Post-Cold War Leadership Reflection Post

US leadership in a post-Cold War world is infinitely more difficult. People are most easily orientated and mobilized when an in group and out group are clearly defined. During the Cold War, this dichotomy existed and the administration was able to create legislation that might not have been passed if not for fear of communism among US citizens. Further, without a foreign out group, in fighting is common and little is accomplished as a result. In the years following the Cold War and before 9/11, US leadership is not very memorable because there was no vision for the US. As we discussed in class, Bush Senior was criticized by Clinton for not having a slogan for his foreign policy even though when Clinton came into office he found it overly simplistic to surmise something as complicated as foreign policy into a “bumper sticker.”

Even though it may have been a crude practice, these “bumper sticker” policies are remembered and unify followers while providing a party line for senior administration members. Dissension amongst senior administration members was another topic discussed in class. Under Bush Junior, the inconstancies between Powell and Wolfowitz’s statements produced confusion amongst the people of the US. Once these inconstancies were dealt with and stable foreign policy was established, a clear out group, terrorists and those who harbor them, was formed which allowed the administration to pass legislation that has since been called into question such as the Patriot Act. Whether it is communists or terrorists, people want to know who the “bad guy” is. Once the bad guy is determined, the people look to the government to protect them and, to this end, are more willing to grant leaders more power than they normally possess.