ISIS Is a Test of Leadership. Real Leadership.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


From Ron Fournier, writing about President Obama and the threat of ISIS:

A columnist should never admit uncertainty, but here’s mine: I’m not ready to side with the hawks or the doves.

It’s conventional wisdom that columnists should always be self-assured. But can someone explain why? I know that sounds naive, but seriously. Why? Why should opinion mongers be expected to have firm, considered, immediate views on every possible subject? I get that nobody wants to read someone who dithers about everything, but shouldn’t we be equally suspicious of those who somehow manage to cobble together unflinching insta-opinions about everything under the sun?

In any case, Fournier is making the—obvious?—point that there’s nothing wrong with Obama taking time to figure out what to do about ISIS. That’s doubly true since he’s working in the shadow of the lies and incompetence that brought us the Iraq war:

President Obama is a living reflection of this psychological context. Uncertain and contradictory, Obama is grasping for the right mix of hawk and dove to rally Americans, unite the world, and confront ISIS without locking the United States into another unholy mess.

God bless him. It’s a hellish task. Obama’s lack of clarity so far has drawn criticism from the across the political spectrum, including from me (here and here). Two loyal readers remind me by email, and for different reasons, that Obama needs time to get this right.

Yes indeed. Sometimes you have to make a fast decision, even if you have limited knowledge. That’s life. But other times you don’t, and you’d be foolish to lock yourself into a decision when you have time to collect more intelligence. This is the true lesson of leadership: Make decisions as fast as possible, but no faster. That’s what Obama is doing.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest