The Argument:
I don't know why people think that being a businessman means you can run a country. First of all, running a business is for personal profit. Running a country does nothing to profit you. Maybe if you do a good job, you may see some return, but you are really living on a fixed income. I welcome any facts that can prove this assertion wrong.
Second, a business is about giving a service or business in return for profit. However, much of the stuff that government does is not for profit. The only profit that the government sees from much of this stuff is from taxes, fees, and various other measures such as casinos or lotteries.
Third, business expertise won't help you with foreign policy decisions much. The only aspects of business I can see helping with that is the advertising and image part of business. Again, I welcome those who want to prove me wrong.
I will say that Mitt Romney is an excellent businessman. That doesn't mean he's the most qualified to be president.
The Response:
First off, let's take a stroll through modern presidential history:
FDR: Excellent manager. Though he grew the executive branch enormously, he could manage it well. His control and goals made their way into action.
Truman: Couldn't control General McArthur. Meagerly managed. Pushed through steel mills debacle.
Eisenhower: Military manager. Same thing. Did fairly well dealing with the government left behind by FDR.
Kennedy: Terrible manager (ie Bay of Pigs - no control over CIA/Military). Got better, but not perfect (Cuban Missile Crisis).
Johnson: Overall disaster in management. Couldn't teach the reality of his two socially and fiscally opposing programs: The Great Society and Vietnam.
Nixon: Could not control those under him (Watergate). Paranoid.
Carter: Micromanager. Couldn't see beyond one day's tasks (had to personally approve requests to use the White House tennis courts). Excluded himself from his cabinet and exec branch.
Reagan: Decisive (air traffic controllers, bombing Qaddafi), trusted that people would correctly do their jobs but didn't follow up (Iran-Contra), Determined and dedicated to his cause and made it happen (collapse of USSR, communist Europe).
Clinton: Chose not to lead (Scandal, Sudan, Khobar Towers). Promised much, managed to give little (Health care)
Bush 43: Selling the war through the Exec Branch (did well). Management of post-Iraq war (did poorly).
You see that management, especially of a bloated executive branch, is necessary for government to do something and run smooth. FDR expanded the Executive substantially and it has grown larger since. A President must have the managerial skills necessary to control the bloated bureaucracy.
Romney has cut the fat and was able to lead a multi billion dollar corp (Bain & Co) and has done so as a venture capitalist with other large corporations such as Dominoes, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Broder Bros., and pharmaceutical group Warner Chilcott.
Romney, using his brilliant business skills and knowledge, rescued the Salt Lake Olympics from a $376 million shortfall resulting from the bid scandal. With an attached $300 million security budget due to the then-recent 9-11 terrorist attacks, Romney was able to generate $100 million in profits, while not taking a salary. Romney did all this for no personal profit. That says something about Romney's character.
He went on to govern Massachusetts, inheriting a $3 billion deficit. He worked his Bain & Co. magic and made a $.7 billion surplus in just over two years.
Managerial skills, which Romney has demonstrated time and again, are necessary for the president. Richard Neustadt, Goffman, Heclo, and Edwards, political scientists that focus on the Presidency, all agree that management is ABSOLUTELY necessary for a successful term in office.
Of course, management as necessary as it is, is not whole picture. Vision, drive, intelligence, and policy making are all necessary too. Romney is the best Presidential candidate (Dems included) with the greatest amount of these qualities. He would make an outstanding President.
1 comment:
Just one comment. This question is a rather silly one. The person asking to be refuted is debating based on the premise that people are motivated purely by money, leaving no room for any other motivation.
That is unproven in this particular case and *almost* never completely true. As you touched on, Romney wasn't paid for the work he did at the Olympics, and that truly does say something about his motivations. That he isn't driven by money. Has this person ever considered that maybe people sometimes enjoy helping others, or do in fact find great satisfaction in taking something and making it better? We all must make a living, but that is not the number one priority to most people, or we'd all be miserable.
That simple thought throws out the first arguments entirely. Yes, a business does indeed return profit, but only when someone is skilled at it! Assuming the motivation to do so is always greed is a very shallow assumption for anyone to make.
Only when someone can manage, inspire, and motivate people to work harder can a business be successful. Guess what makes up this nation? People! So if someone has proven in a business setting that they know how to work with people and get hard jobs done effectively, does that not in the slightest improve their candidacy for something like the POTUS?
Finally, it would take an ignorant person to assume that business people do not have any notion of foreign politics. Yes, politics are different than normal, but not unknown. The words "global enterprise" come to mind. Leaders of large companies have to deal not only with the culture of the United States but also the cultures of every country they do business in (whether producing their goods or selling), and surely the top management understands this best. Unusual customs and second languages are quite common knowledge among business leaders as a necessity of life. Perhaps they do not have experience in dealing with life and death situations in foreign countries, but they surely have at least some limited experience with the cultures and peoples of those lands.
Oh, and they had better well know about politics, considering laws passed in different countries directly affect how well a business performs. This is especially true in the area of international economics - taxes, import taxes, exporting, free trade, etc are all commonly known words to anyone in the business world with good reason.
So there's my little spiel, if you're going to respond at least use a solid foundation for your debate instead of assuming that the only "profit" business people are driven by is money.
Post a Comment