Do we need a businessman in the White House?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@msmith537

They even teach us in business school that running a business is different from being a politician.

The main difference, aside from scale, is that an economy is a closed system. That is to say, you are stuck with the popultion and resources you have. Unlike a business, you can’t just fire half the population if they fail to perform. You can’t acquire neighboring countries (not without going to war).

Don’t give Romney any ideas. I don’t want Canada.

@BrainGlutton

Put yet another way: Compare Democratic Underground and Free Republic. Now, the degree to which these messageboards actually represent the views of Democrats and Republicans respectively is debatable.

I think you probably ought to rethink those choices. Democratic Underground professes an attachment to the Democratic Party itself, not just progressive politics. The members of the Free Republic don’t much care about the Republican Party; most of them think it’s too far to the left. RedState is probably a better example.

[elucidator]

Have you seen even one Undie commentor admit that Obama is a Muslim atheist? Even once?

[gamerunknown]

@Oakminster

Voters elected those Tea Party canddidates, who’ve done pretty much what they said they’d do.

Like attaching a rider defunding aid to Egypt to a bill about the post office?

[BrainGlutton]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I think you probably ought to rethink those choices. Democratic Underground professes an attachment to the Democratic Party itself, not just progressive politics. The members of the Free Republic don’t much care about the Republican Party; most of them think it’s too far to the left. RedState is probably a better example.

Point taken. But, would you agree that FR is a fair representation of movement-conservative politics/world-view, as distinct from Republican politics/world-view?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I’m not really qualified to answer that question, because I don’t generally associate with people who’d invalidate my marriage and deport me if they could (Freepers, that is. Not sure about conservatives). If pressed, I’d say the Freepers are probably more reactionary than conservative.

[elucidator]

Regrettably, “conservative” is such a debased currency it has no actual meaning any more. Reactionaries naturally prefer to think of themselves as conservatives and who could blame them. And, of course, “reactionary” is a pejorative, whereas “conservative” is not necessarily pejorative.

[BrainGlutton]

@elucidator

Regrettably, “conservative” is such a debased currency it has no actual meaning any more. Reactionaries naturally prefer to think of themselves as conservatives and who could blame them. And, of course, “reactionary” is a pejorative, whereas “conservative” is not necessarily pejorative.

Well, here’s the quote I trot out whenever the meaning of “conservative,” specifically contemporary American movement conservatism, is under discussion. From The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by conservative British journalists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge:

The exceptionalism of the American Right is partly a matter of its beliefs. The first two definitions of “conservative” offered by the Concise Oxford Dictionary are “adverse to rapid change” and “moderate, avoiding extremes.” Neither of these seems a particularly good description of what is going on in America at the moment. “Conservatism” – no less than its foes “liberalism” or “communitarianism” – has become one of those words that are now as imprecise as they are emotionally charged. Open a newspaper and you can find the word used to describe Jacques Chirac, Trent Lott, the Mullah Omar and Vladimir Putin. Since time immemorial, conservatives have insisted that their deeply pragmatic creed cannot be ideologically pigeonholed.

But, in philosophical terms at least, classical conservatism does mean something. The creed of Edmund Burke, its most eloquent proponent, might be crudely reduced to six principles:** a deep suspicion of the power of the state; a preference for liberty over equality; patriotism; a belief in established institutions and hierarchies; skepticism about the idea of progress; and elitism.** Winston Churchill happily accepted these principles: he was devoted to nation and empire, disinclined to trust the lower orders with anything, hostile to the welfare state, worried about the diminution of liberty and, as he once remarked ruefully, “preferred the past to the present and the present to the future.”

