The U.S. President: Leadership Styles in American Politics

The U.S. President: Leadership Styles in American Politics

By Haley Kleinman

I. INTRODUCTION The United States has rapidly developed since independence, adapting to changing conditions to protect its democracy. At the forefront of the efforts to strengthen the nation are the leaders that guide its people forward through time and conflict: the presidents. As America changes, presidents choose the most effective leadership style for their circumstances.

This paper will comparatively analyze the leadership of four of the most popular past US presidents, in order to determine their commonalities and differences in creating their notable leadership styles. These presidents are George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama. First, their styles will be assessed individually by considering their three most prevalent traits through the lenses of pragmatic and charismatic leadership. They will be evaluated by their choices and contributions in foreign policy, speeches, wartime direction, and public communications. Then each president’s term will be compared within each category of leaders, and finally, a conclusion will be drawn as to which style is most successful and how future political leaders can reflect on the terms of these past presidents to craft the most useful style for themselves.

Although there are four primary types of leadership—interpersonal, charismatic, deliberative, and creative—those styles overlap (Simonton 125-127). For example, creative and charismatic leadership score similarly in their lust for achievement and personalized goals (129). Additionally, deliberative and interpersonal styles are bound together by their objective of uniting a nation around a common goal (130). For the sake of simplicity, this paper will analyze two overarching styles: charismatic leadership and pragmatic leadership, which group the creative and charismatic styles under charismatic leadership and the interpersonal and deliberative styles under pragmatic leadership (130).

64

This deep dive into presidential leadership will cover the successes and failures of past terms by highlighting the efficacy of each style, personalized by the four presidents. Nations rely on their leaders to make the right choices for the sake of a better future and by understanding the most effective way to unite a group, a president can determine how to positively transform their country.

II.

PRAGMATIC LEADERSHIP

Pragmatic Leaders are set apart by their use of diplomatic communication. Their strengths specifically lie in the “knowledge of practical, day-to-day problems that people and organizations face and a focus on identifying cost-effective solutions that address functional needs” (Anderson and Sun 80). Additionally, “pragmatic leaders [a]re the most flexible and able to work with other leader types when it [comes] to problem solving” (80). Presidents with a pragmatic leadership style have a thorough understanding of the world around them and approach their circumstances with a level head, not impulsivity or rashness (80). In this section, the presidencies of two pragmatic leaders will be assessed: the presidencies of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

A. George Washington 1. Morality

While extensive education is a priority for most positions of power, Washington made up for his lack of traditional schooling with his morals and clarity of thought (Impact). He possessed an innate sense of direction, rooting his decisions in his “ambition, love of detail, patience, determination,” and responsibility (Stazesky). His leadership, founded in consideration and honesty, set him apart and helped convince the nation of his ability to lead it to independence.

65

He demonstrated civil leadership values as General of the Continental Army. Washington refused to take advantage of civilians, instructing his soldiers to prioritize the space and privacy of citizens when gathering resources even if it reduced the amount collected (Stazesky). Washington knew that by putting dignity above greed, he could establish mutual respect between the developing government and the American people. However, he was known to be determined, using the strategy of “guerrilla warfare, in which stealthy hit-and-run attacks foiled British armies used to close-formation battle-line warfare” (History). Washington understood when to push and when to hold back, maintaining his values while making brave choices in combat. Through this, he emphasized both reason and practicality in his leadership.

Washington also empowered the nation with his speeches. In the First State of the Union on January 8, 1790, he said that the government would contribute “by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority” (Hillsdale). He frequently referenced the Constitution and allowed the law to coincide with his own values, creating a presidency rooted in nationally agreed-upon morals, as well as some of his own.

However, Washington’s morality could sometimes hide the fact that, when it came to technicalities, he fell short. Although he was a passionate leader, his military choices were sometimes unnecessarily perilous, and when he led his troops to New York in 1776, he risked the lives of every soldier after defeat (Britannica). These moments contradicted his usual caution, and due to the harm to his troops, proved to be an inadequate military method. Despite his losses, Washington’s missteps did not taint his reputation largely because of his dedication to his soldiers.

66

2. Humility

Washington never desired awards for his actions or work, as his goals were not personal (Impact). In fact, “he had to be persuaded to accept the presidency. His goal was to achieve his vision for the good of everyone, even if no one ever recognized that he was the driving force behind the vision” (Impact). His lack of interest in power was what made Washington alluring to the public. Washington appeared selfless, making him the seemingly best candidate for president, simply because he did not crave power. After selecting him, the people trusted that he would not abuse it.

