Does Business Experience Make one Suitable for Public Office?

Frequently, people who feel that money in government is being mismanaged set up a clamor to elect a public official with extensive business experience.  Someone with business experience, they claim--and probably sincerely believe--would not mishandle public money as has happened in some recent instance.  Well, we have to think about this issue, certainly.  But there seems to be overwhelming evidence, after watching a couple of presidents who had business experience in action, that business experience alone is certainly no guarantee that money will be handled competently, or properly.

There are certainly those who would point out that neither of George W. Bush, nor Donald J. Trump was a competent businessman.  In order to be fair, when analyzing the relative merits of businessmen versus candidates with other sorts of experience, we should compare a competent businessman, judged by some objective measure of competence.

What does a competent businessman (who wants to run for office) bring to the table?  Let's see:

• knowing how to oversee expenditure,
• keeping an eye out for fiscal problems,
• an interest in greater efficiency, and elimination of unnecessary red tape,
• being able to manage the interacting finances of numerous sub-systems,
• experience in hiring employees, keeping a firm hold on salaries,
• knowing how legislation affects the business,
• knowing how to use advertising to the benefit of the organization,
• knowing how to develop your product to maximize profitability,

and possibly other expertise of a minor nature.

Already, you will begin to see the roots of failure in the training and the conceptual framework of the businessman.  Unlike an autonomous business, a government department is a unit in a larger structure, and the income and the expenses, though they certainly have to be managed, cannot be tinkered with with the same latitude as in a business.  You can't cheat the customer.  I suppose you can, but the customer can vote you out, whereas in business, your custom base can't vote you out of business; you can always wriggle out of trouble, or at the worst, declare bankruptcy.

Part of the problem is that businessmen are trained to view the world and their circumstances in terms of profit and loss, an antagonistic relationship.  It's customers versus the business, the business versus competing businesses, the business against the tax man.  This world-view makes the delivering of services very difficult, because there is no one who can play the role of the antagonist.  But the mindset needs an antagonist, and we see today the administration needlessly antagonizing parties that ought to be allies.

It may make sense to look at those who have headed non-profits as being particularly qualified for public office.  A non-profit or charity is faced with the task of delivering as much as possible, using whatever resources are available in a given period of time, and one expects that this is, most of the time, what the government has to do.  Then, of course, there is the delicate negotiation with the taxpayer, balancing what services are possible, versus what tax burden is reasonable.  A conservative administration would--normally--seek to reduce services, while trying to reduce taxes.  A left-leaning administration would--normally--seek to increase services, while urging increased taxes.

Businesses, usually, try to do several things.  They try to sell their product or their service for the highest price they can get, without charging a price so high that they lose their customer base.  This is accomplished by spreading information about the desirability of their product or service, and attempting to persuade the largest number of people that they need this product!  This only makes sense because each sale gives the businessman a little money (because, of course, the product costs a little less to create than the price it is sold for).  In a government department, it is often the case that the 'products' actually cost more to create than the public can be charged for, so that the fewer the numbers of members of the public avail themselves of the service or product, the less expense the department has to absorb.  A businessman would look at that situation with horror, and insist that the public should be charged enough to break even, or possibly to make a profit.  Businessmen urge this sort of behavior frequently, eagerly suggesting that the profit be used to subsidize some other product or service (since obviously, the department cannot keep raking in a profit without causing alarm).

A businessman--whose world, I believe, is really small--can quickly become bewildered when transplanted into government, where the pressures are numerous and complex, and not necessarily adversarial.  Because the dynamics of adversarial behavior are thought to be well understood, government has been set up with adversarial relationships, to encourage moderation.  A person arriving in the world of government fresh from the battlefields of business is likely to feel comfortable when he or she identifies one of these adversarial relationships.  This is not always good; ultimately these relationships which, though adversarial on the surface, are ultimately collegial, and both parties ultimately have to cooperate for the good of the people.  In the business world, of course, often this sort of cooperation is forbidden, because it discourages competition, and is recognized as frequently driving up prices.

Most of all, businessmen are eager to have one of their own running for office, because in their simple worlds of cutthroat competition, life is simple, and they hate the more complex world of public service, because it is so alien.  They would much rather deal with the known competitor than the unknown bureaucrat.  They want someone who speaks their language.  They like having someone in office with whom they can deal.

