversaw the political (power) process that the President was at ease with mistakes from subordinates and flares of media outbursts.80

To Burns, the Bay of Pigs fiasco “would expose weaknesses of his Neustadtian style of leadership.”81 Neustadt’s theories on presidential power put the presidency at the center of the Executive Branch. Moreover, it personalized the way in which a President exercises presidential power. In the case of the Bay of Pigs, this led to Kennedy’s narrowing of the decision-making process, having it centered around himself alone. Without the input and balance from staff and dissenting opinions, he had, in the words of Arthur Schlesinger, “become a prisoner of events.”82 Neustadtian leadership suited Kennedy, because he was intensely capable of mastering people. As mentioned in this chapter’s introduction, Kennedy saw the presidency as the vital center of the “whole scheme of government.”83 Therefore, Neustadt’s highly personalized conception of presidential power and leadership seemed perfectly fit for President Kennedy. However, as he arrived in the White House, he was not yet at his height of mastering people and power within the Executive Branch. He made a wise decision to steadfastly include trusted people like his brother Robert and his Special Council Ted Sorenson in the decision-making process.

The Bay of Pigs events set in motion a series of related events and indicated the

Administration’s preoccupation with handling Cuba and its leader Fidel Castro. It created a level of

79 McNamara, In Retrospect, 26-27. 80 Ibid, 21. 81

82

Ibid, 46-50.

83

(29)

mistrust between the two superpowers and increased efforts of both Cuba and the Soviet Union to ensure the safety of the Communist island.84

Cuban Missile Crisis

Never before stood the world more on the brink of danger than during thirteen days in October 1962. On October 16, 1962 President John F. Kennedy was briefed on a new development in Cuba. He was shown aerial photographs, taken by a U2 spy plane, by his National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy. Bundy had gotten the photographs the previous night, but decided that Kennedy could use a good night’s sleep and showed the photos the next morning. These photos clearly confirmed the build-up of Soviet offensive missiles on Cuba. Within a small matter of time, these missile would become operational. This immanent danger became the birth of a crisis. Despite promises made by Soviet Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy and disturbing the delicate Cold War balance, the Soviet Union placed its missiles on Cuba. To the Americans, this security risk was unacceptable and a response was needed. Furthermore, the Soviet move was regarded a breach of trust between the two superpowers and a challenge to the United States’ resolve was born. Moments after learning the truth about Cuba, President Kennedy assembled a team of his most distinguished foreign policy and national security advisors. He chose a wide variety of experts which included former administration officials who were brought in. For example, Dean Acheson, who was Secretary of State under President Truman, was an expert on the Soviet Union and especially brought in for his experience and expertise. Kennedy’s Treasury Secretary, Douglas Dillon, was Undersecretary of State under President Eisenhower, thus providing Kennedy with a bipartisan cabinet.

The Executive Committee of the National Security Council was established by the National Security Action Memorandum 196. The National Security Council itself, established by the

National Security Council Act of 1947, was to large to be effective during the crisis and therefore it was decided upon to “establish, for the purpose of effective conduct of the operations of the

Executive Branch in the current crisis” the ECOMM.85 It was disbanded soon afterwards.86 The EXCOMM consisted of military and civilian advisors to the President, people representing institutional positions, the President’s men, and surrogates from private life.87 In his absence, the EXCOMM was chaired by his brother Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. Kennedy sometimes ordered the EXCOMM to come up with a solution or a consensus proposal and often left the group to have the members speak more freely.

84

Freedman, 123-169.

85

National Security Action Memorandum 196, October 22, 1962.

86

Neustadt, Allison, 130.

87

(30)

The EXCOMM was tasked with responding to perhaps the greatest challenge to mankind’s survival in history, since a nuclear war was a distinct possibility. The chain reaction leading from one decision could easily spark into a nuclear exchange which would results in millions of deaths all over the world. In order to prevent the last step, in which nuclear missiles would be launched, both Kennedy and Khrushchev needed to maneuver carefully without exactly knowing each others intentions and steps. Moreover, President Kennedy, in his unwavering goal of removing the missile from Cuba, had to find a way for Khrushchev to save face. Positioning oneself in the other’s

position and being emphatic to one’s adversaries needs and interests is vital in international politics. As the advisors exchanges ideas at the EXCOMM meetings, the President kept his regular public schedule to avoid public panic. Some of his advisors, most notably the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advocated air strikes, followed by an invasion of Cuba. It was unclear however, that the air strikes would wipe out all the missiles and the bombs would also probably hit the Soviet military who where helping in the build-up. One foreseeable response would be the Soviet retaliation against American missiles in Turkey or against West-Berlin. An attack against the missiles in Turkey would enact NATO’s response against one of its member states and force the alliance into a military response. Both Germany and Berlin being divided at the time, it was likely that the out numbered American forces in West-Berlin would be overrun by Soviet and East-Germany’s military as a response to the attack of Soviet ally Cuba. This, in turn, would trigger a response from the United States and its allies. According to Kennedy’s trustee, speechwriter, and Special Counsel Ted Sorenson, President Kennedy sought to be broadly informed, wanting to know all the options and their consequences. Sorenson also describes Kennedy’s insistence to keep his options open. In part based on the experiences of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Theodore Sorenson has comprised –the aforementioned– eight component steps in White House decision-making: “1st agreement on the facts; 2nd agreement on the overall policy objective; 3rd a precise definition of the problem; 4th a canvassing of all possible solutions, with all their shades and variations; 5th a list of all the possible consequences that would flow from each solution; 6th a recommendation and final choice of one alternative; 7th the communication of that selection; and 8th provision for its execution.” In a situation with the stakes this high, President Kennedy needed a decision-making framework. He wanted to have enough room to maneuver, to keep his options open, and to be able to include the necessary maneuver room for Chairman Khrushchev.

