I watch the soap opera in Washington with great amazement and a bit of anxiety. Our leaders appear to be taking the country down a road filled with minefields. They speak with distain about Wall Street bankers who were about to drive the country off the cliff, yet fail to see that’s exactly where they could be heading – by creating waves of excessive spending, trillions in new debt, and political maneuvers designed to hide the truth from American citizens, voters, taxpayers.

Although candidate Obama argued for a bipartisan culture, his leadership has created something very different. In the past few weeks, the administration has heightened its attacks against its enemies: the insurance companies, anyone who issues “fishy” emails intended to derail health care reform, and the Wall Street firms supported by TARP. On October 18, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel accused Fox News of pushing a particular point of view and not being a real news network. The administration urged other networks not to pay attention to Fox.

Just as the voices from the opposition grow louder, the President and his team move deftly to transform the country, regardless of the economic or political fallout. Their formula for change is straightforward: give the medicine in big doses, but do it quickly before the president loses his luster.

However, the Obama message is meeting strong resistance. In increasing numbers, people say, “This is not the change we wanted.”  The magnitude of spending is hard to comprehend, and progress is not tangible enough to be believable. Early reports on the number of jobs saved and created have been fraught with errors.

According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, 10/29/09, “Even in its limited review, the AP found job counts that were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of paid positions; jobs credited to the stimulus program that were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs that were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.”

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs believes that an error of 4,000, or 5,000 out of 30,000 saved or created jobs is not significant. His dismissive response is a symptom of a problem. Government officials need to be more accountable for what they say and do. Perhaps they can learn from the rules of business: bad numbers in any form cast doubt on the veracity of the data and the competency of those bearing what should be the truth.

In the latest Rasmussen polls, 52% disapprove of the President’s performance and 39% strongly disapprove. Sixty-two per cent continue to believe the country is heading down the wrong track. A majority, 54% refuse to accept the argument that the economy will implode without the Obama health care reform. Apparently we like our current insurance and doctors far more than we trust the government.

The American public is formulating a strong point of view and seems to show little tolerance for the bully-like statements from the White House. Barack Obama jokingly said that he is mopping up his predecessor’s mess, and everyone is criticizing him about how he’s holding the mop.

Although you don’t agree, Mr. President, there are other solutions to health care, stimulating the economy, and becoming energy independent that could get us to a better place. The tenacity with which you hold onto your mop is part of the problem.

Have we sufficiently answered questions like these:

Is any solution actually better than no solution? Does the proposal championed by the administration support the stated (and perhaps changing) objectives of the reform, i.e., better quality and lower costs for health care? Is the remedy worse than the disease? Will we be privy to information, instead of spin and promises, to make us feel comfortable before any new program is enacted into law.

There’s a better way to lead, without enemies… and with transparency. While the President continues to fight his wars of words and actions, successful leaders outside of government include both friends and foes in an effort to reach good solutions. Some business leaders are actually transforming their companies by empowering a diversity of talents to make a bigger impact on consumers and society. Respectfully, they encourage people to argue for what they believe in, because constructive criticism produces superior outcomes.

These inclusive leaders learn what to do from everyone involved. For example, Irene Rosenfeld, CEO of Kraft Foods, respects and solicits everyone’s ideas. Rosenfeld is transforming Kraft to make it open, innovative, and quick to take action. For Katie Hood, CEO of the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, involvement and inclusion shorten the process to get to better decisions.

We need to have confidence in our leaders and their ability to govern, but it’s only the leader who can set the tone and change course. Barack Obama could learn a lesson or two from some of the most effective CEOs in business today. The benefits of inclusion and engagement far outweigh the perceived rewards of fighting enemies to the bitter end.