[Added later:] Finally, some businessmen achieve a certain degree of success by ruthless practices.  This is especially true of landlords and landowners, and owners of commercial real estate.  Ruthlessness in a businessman perhaps endears him to other wealthy businessmen, and those who view impoverished citizens as mere nuisances.  But it does not endear businessmen to everyone; not every businessman needs or wants ruthlessness in those who seek elected office; people need a certain degree of compassion in government workers, who, after all, must take over the administration of the social safety-net, and not all Conservatives want the safety-net destroyed, or made ineffective.
Arch

What the GOP does Better than the Democrats

Frankly, nothing; the Democrats run the government better than the GOP in every way.

Most of the time, the Democrats provide services better than the GOP.

Most of the time, the Democrats run fairer elections than the GOP.

Most of the time, the Democrats run a more humane Prison system than the GOP.

Most of the time, the Democrats are fairer to women than the GOP.

Most of the time, the Democrats understand science better than the GOP, and science education.

Most of the time, the Democrats are less hostile to foreign countries than the GOP, which they don't understand.

Most of the time, the Democrats understand workers' issues better than the GOP.

Most of the time, the Democrats are more protective of the environment than the GOP, though sometimes they go overboard.  Clean energy, Global Warming, all come under this heading.

The Democrats try harder to balance the budget than the GOP.

The Democrats are more reluctant to initiate wars abroad than the GOP.

Why then even bother about the GOP?  Because Big Business is running the country, and the GOP is more friendly to Big Business.  Hillary Clinton, though, is friendly towards Big Banks, and this is a problem.

In a not entirely unrelated piece of news, one of our local Little League teams from a rural county quite unexpectedly won their first game in the US Little League playoffs.  Then they won their second game.  Then they won the third.  Then they lost a game, which meant that they had to keep winning all their games from then on.  They won one, and then they lost an innings in their most recent game.  Lost another innings.  Lost another.

Little Leaguers, being teenage kids, once they begin losing, get so demoralized that they continue losing.  Adults coaching them also get demoralized, because they just know the kids are demoralized, and so it seems a waste of time to keep pumping them up to keep going.

Are the Democrats emulating Little League behavior?

Generally, the Democrats of the past that are beloved of their constituents have not been the bullies in the Democrat party.  There are some bullies who have pushed their way into high offices in the party through ruthless power politics and dirty pool.  But these are despised within the Democrat party (though the GOP probably regards them with awe and admiration ).  But all around us, in this season so ripe for a change, among the earnest, altruistic new candidates are a few vicious pit bulls.  We are in a quandary; should we support the Democrat Doves or the Democrat Hawks?

Winning this next election is important, but Trump has left us huge debt, and what are the Democrats going to do once they win?  Raise taxes, and lose the next election?  It isn't a foregone conclusion that raising taxes will make them unpopular, but honestly, it will be raising taxes in order to afford the big handouts Trump gave his friends.  Unless the taxes target specifically those who got enormous tax breaks in 2017-2018, the money will flow, ironically, from the Middle Class to the Super Rich.  Trump effectively borrowed the money for his tax breaks from the future Democrat government.

We should pass legislation that allows anyone with a personal worth of more than a billion a one-time opportunity to emigrate to wherever they please: Jamaica, or Grenada, or Mexico, or wherever.  It is better to get rid of them, despite losing the trillions of dollars they take with them, than to let them stay here, spreading their poison, and continually looking for hucksters to run for president for the GOP.  And they can take their guns with them; hopefully they won't hurt anyone but themselves.

Arch

Nuanced Positions on Issues

I, for one, certainly choose how seriously to take an article on the Web based on the opinions of an author on various issues.  Possibly some of us perform a similar test based on the opinion of an author on a single issue.  Fine.  But let's talk about this.  Many of my own attitudes are conditional.