To simplify a little, the exceptionalism of modern American conservatism lies in its exaggeration of the first three of Burke’s principles and contradiction of the last three. The American Right exhibits a far deeper hostility towards the state than any other modern conservative party. . . . The American right is also more obsessed with personal liberty than any other conservative party, and prepared to tolerate an infinitely higher level of inequality. (One reason why Burke warmed to the American revolutionaries was that, unlike their dangerous French equivalents, the gentlemen rebels concentrated on freedom, not equality.) On patriotism, nobody can deny that conservatives everywhere tend to be a fairly nationalistic bunch. . . . Yet many European conservatives have accepted the idea that their nationality should be diluted in “schemes and speculations” like the European Union, and they are increasingly reconciled to dealing with national security on a multilateral basis. American conservatives clearly are not.

If the American Right was merely a more vigorous form of conservatism, then it would be a lot more predictable. In fact, the American Right takes a resolutely liberal approach to Burke’s last three principles: hierarchy, pessimism and elitism. The heroes of modern American conservatism are not paternalist squires but rugged individualists who don’t know their place: entrepeneurs who build mighty businesses out of nothing, settlers who move out West, and, of course, the cowboy. There is a frontier spirit to the Right – unsurprisingly, since so much of its heartland is made up of new towns of one sort of another.

The geography of conservatism also helps to explain its optimism rather than pessimism. In the war between the Dynamo and the Virgin, as Henry Adams characterized the battle between progress and tradition, most American conservatives are on the side of the Dynamo. They think that the world offers all sorts of wonderful possibilities. And they feel that the only thing that is preventing people from attaining these possibilities is the dead liberal hand of the past. By contrast, Burke has been described flatteringly by European conservatives as a “prophet of the past.” Spend any time with a group of Republicans, and their enthusiasm for the future can be positively exhausting.

As for elitism, rather than dreaming about creating an educated “clerisy” of clever rulers (as Coleridge and T.S. Eliot did), the Republicans ever since the 1960s have played the populist card. Richard Nixon saw himself as the champion of the “silent majority.” In 1988 the aristocratic George H.W. Bush presented himself as a defender of all-American values against the Harvard Yard liberalism of Michael Dukakis. In 2000, George W. Bush, a president’s son who was educated at Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, played up his role as a down-to-earth Texan taking on the might of Washington. As a result, modern American conservatism has flourished not just in country clubs and boardrooms, but at the grass roots – on talk radio and at precinct meetings, and in revolts against high taxes, the regulation of firearms and other invidious attempts by liberal do-gooders to force honest Americans into some predetermined mold.

By that definition, “conservative” is pejorative. Not that I have any brief for “hierarchy” or “elitism,” except that experts in their fields should be deferred to, and, IME, conservatives are much more likely than centrists or liberals or leftists to think that their own opinions in matters of science, economics or law are just as good as the opinions of scientists, economists or lawyers. Nor do I fault preferring the future to the past; liberals and leftists generally do, except for hard-greens and Jeffersonian agrarians and such. But on balance, the RW world-view, as defined above, is simply wrong, and not distinguished from the centrist or liberal or the leftist world-views by points as to which rational minds can differ. And RWs are made even more wrong by their social/religious/cultural conservatism, and by their (not quite universal) tendency to racism and xenophobia and homophobia, both of which Wooldridge and Micklethwait appear to have overlooked.

[magellan01]

A question for you, BrainGlutton, regarding this:

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.

Let’s say there’s a lot of truth in that. Who do you think is more apt to understand those things when they look into them. Which of these people on the street would you put you money on.

A) A person who is the CEO of a big corporation overseeing many companies and has spent time dealing with companies internationally

B) An ex-Governor of a state

C) a community organizer

What say you?

[Chronos]

Whichever one of those three is smartest, and no, you can’t tell which one that is just from their job titles.

[BrainGlutton]

@Chronos

Whichever one of those three is smartest, and no, you can’t tell which one that is just from their job titles.

Nor from their incomes.

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

A question for you, BrainGlutton, regarding this:

Let’s say there’s a lot of truth in that. Who do you think is more apt to understand those things when they look into them. Which of these people on the street would you put you money on.

A) A person who is the CEO of a big corporation overseeing many companies and has spent time dealing with companies internationally

B) An ex-Governor of a state

C) a community organizer

What say you?

