A telling insight into Kerry’s decisional style has been provided by his former political director Chris Gregory, who told Chicago Tribune reporter Jill Zuckman that Kerry’s proclivity to keep questioning and debating with others and within himself comes out most markedly when he is anxious: “If he’s anxious about something, he’ll ask and ask and ask and ask.” As is indicated by the consensus of his political associates, Kerry is frequently anxious.

Kerry’s decisional style has not been tested in an executive capacity, but it is possible to project how it would be likely to affect his geostrategic decisions if he assumed the presidency. Confronted with repairing the damage done by Operation Iraqi Freedom to American power, Kerry would be faced with making critical and complex decisions that would tax his limited ability to remain calm and confident. He would be prey to resorting to his defense mechanism of hesitation and might be unable in some cases to make a clear choice, not because he was ill-informed, but because the complexity would be too great and the stakes too high for him to be able to achieve closure. The result would be exactly the same as it is for Bush’s contrasting decisional style — stop-gap and ad hoc measures, normally spelling retreat and sometimes lashing back.

Conclusion

If anxiety is at the root of Kerry’s incomplete decisional style, it is the same for Bush. One way of coping with lack of trust in one’s own judgment is to immerse oneself in details in a fruitless attempt to anticipate all contingencies, and another is to ignore the contingencies altogether and dwell within the big picture that one has constructed within one’s imagination. In both cases, the decisions that must be taken under the pressure of events will lack clarity of purpose and strength of resolve — they will be reactive rather than proactive. In Bush’s case, reactivity is the result of the failure of visionary proactivity and the absence of any strategic replacement for it. In Kerry’s case, reactivity is his habitual mode of adaptation to stress, which would be unlikely to change if he became president.

Neither Bush’s nor Kerry’s decisional style is optimal for meeting the challenges to American interests that are growing in the world. Regional and world powers with interests that conflict with the United States will sense the drift in American geostrategy and will seek to exploit American vulnerability. After the presidential elections, a period is likely to open in which competing powers will test American resolve. In pursuing their interests, their challenge will be to push against the United States, but not so intensely that they provoke a spasmodic backlash.

Report Drafted By:

Dr. Michael A. Weinstein

Dr. Michael A. Weinstein is a professor of political science at Purdue University and an analyst with the Power and Interest News Report