Humility caused Washington to reject the pull of greed. He “recognized the structural importance of leaving office willingly. He knew that Americans needed to learn how to elect, transition, and inaugurate a new president” (Chervinsky). When helping to establish the system of presidential office, he envisioned a nation where people had a say in their future. In his 1796 Farewell Address, Washington announced, “in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were affected” (Hillsdale). By not accepting credit for his accomplishments, Washington truly placed the power in the hands of the American people, convincing them of their potential while simultaneously building his reputation as a selfless leader—a Father of the nation.

3. Unity

A pragmatic leader is both unifying and visionary. A unifying leader is one that knows how to bring people together during turbulent times. A visionary leader is someone that “has clear goals and never wavers from those goals, even if they cannot be achieved in the short term and designs his organizational culture to realize his vision by making it a shared vision of all the

67

members of the organization” (Impact). Washington had one vision: to unite his country after winning the war against Britain.

Even as a young soldier, it was his extraordinary vision that earned his colleagues’ support. During war, when soldiers with short-term enlistments wanted to quit, Washington persuaded them to stay by convincing them of his vision and to believe in him (Impact). At the Battle of Monmouth, “American troops were in retreat until Washington took control and stopped the retreat, leading to the retreat of the British troops to New York. The entire group, again, followed his vision because they trusted him” (Impact). Not only did he possess respectable attributes, but he also set up a vision for the nation, one that inspired people to follow his lead. It was this quality that made him the necessary choice as first president and a highly admired leader.

To be a great politician, one must utilize various professional and public opinions. During the drafting of the Constitution, “Washington always looked to the ideas of others, empowering them to share and contribute, while never wavering from his vision” (Impact). Similarly to Kennedy and Lincoln, Washington took into account others’ thoughts and made a point of listening to them without ceding his initial goal. 37 Washington showed strategic compassion through his process as a pragmatic and visionary leader, as he knew just how to create an environment conducive to his vision (Stazesky). This allowed him to form a foundation people could rely on in times of crisis.

Washington’s ability to unite groups by utilizing practicality and dedication carried through to his presidency. During his Newburgh Address, he told the audience, “Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray, but almost blind, in the service of my country” (Hillsdale). Washington demonstrated how much he cared for the

37

See Section IV.A. for further discussion of Kennedy and Section II.B. for further discussion of Lincoln.

68

country, how much he had sacrificed in pursuit of democracy. Citizens and soldiers rally around leaders who sacrifice for them and dedicate themselves to the country, not just through words but through actions, as well.

B. Abraham Lincoln 1. Strategy

Lincoln had a rare sense of strategy and mental acuity (Forbes 55). As a wartime leader, the ability to pick up on even the most minor details was essential.

Lincoln accomplished his goals through non-violent persuasion. His objective was to push without harassing (Eder). An example of this is when he began the fight for the abolition of slavery. Lincoln tried to entice citizens to reject the Confederate stance by offering better access to education for their children (Eder). When that failed, Lincoln moved onto the next strategy: to show Union strength by continuing construction of the “people’s house,” the Capitol, while also increasing the strength of the Union Army (Eder). His use of peaceful tactics was a strategy to prevent aggressive rebellion, and one that made him memorable.

As a military leader, Lincoln demonstrated deliberation prior to the confrontation of others’ mistakes. He once said, “[a] drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall”, meaning that kindness is the key to success, and that criticism only pushes people away (Abraham). Lincoln ensured that his feedback was constructive, so that the listener felt motivated rather than defensive.

For example, during the Civil War, the Union army was defeated left and right, and Lincoln had to change the aggressive behavior of General Hooker. Lincoln could have yelled at him, or fired him, but instead, through a more diplomatic approach, offered an inspiring message, characterized by the personable communication represented in pragmatic leaders:

69

Lincoln wrote: “There are some things in regard to which I am not quite satisfied with you…. You are ambitious, which, within reasonable bounds, does good rather than harm. But I think that during General Burnside’s command of the army you have taken counsel of your ambition and thwarted him as much as you could, in which you did a great wrong to the country and to a most meritorious and honorable brother officer…. Beware of rashness, but with energy and sleepless vigilance go forward and give us victories….”