I’d go with the ex-governor, who understands government (which Obama does, BTW), or the community organizer, who understands the real lives of the people on the ground. Either might have a good grasp of macroeconomics as such, and especially government’s role in it. The CEO don’t even show.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

And RWs are made even more wrong by their social/religious/cultural conservatism, and by their (not quite universal) tendency to racism and xenophobia and homophobia, both of which Wooldridge and Micklethwait appear to have overlooked.

N.B.: No slight intended to our fine and fair She-Dopers by omitting sexism from that list – I think of it as encompassed by social conservatism. So is homophobia, I suppose.

[IntelliQ]

I think Romney’s entire resume illustrates a much larger scope of experience, most importantly management. Obama isnt in the same league, which is painfully obvious.

Leadership styles are vastly different, I think this will become more apparent once the debates commence. One goes for blame, divide, and conquer - the other has established he can work with the other side and even help craft their initiatives.

The only similarities they share is their love of pets. One dried his off by strapping it to the hood, the other likes his with salt. Heh.

[Esox_Lucius]

@Oakminster

Sounds like you have a problem with Democracy. Voters elected those Tea Party canddidates, who’ve done pretty much what they said they’d do. If the voters are displeased, they are free to elect different candidates in the next election. Dems are free to run extreme candidates of their own, and would if they thought they could win.

I have no idea why you’d suggest I have a problem with democracy. Electing Tea Party candidates wasn’t the problem; it’s what they did after they were elected. Leveraging a minority position in just one legislative branch into a full-blown blockade of the country’s business disenfranchises the majority of voters who elected the president, and blocks out the vast majority of Americans, including some conservatives, who don’t agree with them. The smug, self-righteous attitude of “no compromise” is anathema to the democratic process, so if you’re looking for someone who has a problem with democracy, look to the Tea Party and, by association, the GOP.

[IntelliQ]

@Esox_Lucius

The smug, self-righteous attitude of “no compromise” is anathema to the democratic process.

Sounds like your talking about the president and his democrat senators. I don’t think Americans will buy into the juvenile blame-gaming this time around, especially since democrats had a super-majority head-start before the President even took office - up until just last year.

Hell I remember that excuse for failures being flung around when republicans were being shut out of meetings and democrats failed to come to agreements within their own party. Blaming republicans is fashionable but in the end I think will be largely ineffective this time around.

[Ludovic]

@IntelliQ

Sounds like your talking about the president and his democrat senators.

Five grammatical errors in one sentence is difficult to achieve, but you managed to pull it off.

[42fish]

@Ludovic

Five grammatical errors in one sentence is difficult to achieve, but you managed to pull it off.

Although he’s still two short of tying the record set by Warren Harding (per E.E. Cummings).

[IntelliQ]

@42fish

Although he’s still two short of tying the record set by Warren Harding (per E.E. Cummings).

Weak sauce.

But hey, let’s go with it. Since no argument shall receive consideration or merit unless grammar is spotless, you no doubt support changing federal voting requirements. We’ll do away with multiple choice. All candidates must be handwritten and spelling must count.

[BobLibDem]

@42fish

Although he’s still two short of tying the record set by Warren Harding (per E.E. Cummings).

Not sure I’d take stock in grammatical criticism offered up by a guy who completely ignored capitalization rules.

Back to the topic, there isn’t any reason why being a businessman qualifies or disqualifies one from office. That being said, I don’t see how Romney’s business experience is an asset. He was in the business of making money for his investors. He simply didn’t give a damn if he had to hire or fire workers to accomplish this task. Could he as president be an advocate for both workers and businesses to foster a robust economy? I don’t think so. He would much more likely try to tilt the playing field to favor business and disfavor labor whenever he could.

[Ludovic]

@IntelliQ

Weak sauce.

Hey, it’s impossible to change most people’s minds by reasoned arguments. But easy to call out people who are so disrespectful that they refuse to call people by the name they choose for themselves.