Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have always seen people tout "business experience" as a plus when it comes to picking a president, but why is that? We have had several successful businessmen presidents in the last 100 years and they have one thing in common...They are among the absolute worst presidents of the past 100 years
Basically they were...
Warren G. Harding (owned a successful newspaper business, and presided over one of the most, if not the most, corrupt presidential administrations in the 20th century) Herbert Hoover (a successful mining executive, whose tenure as president really doesn't need much explanation) James Earl Carter(owned a successful and large agribusiness company again not much explanation is needed on his presidency) George W. Bush(a successful sports team owner, but an awful president)
On the other hand other presidents who come from other backgrounds like law, entertainment, and the military do not tend to be universally awful.
So with that said why do people keep insisting that "business experience" is somehow this great thing when we have only had terrible businessmen presidents for the last 100 years?
Business experience per se might not be that great on it's own, but business experience and executive experience in running something and being successful is a big plus. Business experience and being successful in government in a executive role like a governor is even better. During great economic times, business experience might not mater so much, but during times like these, it is a needed. If you don't have any idea what makes businesses successful and how to create jobs and create economic growth, then you end up investing in companies like Solyndra and losing it all...in this case it was our money. That is the sort of incompetence that comes from leadership with no business experience.
I think that, in order to craft government policy conducive to job creation, we need a president who thinks like a businessman, who understands the incentives businessmen face when making decisions about hiring, health insurance, etc. I want someone who learned that in the real world, not in a text book.
Now of course, having business experience, while a huge plus, does NOT itself make you an effective leader. Some people, as you pointed out, would have done best to keep their talents in the private sector. There are many other factors that ought to be considered in addition to business experience. There are even factors about the nature of the candidate's business experience that ought to be considered (ie - how much did they personally face employment incentives, how similar was their job to that of a public sector executive position, what private sector skills did they use that may be relevant and transferable to the public sector, etc). So it's definitely complicated.
Many of the best businessmen don't want to run for office because they can make more money in the private sector (brain drain). We've seen that change a little in recent years, especially in 2010. Many people, who knew little about politics but were concerned about the way government was increasing in its size and scope and affecting their livelihood, ended up running for office. (Look up Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Mike Kelly (R-PA)).
I do think this will be a good discussion. I would like to see if anyone can find some sort of confounding factor that resulted in those four unsuccessful presidencies IN SPITE of their business experience, or if someone can try to provide logical reasoning for why there might actually be a causal link between business experience and being a bad president. Remember, the relationship could be spurious if we can't find any reason to link business experience with them being bad presidents.
Are you really comparing George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter to Mitt Romney in regards to the private sector? That is preposterous.
I don't think so. Especially Carter. Like Romney Carter's father was somewhat wealthy, but Carter did not inherit much from him. Like Romeny was a successful student at BYU and Harvard, Carter was a successful student at the US Navel Academy and like Romney he was able to put his education to good use in business. The only real difference is that while Mitt Romney purchased and disassembled companies, Carter build his business from the ground up starting as a farmer, but eventually expanding into processing and warehousing. The were both very successful businessmen though they operated different business models.
I think that, in order to craft government policy conducive to job creation, we need a president who thinks like a businessman, who understands the incentives businessmen face when making decisions about hiring, health insurance, etc. I want someone who learned that in the real world, not in a text book.
Now of course, having business experience, while a huge plus, does NOT itself make you an effective leader. Some people, as you pointed out, would have done best to keep their talents in the private sector. There are many other factors that ought to be considered in addition to business experience. There are even factors about the nature of the candidate's business experience that ought to be considered (ie - how much did they personally face employment incentives, how similar was their job to that of a public sector executive position, what private sector skills did they use that may be relevant and transferable to the public sector, etc). So it's definitely complicated.
Many of the best businessmen don't want to run for office because they can make more money in the private sector (brain drain). We've seen that change a little in recent years, especially in 2010. Many people, who knew little about politics but were concerned about the way government was increasing in its size and scope and affecting their livelihood, ended up running for office. (Look up Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Mike Kelly (R-PA)).
I do think this will be a good discussion. I would like to see if anyone can find some sort of confounding factor that resulted in those four unsuccessful presidencies IN SPITE of their business experience, or if someone can try to provide logical reasoning for why there might actually be a causal link between business experience and being a bad president. Remember, the relationship could be spurious if we can't find any reason to link business experience with them being bad presidents.
Yeah and things have gone down hill basically now you have never ending gridlock and an absolute unwillingness to compromise. That did not exist last time there was split control. Newt and Clinton may have hated each other, but they did big things like welfare reform. I am not saying things are businessmen are bad people, just that they are bad at politics. I come from a family of small business owners, on one side and the other side of my family I had some relatives in state and local government. Basically the two just are not really compatible. In business you basically dictate to people what you want done how you want things done generally. Sure there is a lot of networking and to an extent you work with people's feeling and issues, but if your running that sucker it's yours, you are the boss. Politics is the opposite. You are really not the boss of anything, you make deals and try to please as many people as is humanly possible and if you cannot please someone you try to make is as though they feel they have been listened to and cared about. You can be very successfully doing arbitrary executive decisions in business, that doesn't work in politics.
Basically like the above presidents you if get a bunch of bull headed businessmen in government they are all going to have possibly good, but different plans to fix things and implementation will be impossible.
Successful businessmen are very much North type people and that is what is rewarded in business, successful politicians are very much the opposite. They are South type people and that is what is rewarded in politics. Putting it another way how many people do you think would vote for their boss in a free and fair election on who should be the boss.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 04-02-2012 at 10:35 AM..
I have always seen people tout "business experience" as a plus when it comes to picking a president, but why is that? We have had several successful businessmen presidents in the last 100 years and they have one thing in common...They are among the absolute worst presidents of the past 100 years
Basically they were...
Warren G. Harding (owned a successful newspaper business, and presided over one of the most, if not the most, corrupt presidential administrations in the 20th century) Herbert Hoover (a successful mining executive, whose tenure as president really doesn't need much explanation) James Earl Carter(owned a successful and large agribusiness company again not much explanation is needed on his presidency) George W. Bush(a successful sports team owner, but an awful president)
On the other hand other presidents who come from other backgrounds like law, entertainment, and the military do not tend to be universally awful.
So with that said why do people keep insisting that "business experience" is somehow this great thing when we have only had terrible businessmen presidents for the last 100 years?
GWB was NOT a successful businessman. He drank and snorted his way through college and the Champaign Squadron, then Forrest Gumped his way to a fortune through various sweetheart deals, all the while being artificially resperated by his family's connections. W's short-comings as a manager became starkly apparent as soon as he became president.
The most successful president of my lifetime measured in terms of getting his objectives accomplished and making meaningful change in America was LBJ. He was the consummate Washington insider/politician. You can have all the best ideas and get nowhere if you can't play the game in the trenches. I think Obama's first couple years really drove that home. I tend to agree with Newt on this, the best person for the job is someone who knows how to get things done, how to reward and how to punish in the political gamesmanship. It is increasingly evident that Obama has learned from cold, hard experience. Another reason I think he is better than Romney no matter what business experience Romney might have.
Take power out of politics and the issue of corruption is resolved.
All presidents from Lincoln til now are all power hunger people and they all are corrupted. Maybe with the exception of JKF and Reagen's early year.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
