There seems to be a constant refrain from candidates* like Donald Trump, Herman Cain and Mitt Romney that their experience as business leaders qualifies them to lead the country.
Now granted, in a more general sense, having a background as a CEO, military general, or other head of a large organization certainly demonstrates experience in leading large groups of people and managing large, complex institutions. Certainly skills any President should have.
However, running a country is very different from running a successful business. Specifically, the economy of the USA is several orders of magnitude larger than the largest multinational corporations. And not to mention that you can’t just lay off the bottom 20% of Americans because they are underperforming.
I’m as capitalist as they come, but I’m pretty sure I don’t think government should operate with the same compassion and cutthroat efficiency as Corporate America.
You promise the moon, make deals with the devil to get what you want, drive the whole shebang into the ground, then sell out for an obscene profit-so what’s so different?
George W. Bush made this argument, too. It’s intended to imply they know how to make decisions and run a government that’s efficient, on budget, and doesn’t waste money. All of that sounds good, but the goals of a government and a business are very different and they’re run in different ways. “I’ll run the government like a business” is one of those things that sounds good but doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
There’s really two different questions here. Why do successful businessmen think they’d make good politicians? Easy, because they’re egotistical, narcissistic bastards. The more difficult question is why anyone else thinks they’d make good politicians, and on that one, I’m not sure.
Maybe because there are so many bad politicians out there that a casual observer might think an outsider would do better? Also, if said businessman has a lot of name recognition, that goes a long way in US politics. Someone like Trump is going to get a significant following simply because people know who he is, and maybe they like The Apprentice.
I think the record of professional politicians is pretty poor-so, a successful businessman at least offers the chance that he/she might be a good leader.
Of course, given the byzantine nature of the Federal Government, any attempts at reform are usually sabotaged.
I figured the OP didn’t mention him for a reason. Then again if you shorted the shares of Bush’s companies when he took over, you might’ve thought he was a great businessman.
A business executive might make an effective benevolent dictator in a non-democratic country, but the skill set to be in the Executive or Legislative branch is to form coalitions with people who have egos as big as everyone else in the business and a separate power base who also have the ability to stop anything and everything from happening.
I think a businessman that also has political experience is about as ideal a candidate as you can get. What career/experiences do you think are better?
Working one’s way through the levels of government, so you know how things are done. Bush I is a great example - he had done lots of jobs, knew people around the world, and was a far better president than his son.
When was the last time we had a successful businessman as president? Bush II was hardly successful. I think the answer is Herbert Hoover - how did that work out?
The relationship between a CEO and others in a company is far different from that of a President. The CEO has a board, but unless he screws up badly the board (which he helps to name) is going to rubber stamp what he does. Everyone else is at his mercy. There is no analog of Congress and the Courts, who can tell the President to go stuff it with little danger.
If you want something actually done by a President, you need an insider, or at least someone who knows the ropes. Example - LBJ.
Career bureaucrats make the best elected officials. It’s not even close. The problem is that career bureaucrats aren’t very good at winning elections.
The idea president is a JAG colonel who also spent a few years litigating civil rights cases at the Justice Department and maybe worked for the NSA or something.
Meg Whitman had to take out TV ads where she explained that she won’t run the state like a business. The perception that she thought she could do so was hurting her in polls.
Succesfull businessman are smart, hardworking, disciplined, have experience leading large groups of people, are used to dealing with budgets and are good negotiators. These are all good qualities for presidents to have. They also have experience dealing with laws and regulations from the opposite side and thus know what effects government can have on businesses
The fundamental job of an exec is to make a profit for the shareholders, and treatment of customers and employees are subservient to that end. The fundamental job of a president is to serve the people who elected him.
To balance a budget in industry, you can lay off workers. You can’t lay off citizens even if they get welfare benefits, no matter how much Republicans would like to.
Let me phrase that a different way. In a business, if employees aren’t performing or are even just sort of annoying, they can be terminated and no longer receive the benefits associated with working for that business. A politician generally can’t just make large segments of the population just “disappear” because they are inconvenient (not without being compared to Hitler or Stalin).
Even hearing some of the rhetoric of people like Trump when he was sort of running or whatever it was he was doing. Saying he will tell China this or tell Iran that, as if dictating terms to some small time supplier. And those countries (not to mention Congress or whoever else he needs to get anything actually done) would tell him to go fuck himself.
Jimmy Carter was a successful peanut farmer, but a ridiculously bad President. But being a farmer and warehouse owner is considerably different from other kinds of business.
Given our current budget situation, I would think a financier like Romney has a good background to be President. He also has experience in running very large projects like the Olympics. Organizational skills, handling money, business experience - much better as a background, ISTM, than someone like the current occupant of the Oval Office, who doesn’t have experience at much of anything, and it shows.
Then again if you shorted the shares of Bush’s companies when he took over, you might’ve thought he was a great businessman.