I don’t think anyone said that. I believe that there are many similar qualities that are needed for both. And businessmen have experience working under physcal constraints. Career politicians too often just go to the money tree to pluck whatever they need.
Here are some of the qualities of a good businessman that apply:
Vison
Thinking Strategically (and not just tactically)
Leadership (being able to inspire people)
Discipline
Accountability
Integrity
Being able to pick people who are capable of getting the job done.
I could go on. And don’t throw up Lay as an example (Elucidator). His bankrupt company is proof that he was a BAD businessman, just as Nixon is an example of a failed politician. Let’s look at someone more like Welch of GE or Grove of Intel.
Now, please put some meat in your post and tell us the qualities of a GOOD businessman that aren’t applicable. So far all you’ve spouted is an opinion. Too many people on the left automatically assume that businessman = bad, and then go from there.
Businessmen are only concerned with advancing the interest of a soul less corporation. That’s the bottom line. If that means laying off 10,000 workers in order to raise the price of the companies stock, so be it. It’s just business.
Politicians, on the other hand, ought to be concerned with the general wellbeing of the citizens they serve.
A good businessman uses layoffs as a last resort. It can sometimes be a good short term tactic, but more often a poor long term one. Sometimes, however, it is necessary. A good businessman knows when it’s necessary for survival vs just good for the next quarter. And when times are tough, a good businessman knows you cut back expenses. Very few politicians seem to be able to do that. When was the last time the Federal Budget ever had a year over year decline? When was the last time the economy had a year over year decline?
Don’t confuse businessmen who rise and fall in a few years. Sure, there are the slashers out there, but those guys are rarely, if ever, the ones you see on Fortune’s most admired list. You should no more judge all businessmen by what Lay did than to judge all pols by what Nixon did.
I’m certainly not saying that every businessman, or even every good businessman, would make a good politician. But you seem to be saying that none would be good in politics. Is that true?
A good politician needs to have more skills than a good businessman, because business isn’t a democracy. The CEO has much more freedom to implement his ideas. A politician does have to be able to get people to work with him even if they don’t work for him. So, I’d say the qualities of a good biz guy is a subset of those needed by good pol, especially a good president. But it’s a damn good subset.
What are the qualities that you want in a politician? And, BTW, a coporation is no more soulless than the people who make up that corporation. One could just as easily speak of the “soulless” governemnt.
As someone said earlier, a good academician doesn’t necessarily need to have many skills that make a good, and effective politician. I don’t see much overlap there.
Saying that Shrub was a good business man is like saying that Milli vannili were brilliant singers.
He majorly f***ed up his first oil business venture and was well on his way to bankruptcy until he went crying to Daddy, and Daddy had his rich oil friends bail Shrub out.
And I won’t go into the illegaities in terms of stocks that Shrub was a direct participant in.
Does the tax payer foot these kinds of bills? Or do the funds come from campaign contributions?
The state troopers called to ask for donations again today. At least I haven’t heard form the city police or the county fire/rescue service for a couple of weeks.
IMHO opinion, PR driven politicians—whether they be businessmen, lawyers or Hollywood actors—are one of America’s biggest liabilities. Not only is looking good given too much attention by those who should be running a country, too much money is being spent on it as well.
To judge from the article, much or most of it is coming out of a general WH operational budget. While it’s true that they would have to spend the money on some form of press-office activity, I think it’s indisputable that all Americans are paying more than they would absent the ex television producers on the WH staff.
Incumbency has its advantages, and campaigning on the public dime has always been one of them. In the past, though, that’s taken more the penny ante form of abusing congressional franking to send out thinly-veiled campaign pitches. Bush (really, his advisors) seems to have taken it to a higher (lower?) level of PR “professionalism.”
I don’t think anyone would praise PR driven politicians. And I certainly agree with you on the abuse of tax payer money, although with a standing pres, it’s often hard to seperate legitimate expenses for travel, security, etc from simple grandstanding. But like I said, above, I tend to ignore the PR stuff and focus on what their positions on the issues are.
Suppose there are two candidates. One you agree with on about 80% of the issues, but he’s kind of a publicity hound. Likes to have his picture taken kissing babies and all that. The other candidate you agree with on about 30% of the issues, but she shies away from any hints of PR stuff. Who do you vote for?
A bit of a contrived scenario, I’ll admit, but are there any nationally recognized pols that you think handle the PR angle appropriately? Maybe I’ve just got cynical and no longer expect to see any pols acting in a truly dignified manner.
I commend your principles in focusing on the positions and issues of the politicians without regard for the politicians’ PR stunts. It would seem the best way to approach a choice of candidate given that you still have faith in the democratic process.
The fatal flaw I see in that, however, is that the amount of genuine enunciation of positions and issues is woefully lacking. All I ever hear from any politician when a difficult question is asked is hedging and question avoidance. Politicians specialize in verbal window dressing. Nothing of any substance is ever addressed. Its seems to be a guiding principle in politics to reveal as little as possible about your position—any position—in case something you say proves to be wrong in the future. Anything that conceivably could be used as ammo by the opposition to make one look bad is avoided at all costs. Politicians that give detailed explanations and real, honest opinions are about as common as hopping cattle.
Which comes back to my primary gripe with this: PR monkeys running nations is folly, pure folly. I sometimes watch politicians give speeches and feel like a passenger on an airliner that has a circus clown in the captain’s seat—airhead attention whores who don’t even understand the concept of integrity and seem to barely recognize that human lives depend on them.
On your two candidates scenario, my answer is that I would vote for neither. In my book, the political system is a write off. It would be a waste of time to stand in line at the polls. I will spend the time instead working on building a better lot for me and my family despite the monkeys running the greater show.
“It would be a waste of time to stand in line at the polls. I will spend the time instead working on building a better lot for me and my family despite the monkeys running the greater show.”
Agree 100%, or perhaps 95%. Which is why I always vote absentee (no waiting in lines) and have strived to structure my financial situation and other aspects of my life so as to make the gov’t as irrelevent as possible. Having political views outside the mainstream means rarely seeing those views put into practice. I do, however, still value the fact that this country is free enough that is possible to dismiss a good part of what our gov’t does and still get on with ones life for the most part.
It is often difficult, and somtimes impossible to understand where a politician stands on a particular issue by listenning to him or her speak. But any pol with a voting record cannot lie to anyone who does a little digging. Deeds, not words.
Somehow I expect the comment about wasting the postage. It’s unfortunate that you feel so frustated that even the simple task of voting seems not worth it. Have you considered write-ins or 3rd party voting?
Surely there must be someone out there you can muster the effort to vote for, even if it is just yourself.
Anyway, in CA there are so many ballot initatives that even if I’m not thrilled about the candidates, I still see the need to vote. And many of the initiatives are at the local level, where your indivitdual vote counts more. If you opt out of the national election voting, you often opt out of voting all the way down to the county and town level.
John Mace:
I completely respect your stance on voting. It just isn’t mine. I’ve made my opinion on the shortcomings of the American political system clear in various threads.
The time it takes to make voting worthwhile is more than just filling out a ballot. As you have mentioned there is the research and consideration of the candidates positions, which in itself would be a somewhat of a time-consuming task considering the research it would require just to honestly understand what a candidate stood for.
But I would see even the simplest and efficient voting methods to be a waste of time in light of the futility I see in casting a vote.
If people take a rational ignorance approach, it’s still unclear whether this leads to more or less pandering (you could argue that in the limit, pandering would be irrelevant if the electorate tuned out altogether). Probably more, though.