(Carnegie 219–220). Ending with a call to action gives the letter a sense of optimism, a solution,instead of any lingering anger surrounding the issue.

Lincoln employed a unique system for military guidance, as he chose generals with morepolitical experience than military, trusting them to use their knowledge of politics to makeeffective decisions (Edu). Despite the backlash he received for that decision, “the appointment ofpolitical generals with mediocre military records set a tone for the enhancement of the nationalstrategy with the help of mobilizing their electorate to support the efforts of the Union during theCivil War” (Edu). The visible achievements of Lincoln’s methods proved his work had meaningand could reach previously unattainable success.

Additionally, Lincoln implemented a workplace strategy that not many had the courage todo. While most political leaders at the time preferred their enemies to be far away, Lincoln kepthis rivals close. During the beginning of his term, “Lincoln brought Salmon Chase into hiscabinet…knowing full well that Chase craved the presidency with every fiber of his being andknowing that Chase was undermining him” (Coutu). By keeping his greatest rival close, Lincolncould not only learn from Chase, but could also combine his and Chase’s skills and strategies tolead even more effectively.

2. DecisivenessLincoln learned to be precise with his goals, which contributed to his skill as a wartime

president. As anti-slavery views increased, Lincoln made a change: “instead of pleasing the

70

Northern Democrats and the Border States…[he] issu[ed] the proclamation of freedom for slaves in rebellious states” (Edu). The strength of his decisions convinced the public of the legitimacy of his goals.

When giving a speech to the members of the cabinet, Lincoln talked about the necessity of acting deliberately, how “decisive and extreme measures must be adopted” (Edu). Furthermore, Lincoln saw the freedom of slaves as an essential step in saving the warring nation (Edu). He was willing to take risks if he knew it would bring him closer to his goals.

During his Civil War leadership, Lincoln utilized such strong direction that he even encountered claims of dictatorship (Owens 5). Even “defenders of Lincoln admit that he overstepped constitutional bounds by declaring martial laws, arbitrarily arresting civilians and trying them by military tribunal, and shutting down opposition newspapers. After the war, the Supreme Court criticized many of these measures in Ex parte Milligan” (18). However, Lincoln believed his extreme actions to be necessary for limiting the chaos of war. His steadfast sense of instinct contributed greatly to his success.

3. Relatability

Lincoln can further be characterized by his ability to relate to people with his humor, wit, and humble upbringing. In a sense, “Lincoln was the first true humorist to occupy the White House” (Sandburg 561). To execute his ambitious agenda, Lincoln had to form a connection with the public. His good nature drew doubtful people in and helped preserve his repute during the tribulations of war. Lincoln’s humor also contributed to his ability to be a motivational military leader despite his inexperience.

However, his eloquence could be used for more strategic purposes as well. Lincoln “used stories as a laugh cure for a drooping friend or for his own melancholy, yet also to clinch an

71

argument, to lay bare a fallacy, to disarm an antagonist, but most of the stories were ‘labor-saving contrivances’”, meant to achieve quick solutions to any dispute (Sandburg 562). Through his deliberative approach to communication, Lincoln was able to win over a crowd and exhibit masterful understanding of his audience.

His congeniality came in handy during military management, too. Lincoln has been painted as a soft-spoken man that used his words wisely and sparsely (Edu). However, sometimes, less is more, and Lincoln proved that few powerful words can be much more influential than many ineffectual ones. In fact, his reserve and consideration of every word improved his military reputation. He started off the Civil War with a lack of military experience but instead of fretting, mocked himself for it, showing maturity by joking, “[d]id you know I am a military hero? I fought, I bled, and came away after charges upon the wild onions and a good many bloody struggles with the Musquetoes” (Edu). Lincoln’s jest helped others see past his errors and initial ignorance by humanizing himself.

Lincoln “transformed the President's role as commander in chief and as chief executive into a powerful new position, making the President supreme over both Congress and the courts” (Burlingame). Had he not expressed an adept understanding of communications, this would not have become a reality. Lincoln’s celebrated voice and achievements in war were credited to his skill in uniting the most different of people by choosing patience rather than violence and seeking out each group’s true vision for the nation (Burlingame). He was so successful that scholars believed “[n]o President in American history ever faced a greater crisis and no President ever accomplished as much” (Burlingame). The resulting trust Lincoln built with America overpowered his shortcomings during his presidency.

