# Do we need a businessman in the White House? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 23, 2012, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045 "2012-06-23T07:02:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/1 "2012-06-23T07:02:16Z")
Definitely not. As [Michael Lind writes in Salon:](http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/do_we_need_a_businessman_in_the_white_house/singleton/) > [@](#): > > Making a fortune running a widget company does not make you an expert on quantitative easing, or nontariff barriers used by Asian mercantilist countries, or the impact of productivity growth and population estimates on the future of Social Security. Unless you have been spending your nights and weekends studying these arcane subjects while selling widgets by day, your opinion on these subjects is of no more value than that of any random bystander in the street. > > \ > > Running an economy that is good for business is radically different from running a business, in a number of ways. To begin with, most businesses focus on providing one or a few goods or services. But modern governments are responsible for everything from protecting citizens from foreign enemies and domestic criminals to countering recessions and depressions and educating the next generation. The simplest government is far more complex than the most complicated private firm. > > Just as it has fewer tasks, business has fewer constituencies than government. Nowadays most American businesses are guided by the philosophy of “shareholder capitalism,” which holds that the purpose of a company is to maximize the short-term profits of its shareholders. The interests of workers, the community and the nation are somebody else’s problem. That somebody else is the government, which must look after all of the interests that are ignored by the typical business in its single-minded pursuit of profit for its owners. > > \ > > Finally, business executives may be blinkered by narrow perspectives that are actually harmful to the system in which they flourish. That is because what benefits each particular business in the short run may be bad for the capitalist economy as a whole in the long run. Many business executives would prefer to pay less in wages and taxes. But if every business pays as little to its workers as possible, consumer demand in the economy as a whole may collapse, bringing down businesses which require mass markets with it. And without adequate taxes crime, corruption and poor infrastructure will impose rising costs on the private sector. > > If businessmen made good presidents, then why have there been so few? The vast majority of American presidents have been career politicians, who moved up in state politics before aspiring to a national stage. And most presidents who worked in the private as well as the public sector were lawyers, not corporate managers or investors. The only individual who went from being a private sector tycoon to the Oval Office was Herbert Hoover — and he became president only after serving as Commerce Secretary under presidents Harding and Coolidge. Herbert Hoover is probably not a precedent that the Romney campaign would like to point to. Now, can we **please** hear no more bullshit about Romney’s (rather shameful) private-sector business-management experiences as if it were a selling point?! And no more suggestions, please, that “Obama has never held a real job.” :rolleyes: Community organizer and law professor **are** real jobs, and much more relevant preparation for the president’s job than anything Romney has ever done, except serve as governor of Massachusetts – and he doesn’t even seem to want to talk about that. > [@](#): > > The fact that Mitt Romney was a Republican governor of Massachusetts, a generally liberal Democratic state, would have worked in his favor, in any other time. But the capture of the Republican party base by Tea Party conservatives forces Romney to downplay his accomplishments as a governor — including Romneycare, the state health care planned that served as one of the models for Obamacare. And so Romney has emphasized his private sector past, which, whatever you think about Bain Capital in particular or private equity in general, is much less relevant to the challenges he would face as president than his public career as a governor. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/2 "2012-06-23T07:10:18Z")
That’s right. Obama is the fucking Messiah and all who oppose Him are evil. Second verse, same as the first. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/3 "2012-06-23T10:30:44Z")
I can’t think of any time I’ve heard a more blandly obvious bit of political punditry than this. Duh. What could be more obvious than the fact that business success doesn’t have much impact on success as president. (Of course, for the GOP, we should also emphasize that being a failure as a businessman – like Herman Cain or GWB – is also not a qualifier.) > [@Oakminster](#): > > That’s right. Obama is the fucking Messiah and all who oppose Him are evil. Second verse, same as the first. > > :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: I see the twelve-year-olds are out on summer break. Next time at least try to address the blandly obvious point, since your failure to do so leads to the conclusion that you couldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/4 "2012-06-23T10:56:19Z")
No more than we need another lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/5 "2012-06-23T10:57:31Z")
I have never particularly bought into the ‘The President is a CEO’ line of reasoning. I understand how it can be seductive though. I don’t believe it’s good prep for the job because of this fact: 1. The job of a businessman is to maximize profits. 2. The job of government is to do those tasks that cannot be run at a profit. In short, if it can be done profitably it’s possible that it should be done so. But many tasks are societal goods that don’t lend themselves to being profit-driven without compromises that society won’t stand. Examples: 1. Public schools, with the mandate of educating all students (no cherry picking), can’t be run profitably. 2. Roads can’t be run at a profit. While toll roads exist if all roads were to be such cost of transport would skyrocket and voters would rebel. 3. Armed forces can’t be run at a profit lest they spend their downtime looking for things to do. You get the idea. The tasks behind running a business (making money) and being in government (providing specific services) are so fundamentally different as to make the argument that one needs the other specious. That’s not to say that such experience can’t be helpful. But it’s not an overriding qualifier. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/6 "2012-06-23T16:15:51Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > 1. Armed forces can’t be run at a profit lest they spend their downtime looking for things to do. Do you remember when the Iraq war was going to pay for itself? That worked out well. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/7 "2012-06-23T16:19:43Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > That’s right. Obama is the fucking Messiah and all who oppose Him are evil. Second verse, same as the first. > > :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Erudite and insightful in its brevity. > [@fumster](#): > > Do you remember when the Iraq war was going to pay for itself? That worked out well. We were going to make it up in VOLUME! Thanks a lot Obama! ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/8 "2012-06-23T16:57:02Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > That’s right. Obama is the fucking Messiah and all who oppose Him are evil. Second verse, same as the first. > > :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Nice, concise and accurate summing up of the OP. No, wait, it was the other thing: complete and utter content-free bullcrap. I gotcher :rolleyes: _squared_, right here. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/9 "2012-06-23T17:01:58Z")
