The health reform debate gives us an interesting Petri dish in which to observe leadership--or not.

Management of controversy always tests leaders. Leaders on the right are typically clearer and more aggressive in delivering their message (whether factual or deliberately untrue, as in the example below) than those on the left. This calm, measured interview with Kentucky Democrat Rep. John Yarmouth talking about what he anticipated discussing with his constituents during the August recess is a case in point on the left side of hte political dial:

In contrast, catch demonstrators on the right trying to shout down Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) at his Austin TX town hall in order to shut off any chance of Congress' reforming the health care system. They know their goal and they go for it:

Who do you suppose is leading this opposition effort and why are they shouting instead of discussing? is it perhaps that they don't have the facts on their side so they resort to pounding the table?

But it is possible to turn the controversy around to help make the case for health reform.

Doggett, who pointed the finger of blame for the raucous demonstration at Republicans and Libertarians wanting to make Obama's plan to fail simply because it's Obama's, did a good job of using the controversy as an opportunity to present his argument for the health plan legislation and to set the record straight on the outrageous allegations that the plan will pay for or encourage euthanasia.

President Obama is trying to mobilize, educate, and activate grassroots constituents during the Congressional break, but I think he'll have a hard time for three reasons reflecting common leadership mistakes.

First, he gave away control of the agenda by punting the development of health reform legislation to Congress. Obama saw how President Clinton was burned when he presented a full-blown plan to Congress so he not surprisingly  became twice careful. But that reticence to declare himself allowed the Democrats to splinter quickly and gave the Republicans a big opportunity to gin up numerous red herring objections. He who sets the agenda defines the terms of the debate--Obama gets low marks on this score.

Second, the vaunted Obama organization waited too long to start organizing its grassroots, whereas the Republicans have been laying their tracks for a long time.The Democrats are playing catch up, perhaps having placed too much faith in largely nonprofit advocacy groups to do the work. When you're up against Goliath-sized insurance, hospital, and pharmaceutical business interests, your slingshot had better have the best technology and your David will need considerable reinforcements in place for a long and nasty battle.

And third, Obama started from a compromised position. He and the progressive members of Congress have too few chips for negotiating for truly universal coverage. The public option as an option rather than the core of the plan probably doomed it from the beginning. A leader is willing in times of crisis--and just about everyone agrees our health care system is in crisis--to have the courage to put a stake in the ground and lead toward it rather assuming a reasonable consensus omelet will be made without breaking any political eggs.

Whatever the outcome of the health reform debate, it's a fascinating leadership study. Still, the fate of America's health care system is too important to our personal lives to be merely a laboratory experiment.