72

III. PRAGMATIC LEADERSHIP COMPARISON

The most striking parallel between these two pragmatic leaders is their emphasis on diplomacy in military management. Washington clearly instructed his subordinates to act kindly toward the townspeople during war while Lincoln approached criticism with a restorative, and often very positive, light. In doing so, these leaders fostered a sense of dignity and encouraged their soldiers and generals to become better people. In turn, the militia gained respect for each president and strengthened their alliance. Additionally, these leaders knew when to listen and when to go with their gut, upholding firm morals for the benefit of the nation. Future leaders can reflect on these two successful tactics by implementing them into their own personalized leadership style in order to maintain strong relationships with the American people and to establish reliability.

IV.

CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP

A charismatic leader is recognized by “personal magnetism and visionary appeals [that] cause followers to identify personally with their leaders, and internalize their leaders’ goals, values and beliefs, resulting in followers desiring to emulate the[m]” (Anderson and Sun 77). The charismatic leader ‘‘conveys [a] clear-cut, highly visible personality,’’ is a ‘‘skilled and self-confident negotiator,’’ ‘‘uses rhetoric effectively,’’ and is a “dynamo of energy and determination” (Simonton 126). In this section, the presidencies of charismatic leaders John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama will be evaluated.

73

A. John F. Kennedy 1. Charm

Something that set Kennedy apart throughout campaigning was his youth, which he used to gain popularity with the people. Kennedy took advantage of the new media, "a strategy whereby a president promotes himself and his policies by appealing to the American public for support” (Altschuler 185). Kennedy’s use of media brought his campaign to life and allowed him to win the Wisconsin and West Virginia primaries by appealing to doubtful party leaders (185–186). He knew how to use the media to promote interest in himself to the public using a “mix of attractiveness, relevant message, and voter needs” (Soddu 1). Kennedy understood how to entrance the American people with his voice, using everything he could to draw them in.

In 1953, Kennedy was on the Edward R. Murrow Person in Person show, and “a ringing in the background distracted him. He looked over his shoulder, flashed an endearingly sheepish grin and said: ‘Perhaps somebody could answer my phone’” (3). The situation allowed for a moment of unexpected charisma, a moment that would make the country fall in love with the idea of Kennedy as President. The public found him so alluring that after delivering a speech nominating Stevenson, “Kennedy became the party’s attraction and ‘television viewers were favourably impressed with the slender and winsome senator from Massachusetts. He was very soon the most sought after speaker in the Democratic party’” (3). Kennedy made it his mission to win over the American people. His magnetic personality transformed him from merely a young Senator into an enigma and icon.

However, his remarkable charisma doubled as a disguise for his lack of experience. Near the end of the Cold War, “Kennedy gave the green light to an Eisenhower-initiated invasion of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba in 1961. Based on faulty intelligence, the military action, which was

74

carried out by Cuban exiles without crucial air support was a fiasco” (History). Kennedy was not as put together as he led others to believe. Though he knew how to attract a crowd and reinforce his ideas, Kennedy did not have experience in military direction. His charm was powerful, but it could not always redeem him.

2. Resolve Kennedy displayed resolve in his military decisions regarding the Cold War. For example, in 1962, Eisenhower assured Kennedy that the invasion would not result in physical war. However, Kennedy did not change his mind and carried through with a blockade (Miller). By using his own judgment, Kennedy demonstrated that he was not afraid to make choices lacking agreement if he thought it would create a long-term solution (Sherwin). A strong president goes with their gut and makes the decision that enforces diplomacy and peace. Kennedy did that, even though it required him to go against his advisors. This ambition and priority of personal goals is similar to the style of Obama, who went into his presidency with clear goals for Obamacare, advocating for them despite pushback. 38 Similarly, Kennedy was strong-willed and not prone to compromise.

Kennedy’s decisiveness fortified his speeches as well. In his 1960 Presidential Campaign Kickoff Dinner, he said, “I think we can win. I think we will win. I think the American people––after ‘eight gray years,’ to use FDR’s phrase––will know that, for their own future and their children’s future, we must win” (Library). Kennedy told the American people, with confidence, what it would take to succeed and how. He left no room for uncertainty in his speeches, leading listeners to trust his message.

38

See Section IV.B. for further discussion of Obama.

75

3. Logic

In approaching communication with colleagues, Kennedy was deliberate, particularlyduring his campaigning process. He “sought help from the science of opinion polling," withextensive surveys "commissioned at great expense to probe areas of weakness and strength, toevaluate opponents and issues, and to help decide on schedules and tactics" (Alschuler 2). At thesame time, Kennedy captured his audience emotionally, choosing words that he knew they wouldrespond the most to. Kennedy’s “overriding campaign theme in 1960 was the need to getAmerica moving again. After the seeming stillness of the Eisenhower years, the promise of asociety in motion, however vague, was exhilarating” (Soddu 2). Kennedy had foresight andgeared his campaign around an inspiring and progressive vision, one that opposed the staidnature of the previous presidency. In doing so, he showed the people what they wanted beforethey themselves knew.

Kennedy’s logic was even more apparent in the steady and pensive nature of hisspeeches. In a 1960 speech made to gain West Virginia’s support, Kennedy stated:

[S]ome clear, practical steps the national government should take to help you in your urgent, immediate difficulties: First, we should set national minimum standards for unemployment benefits, adequate to the economic catastrophe that long term job loss means to a man with a family. In West Virginia, I have heard of men trying to support eight children on $50 a month; unemployment benefits here are lower, compared to wages, than they were 20 years ago. There is only one practical way to [meet] this problem. I am sponsoring legislation right now, against Administration opposition, to set Federal Standards for unemployment benefits

(Library). Kennedy provided logical solutions rather than voicing hypotheticals. Heannounced an economic plan, clearly stating the next steps to amending job loss whileacknowledging current struggles. Kennedy understood that the best way to persuade thestate was to speak with reason rather than feeling.

76

B. Barack Obama1. Authenticity

During Obama’s presidency, he exhibited a key trait of charismatic leadership:authenticity. Authentic leadership stems from “the relationship between leaders and followers”(Campos). Authentic leaders bring forward their own ideology and master intrapersonal andinterpersonal relations (Campos). One way Obama established a connection with people was byaddressing the public. He “quoted previous US leaders,” which showed that he took the time tolearn from the past. It was his close observation of “their leadership approaches that made himoutstanding whenever he was to make a leadership decision” (Campos). Though Obama wascharismatic and presented personal stories to connect with the audience, he was deliberate. Heshowed insight, reflection, and honesty; all of which turned crowds in his favor.

Obama used direct and open communication in his National Address to America’sSchoolchildren (Wakefield High School, Arlington, Virginia) on September 8, 2009, admitting tothe children,

I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that make it hard to focus on your schoolwork. I get it. I know what it’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mom who had to work and who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us the things that other kids had

(Obama 78). By establishing a link to these children, they could see the president as someonehuman, with similar experiences to their own. Obama showed not only comfort addressing alarge and diverse group of people, but also vulnerability.

2. OptimismObama was open about the prejudice he faced due to his skin color. To combat that

judgment, he appealed to audiences with optimism through empathy and humor. This spirit

77

proved to be one of his defining qualities. For example, “in his tenure there was extensive debate on LGBT rights, he did not fear any controversy but stood for the rights of all Americans regardless of their sexuality” (Campos). Another issue he was persistent about was healthcare, and despite the brutal resistance he faced in creating Obamacare, he was prepared to fight for what he believed the people deserved (Campos). Healthcare was an issue Obama fought tirelessly for, and despite much opposition, he gained respect and admiration for pursuing a goal he hoped would benefit millions of people.

Obama had ambitious dreams of peace, especially in terms of foreign and domestic policy. In foreign policy, he wanted to steer away from “un-American” practices of torture (Unger 1). Obama’s voice was hopeful; he articulated his dreams of diplomacy to the people with fervor. In his domestic aspirations, Obama frequently emphasized the community’s involvement. In a 2007 announcement to form a Presidential Exploratory Committee, he said: “Years ago, as a community organizer in Chicago, I learned that meaningful change always begins at the grass roots, and that engaged citizens working together can accomplish extraordinary things” (Obama 22). He provided inspiring insight into his objectives through commenting on his dedication to the community. By showing the audience what he learned as well as the significance of his hard work, he broke down the wall between speaker and listener and appealed to them as a citizen. Obama crafted his messages around his own experiences, transforming his dream into the public’s as well.

