A few generals have won the presidency with no political experience, the last one being Eisenhower. No general has been that nationally well-regarded since. Colin Powell being close to an exception, but he had the smarts not even to try, and he destroyed his reputation by becoming a dupe for the politicians.
I’ve worked for companies, non-profits, and city government, and with other freelancers. All inhabit different worlds.
Everywhere I’ve worked that was above a certain size, the CEO was less of a dictator and much more of a politician than anything else. They had to work the state, local, and Federal politicians, they had to negotiate with other companies, and they often had to negotiate/deal diplomatically with the divisions within their own companies. It seemed to be a massive exercise in diplomacy and politicking, and less of an exercise in business strategy.
Same thing with military officers above a certain point. Dwight Eisenhower spent most of his time wrangling his subordinates and allies and coordinating things than he did actually you know, ordering troops in the field. He was as much or more politician than warrior.
While that is true, I’m wondering if they tend to be a bad fit when parachuted into government. Remember Rex Tillerson?
High ranking generals seem to me a more plausible fit because most of their politicking requires understanding how the government works. While some of the CEO politicking has to do with government, much less of it does than if you are a 3 star or higher general or admiral.
Of course, I am talking here about experience that helps you do the job. The only experience that would help you in winning a general election is experience as a candidate in a tough general election.
That goes back a long way. Robert McNamara was one of the “whiz kids” who brought modern business techniques to Ford Motor, eventually becoming CEO. John F. Kennedy appointed him Secretary of Defense, where he contributed to the mess that was Vietnam. IMHO he was a whiz at systems and operations, but completely over his head when it came to policy.
Before McNamara there was Charles Wilson, Eisenhower’s Defense Secretary. When asked at his Senate confirmation hearing if he thought he could be impartial when it came to a decision that might hurt General Motors, Wilson said he couldn’t conceive of such a problem “because for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.”
Sam Rayburn, who was Speaker of the House during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years, once said of McNamara and other young Kennedy advisers, "they may be every bit as intelligent as you say, but I’d feel a whole lot better about them if just one of them had run for sheriff once.”
Only Ike in human memory. And he had to deal with the other Allied forces and their commanders, and what they wanted, which is politics. He wasnt selected due to his tactical skills, he was selected due to his political skills.