Y’know, they may be onto something with this _run the country like a business_ business, though. If people are ineffective as citizens, in terms of staying employed and being net contributors to the economy, FIRE THEM! I understand Mitt _LIKES_ firing people. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/10 "2012-06-23T17:02:16Z")
The reasoning in the article is questionable at best. Your average non businessman politician is probably just as ignorant in those academic economic topics. Truth be told, a lot of businessmen are morons. Romneys experience at Bain probably provides him more insight into global economic issues than, say…mark zuckerburgs experience running facebook or donald trumps experience as a glorified real estate salesman and promotor. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/11 "2012-06-23T17:37:15Z")
Eh. Romney is every bit as qualified, if not more so, than Obama was when he ran for president. His private sector experience is a selling point, especially since it is combined withe public sector experience as the governor of a state. How about we not hear any more bullshit from Michael Lind? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/12 "2012-06-23T17:52:11Z")
Well, when Obama ran for president, he had a career as a professor and a legislator. His Senate stint was pretty short, but he was so QUALIFIED because of his IDEAS. The hopey changey thing is working out decent enough for a politician, I suppose, so I really don’t think I’m going to give Romney crap for being a businessman. I already know his politics aren’t my politics. For the Republican party, a businessman running for president _is_ a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/13 "2012-06-23T18:08:08Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > The reasoning in the article is questionable at best. The article doesn’t say it’s a _bad_ idea to elect a businessman. It says it’s not a factor _in Romney’s favor_ - an argument made by many on the right. “He can save the economy because he knows business!”, etc. That said, it’s worth noting that our last three non-lawyer POTUSes were the Bushes and Reagan. Of the three, which one had the least business experience? Which had the best economic record? Hint: they’re the same person. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/14 "2012-06-23T18:58:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Eh. Romney is every bit as qualified, if not more so, than Obama was when he ran for president. His private sector experience is a selling point, especially since it is combined withe public sector experience as the governor of a state. > > How about we not hear any more bullshit from Michael Lind? I never hear Romney talk about his time as governor. I have no problem with people questioning him on a subject that he, himself, is choosing to emphasize. ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/15 "2012-06-23T19:14:15Z")
Having not read the article by Lind, only the pieces quoted here - I think Lind misses a crucial point that makes successful business people attractive to voters: that they have been successful leaders. The have proven the ability to “get things done”, to marshal people to accomplish goals, etc. Now, on that point - it was noted that one of the reasons Obama won over Hillary in the primaries was his effective ground organization. You may say that he did not necessarily personally build and organize this team and run it’s efforts day-to-day, but he was essentially in charge. So, by that measurement, he has proven experience in leading prior to being elected. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/16 "2012-06-23T19:32:29Z")
The mayor of Lakewood Ohio (a Cleveland suburb) is a former businessman and recently posted a good blog about the differences between government and business, [here.](http://lakewoodmayor.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-doent-government-behanve-more-like.html) ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/17 "2012-06-23T20:05:43Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > That’s right. Obama is the fucking Messiah and all who oppose Him are evil. Second verse, same as the first. > > :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: At what point did the OP, quoted article, or anyone on this thread (or even on this board) assert that Obama is a “Messiah”? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/18 "2012-06-23T20:07:02Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > Having not read the article by Lind, only the pieces quoted here - I think Lind misses a crucial point that makes successful business people attractive to voters: that they have been successful leaders. The have proven the ability to “get things done”, to marshal people to accomplish goals, etc. > > Now, on that point - it was noted that one of the reasons Obama won over Hillary in the primaries was his effective ground organization. You may say that he did not necessarily personally build and organize this team and run it’s efforts day-to-day, but he was essentially in charge. So, by that measurement, he has proven experience in leading prior to being elected. Well, yeah, but a case could be made that the sheer enthusiasm generated by Obama’s nomination was the essential factor in that “ground game”. An enthusiasm reflected in the number and amount of smaller donations for his campaign. As far as business experience being essential to government, that is a central theme of the Republican myth, that successful business persons have a proven ability which is directly applicable to government. Its a leap of faith, you believe it, or you don’t, and I don’t. We tend to think that “smart” is a broad-spectrum characteristic, if you are smart at business, you would be smart at government. But we don’t think that if you are an excellent engineer, you would make a very good doctor. I don’t know if Romney is smart or not. Offers some very stupid ideas, so either he is stupid or he thinks we are, or both. Mostly what I see is the Candidate, sculpted out of frozen mayonnaise, carved to fit a niche. I don’t have any real idea what he thinks, or even if he does. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/19 "2012-06-23T22:37:55Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > We were going to make it up in VOLUME! Thanks a lot Obama! For getting us **out** if Iraq? Yes indeed, thanks a lot, Obama! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/20 "2012-06-23T22:42:13Z")
> [@Icarus](#): > > Having not read the article by Lind, only the pieces quoted here - I think Lind misses a crucial point that makes successful business people attractive to voters: that they have been successful leaders. The have proven the ability to “get things done”, to marshal people to accomplish goals, etc. You can read [the whole thing](http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/do_we_need_a_businessman_in_the_white_house/singleton/) – it’s linked, and addresses what you are saying. I just didn’t want to C&P any more than I did, for fear of the Mods. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045.md?page=2)