According to sources across the board, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is a life-long Democrat exploring a run as an Independent for POTUS in 2020.
Of course, many are urging against this: Howard Schultz’s possible presidential aspirations make many Democrats wary - MarketWatch
Thoughts?
If he does, and it fucks shit up to the point that Trump gets elected again, Starbucks can kiss its ass goodbye.
A businessman with no political experience becoming President.
I don’t know why but I get a bad feeling about that.
Yeah, if the last two years have taught us anything it’s that the skill set required to run a for-profit organization is entirely dissimilar to that required to run the worlds largest non-profit organization.
Seems to me that in every Presidential election I can remember, there’s chatter about some zillionaire launching an Independent bid, mobilizing the neglected center, and overturning the two-party system and making the establishment fall flat on its face. But the zillionaire never wins, and other than Ross Perot he never even runs. Perhaps that’s because support for such a campaign seems limited to editorial writers for the Washington Post and New York Times.
If he wishes to enter politics, he should run for mayor, Congress, state legislature, etc., not president.
There was an argument, based on films like Electra and Catwoman, that a female-lead superhero movie was a bad idea that could never work. That was not true, they were just crappy films.
Likewise, extending Trump to the wider range of all possibilities that could ever exist is probably not reasonable. Though, obviously, he certainly doesn’t encourage one to continue down that path.
Ultimately, I think, the job requires that everyone has a basic trust in that person, that the person be a person who accepts reality, and that it be someone who does have experience managing a large organization (i.e., they can keep a lot of balls in the air at the same time and not melt down). While I’m sure that there are better and worse negotiators, better and worse politicos, etc. a businessman who knows that he’s not much of a politician can always hire a good political VP or set of cabinet heads to deal with Congress. Being a political animal is probably not a hard requirement for success, if you’re someone who everyone trusts and someone who knows his own limitations.
A CEO is probably not the worst job to hold prior to becoming President. I would suspect that it is better than being a politician, on average, since that gives you no executive experience. Serving as a governor is good experience, but probably so would something like being the 2nd or 3rd in command at a large company - since you’re managing a large group at the same time as having to negotiate for funding and projects, and also having to restrict yourself to what your overseers are ordering. Running a large charity would probably be good experience since, again, you’re somewhat at the mercy of the gods as you try to run things, while still being asked to keep together a large and complex organization.
Personally, I think that we do it the wrong way by letting people choose themselves as candidates. A lot of the best leaders in history were the ones who were forced to take the role.
Study of CEO governors:
I might make the distinction between the CEO of a small, privately owned family operation that stumbles from bankruptcy to bankruptcy, and the CEO of a major, publicly held multinational org that the CEO nearly built from scratch.
That said, I still wouldn’t vote for him*. He’s a super cool guy though; he was a major investor at a place I worked a while back. He watched me pour the better part of a whole beer right into my crotch.
*not just because he would potentially be a spoiler, but because that asshole sold my Sonics to those dicks in OKC.
My initial reaction was “No, don’t do it”
But really, I don’t see a compelling reason why he shouldn’t. It’s not like people are just going to give him the nomination.
If I were current Starbucks board members and executive management, I’d be very, very nervous right now. He’s obviously going to use his success and the success of Starbucks as a resume bullet point, so there will be blow back of some kind.
Personally, I don’t think he’d be a horrible candidate, but I don’t plan on voting for him.
He’d be woefully incompetent in any public servant job.
I for one welcome his quixotic candidacy for Eggbeater if the Free World. It’s best that venture capitalists with political desires reach beyond their grasp and fail.
As for Schultz himself, his “Let’s have the workers talk with the customers about race relations” thing seems pretty…well…let’s say that I’m not certain he’s still a member of every day reality. And while that might not really matter so far as running the country is concerned, I think it’s fair to say that a candidate who seems entirely out of touch with reality is unlikely to do well.
Granted, Trump’s views on life are probably pretty divorced from reality as well, but I think he has the bling/gangsta lifestyle going that your average person views as the ultimate goal in life, so I think they cut him some slack.
An ivory tower idealist rich guy…slack is not in the cards.
I don’t think I quite made my position clear. It’s not that for-profit is necessarily the deal killer. It’s running the corporation.
Remember, a successful CEO is essentially a fascist dictator. Yes, he has to answer to his board but most of those are pretty tame because he may be on a board for something they run. (Parenthetical aside: We’d gain much from outlawing interlocking boards or limiting the number of such one person could be on.)
A CEO wants to succeed. A politician wants to succeed as much as possible while realizing that 50% of less is still a good percentage in terms of getting your positions through. A president can’t rule by fiat and expect to be obeyed. There are too many divisive issues and competing interests to allow that to happen. It’s simply a different skill set and set of expectations to allow the two jobs to map properly.
Uh, no, that is not true. Do you even know what the words “fascist” and “dictator” mean?
A dictator is a person who rules a country with absolute power. Fascist means an ideology believing that everyone’s life is completely dedicated to advancing the state.
A CEO of a public corporation is not a dictator, since he doesn’t rule a country. In fact he doesn’t rule anything. He is an employee of the corporation. He can make a limited number of choices. Nor is he fascist, even in a figurative sense. No CEO expects employees to dedicate their lives to the corporation. The CEO knows that each employee spends (typically) 40 hours a week working for the corporation, and then goes home and spends the other 128 hours of the week not working for the corporation.
If he’d said “literally” and not “essentially”, your objections would make some sense. As it stands, they seem… irrelevant. Tangential at best.
Let Schultz get some political seasoning by running for governor of Washington (or whatever his state of residence is) or for congress. The presidency should never again be given to a novice, especially one who’ll build a cabinet from people who themselves have no experience in politics because he doesn’t know anybody in politics.
If he thinks he would make a good president, then the motherfucker should run in either the Democratic or Republican primary. If he won’t do that, he’s helping to reelect Trump. Ask me how I feel about motherfuckers who help Trump.
If he thinks he would make a good President, then he presumably also thinks he would make a good Governor or a good Senator. If he succeeds in those offices, he’ll have gained some experience in politics and we’ll have something to judge him by. And if he fails in those offices, we’re better off for having found that out at a lower level than the Presidency.
To try to go into politics at the top is a bit like trying to launch a chain of coffee shops by setting up thousands of them from the outset, wouldn’t you say?
Are you from Belgium?
Corporate USA literally has managers who try to develop a feeling of “team” or “family” in their employees—even when those employees have no ownership in the company and can be fired at will. It’s a form of mental manipulation, legal here in Extreme Capitalist Paradise.
Ruling with absolute power and believing that everyone’s life is completely dedicated to advancing the company? Yes, this sounds absolutely nothing like a CEO. 
Let it be known that this attitude is so pervasive in the USA that I, as an expat, not only will never move back to the USA, but fundamentally refuse to work for any American company located here in Munich. Because fuck that noise.
As for this guy’s run… Oh joy, another out-of-touch billionaire whose massive, overinflated ego leads him to think he’s just what America needs. Hopefully he fucks right off ASAP.
If he wants to run he should either challenge Trump for the Republican nomination or run as a Democrat. Anything else and he’s just trying to be a spoiler.