(31)

a surprise attack, it would confirm and fit within a leader of the free world position, and it avoided escalation.88 Above all, the blockade (or quarantine, in legal terms) would keep most of the options open to the President and would leave room to maneuver for both world leaders, but would not remove the existing missiles from Cuba. President Kennedy had chosen not to be present at every EXCOMM meeting. Sometimes he was a thorough inquisitor, but always did he seek to create an environment where everyone’s talents would be of good use, because, in his own words, “creative minds thrive best in an atmosphere in which they are privileged to participate in a free-and-easy interchange of words.”89

On October 22nd, 1962, President Kennedy issued the quarantine of Cuba which could prevent the shipment of addition missiles to Cuba, but would not remove the existing missiles from the island. In addition (and not necessarily in that order), UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson held a presentation to the UN Security Council and President Kennedy addressed the nation by television, in which he announced the quarantine of Cuba. Kennedy expected the Soviet response to his speech to include hastening the construction, an announcement of the protection of Cuba, and a move against Berlin.90 He dispatched Secretary of State Dean Rusk to the Organization of American States (OAS) to gather Latin American support for U.S. actions. President Kennedy thus sought a broad international alliance to legitimate his actions and to move with the backing of allies. He kept in mind how U.S. actions would appear to other countries if they were perceived as illegitimate or unjust. Hence the remark by Robert Kennedy on a notepad: “I now know how Tojo felt when he was planning Pearl Harbor.”91 Both Kennedy’s were weary of the international condemnation of a surprise attack on Cuba. Even though such a move might benefit the best –immediate– interests of the U.S., they felt it should not be the behavior of a world power.

With the Blockade of Cuba in place many tense hours passed as Soviet ships entered the quarantine line. Eventually, the ships returned. In the perception of Secretary Rusk this meant that: “we were eyeball to eyeball, and the other fellow blinked.”92 The blockade did not change anything about the missiles on Cuba becoming operational. This meant an increased pressure on President Kennedy to approve air strikes and to remove the missiles. In the meantime, backchannel

negotiations were opening up and correspondence between Kennedy and Khrushchev contained possible solutions.

International crises expert Jonathan M. Roberts classifies President Kennedy’s decision-making style as ‘the collegial model’: “a team working together on all aspects of a given problem so as to ‘incorporate and synthesise’ different points of view. Thus there is diversity and competition,

88

May, Zelikow, The Kennedy Tapes, 193-194.

89

Roberts, Decision-making During International Crises, 178.

90

May, Zelikow, 211.

91

Neustadt, Allison, 119.

92

(32)

but less parochialism.”93 Roberts praises the crisis management of President Kennedy. The latter’s analytical and cool mind, aided by a genuine knowledge of history and people, provided him with the necessary confidence and judgments to lead the nation through its darkest hours. Not

intimidated by authority or expertise around him, President Kennedy made good use of other’s advice, but was also capable of keeping the military at arm’s length if necessary.94 These characteristics and processes are often shared reviews of President Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis and his approach to many of his times’ challenges. During much of the Cuban Missile Crisis, he sought to show empathy and take every possible perspective under consideration. He had learned from the grave mistakes he and others had made during the Bay of Pigs invasion. An astute student of history, President Kennedy served as his own historian to assess past mistakes. This led to some basic rules by which he led his country through crises. “Kennedy had tried to establish rules that would prevent either nation from miscalculating the other’s vital interests and stumbling by misunderstanding into a confrontation from which neither could retreat.”95 He could only do this if he was prepared to put himself in his opponent’s shoes. “What Kennedy appears to have believed is that Khrushchev might be a ruler somewhat like himself, beset by uncertainties in seeking evidence and weighing it, likely to misjudge its meaning in another country’s context, susceptible to human imperfections of emotion and fatigue, plagued also by the bureaucratic imperfections of communication and control.”96

The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved with a the Soviet dismantlement of the missiles in Cuba and a secret deal between the American and Soviets that led to the removal of the Jupiter missiles from Turkey six months later. Backchannel negotiations, recognizing the position the Soviets where in (too), and carefully steering away from costly mistakes have led to the peaceful resolution of a potentially devastating nuclear confrontation.

& D.J. Brink Prof. dr. D.F.J. Bosscher S1279165 Supervisor Final thesis Version I American Studies Word count: Rijks

&

Contents

Preface

Introduction

Theory

President John F. Kennedy