3. Persuasion

Obama crushed his campaign competitors with his charisma and “although there was little difference between Clinton and Obama on the issues, Obama ran on a theme of change and Clinton on a theme of experience. In a year when the economy was steadily deteriorating, change

78

was the more appealing theme, especially among Democratic voters” (Nelson). With this, Obamacombined persuasion with optimism and authenticity, encouraging the American people. Obamaknew when he was promoting himself in his campaigns, he was not just promoting his goals butalso his personality and morals.

In presidential speeches, Obama spoke with passion. In his 2013 Statement on theAffordable Care Act and the Government Shutdown, he noted that “this shutdown is not aboutdeficits, it’s not about budgets. This shutdown is about rolling back our efforts to provide healthinsurance to folks who don’t have it.… This, more than anything else, seems to be what theRepublican Party stands for these days” (Obama 413). His jabs are presented in a way to attractthose questioning their stance toward Democratic ideals: through this speech they would see thatObama had their best interests at heart, and, by stopping the Act, one would be preventing othersfrom receiving help.In the same speech, Obama used emotional examples to enhance his argument. He said:

Trinace Edwards was laid off from her job a year ago today. Six months ago, she was diagnosed with a brain tumor. She couldn’t afford insurance on the individual market, so she hasn’t received treatment yet. Her daughter Lenace, a student at the University of Maryland, is considering dropping out of school to help pay her mom’s bills

(Obama 414). Obama used sympathy and logic to capture the audience after any doubts theopposing party created. By using the reality of someone’s life in his speeches, he touched thehearts of his listeners, persuading them with stunning truth.

V. CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP PERSUASIONSomething that made both Kennedy and Obama successful was their confidence. Both leadersutilized speech-making as a vessel for influence and persuasion. From the start of his campaign,

79

by taking advantage of the growing media, Kennedy’s charming reputation preceded himself. The public was aware of his passion right from the start, and allowed the vision of a young, inspired senator to convince them of Kennedy’s potential. During Obama’s term, he understood the power of a personal anecdote—a strategic bridge between speaker and listener. When Obama spoke about his childhood to young schoolchildren, or of his struggles in the twentieth century United States, he breached the mold of “president” and revealed himself as human, an individual that related to a vast majority of the American population. His authenticity accompanied with determination persuaded the public of his capabilities, the same way Kennedy’s magnetism did. In the future, political leaders can use this method of connection, presenting themselves with conviction and compassion to every audience in order to win their approval. In correctly employing the tool of public speaking, a charismatic leader can strengthen their leadership and use their sturdy sense of self to overshadow their areas of weakness.

VI.

CONCLUSION

Charismatic leaders achieve their goals through strategic interactions and are skillful communicators. Pragmatic leaders rely heavily on implementing a broader vision––a goal everyone can gather around. Though both styles are powerful and successful in inspiring hope, pragmatic leaders are the most essential when the country is in need of unity and a clear plan in the face of military conflict. Charismatic leaders are more effective when the country needs an advocate—someone to fight for their specific desires and motivate them through driven speeches.

The results of this study suggest that Lincoln has been the leader with the most effective approach, as he has successfully accomplished the most within his term. Many of Obama’s goals

80

were more personalized, making it difficult to gain immense national support. Lincoln was never aggressive in admonishing his opposition, but Obama did sometimes point fingers when Obamacare faced backlash. Lincoln’s strategy was centered around great consideration, being careful to not say anything that would be interpreted as rude, making him likable and a unifier. Washington was more cautious in his war efforts and promoting equality, trying to create a solid foundation for following leaders while Lincoln used that foundation to make large-scale social change in the nation. Because the government system was more established than Washington’s term, Lincoln was able to take more risks. Meanwhile, Kennedy’s goals for international peace and even domestic achievements were often overly ambitious. Despite the hope he symbolized, he made many military mistakes during the Cold War. Lincoln’s achievements and organization through pragmatic leadership can be seen as the most apparent in this research.

However, something all four of these leaders had in common was courage. They each held a unique and powerful vision for a future America, despite their different methods of achieving it. Each of them were willing to fight for the rights of Americans and put the people’s desires first. And finally, these presidents were willing to change, to adapt to the world’s desires by listening to those around them. But even as they did, they knew to follow their own instincts.

Through analyzing both leadership styles, one thing has become evident: presidents must balance passion and logic to reach their goals, relying equally on both traits to inform their choices and gain support. It is only by looking to the past and understanding the mistakes and successes of previous leaders that future presidents can make the greatest strides toward developing the most effective leadership styles for themselves and the country.