Abortion.   I'm putting this one first, despite the risk of losing most of my readers right here.
I really don't like abortion at all.  I think it is an expensive and inefficient and accident-prone method of contraception.  But I support Planned Parenthood simply because of all the other services they provide.  Not being a woman, the men having been largely marginalized within the Abortion, For or Against Forum, I'm going to leave this right here, and I know all supporters of a woman's Right To Choose do not all feel the same way on this issue, even if they agree on almost every other political issue.
Electricity Producing Plants.  Recently, a post on Fb by the ever popular George Takei contained a meme, and a video that purported to set us straight about various attitudes that are common with tree-huggers.  One is that electric vehicles are cleaner than gas-fueled vehicles.  No, said the video; where does the electricity come from?  Polluting coal-fired plants.  Well, if there is to be a future for us at all, I can't see where our power would come from, except from central power stations, and we hope that someday, they will all come from renewable and non-polluting sources, e.g. wind turbines, and even nuclear plants, for the lack of other alternatives.  Does it make sense to disparage electric vehicles at this point?  I don't think so.  High-efficiency hybrid vehicles are an excellent temporary solution (which we could have implemented in the 90's, except for the hostility from the gas companies and the auto industry).
Gerrymandering.  The record seems to show that this practice was supported by the Democrats in the early 20th century, so that the scattered North Carolina black community could have at least one black representative (either in the State House, or in Congress, I don't remember which).  From where we sit, in 2018, it seems pathetic that only a black could be trusted to represent black minority interests, but back then, it was probably the only way, judging from the political history of the Carolinas even today.  So if I was asked back then whether Gerrymandering was a good thing, I would probably have thoughtlessly said yes.  Well, this is a lesson to everyone.  Things that seem wonderful at one time are sometimes proved to be terrible in hindsight.  Today, I would support a destricting method (redistricting sounds too complicated) based on population distribution, local governments, and mathematics, and possibly geography.
Biodiversity.  Some progressives regard biodiversity as necessary to guard axiomatically.  From the point of view that the ecological contribution of many species is poorly understood (yes; scientists don't know absolutely everything, which is why it is so frustrating when science haters reject all science categorically, even on well-understood issues), species extinction is bad.  But I do not think that we need to become paranoid about extinction.  I agree we do not have a basis for distinguishing between major species and minor species based on the influence on the ecology, but we cannot put every species on life-support; we must make choices.  People judge the importance of particularly threatened species based on their estimated environmental impact, but good judgment has to be used.
Socialism.  Socialism and Freedom / Liberty are sort of dog-whistle terms today, used in sort of "weaponized" ways, than as a description of the politics of an issue.  Many of us have no idea of what others are thinking; if everyone thought clearly, we would really need them to carefully state whether or not they like socialistic principles, or whether they're opposed to them.  The problem is that many who say that they hate socialism will be horrified if all socialistic programs were to be dropped; and many who support socialism would be aghast at some suggestions that a socialist might put forward.  There is a spectrum of positions on how government should be structured, and how communal services should be organized.  Many services are categorized as private, and others as public.  Public transport is clearly public, and personal transport is clearly private.  People expect that taxes would pay for public transport, but the very rich dislike the idea of sharing public transport with ordinary people, and the idea of bankrolling it.  On the other hand, until they get the idea of putting helipads in their homes, they're going to need to use the same roads as the rest of us, so sure, let's fund the roads--just the roads I use, one of them would say.  If you went around your local community, you would see that certain roads are maintained beautifully, but others are not.  If all the roads are maintained, you have socialism; otherwise I don't know what we have; probably corruption.
Trucking.  Another of the memes that George Takei--rather thoughtlessly--put on fB (I usually agree with most of his positions; this is sort of an exception), is that Big Agriculture might have some saving graces.  Big commercial farms are more efficient, says the video; small farms may use more fertilizer and agro-chemicals, and this is bad for the environment.  Who are they kidding?  Certainly small farms could fall into the trap of deploying insane amounts of agro-chemicals, but corporate farms are yet to moderate their use of polluting materials.  Over-farming on large tracts of lands depletes the soil, and depleted it for decades.  They do have the potential of changing their techniques so that they restore the land, but I don't think they do it.  On the human level, they are highly mechanized, and have been the source of huge unemployment.  Mechanization is inevitable, but it did not need to be inevitable so long ago.  Finally, Big Agriculture produce has to be trucked thousands of miles to their supermarket chains.  At the moment, trucking is a highly polluting business (correct me if I'm wrong), and taken in sum, small farms seem by far a better way to go.  This is not to say that small farms will continue to use the low-impact methods for which we favor them.  Even little farms use inhumane procedures in chicken and livestock farming, and veal, for instance, comes from facilities in which the cattle are treated very cruelly.  (My wife knows all about this, but is powerless to influence it, since Pennsylvanians love their meat.  From the point of view of livestock, this is a terrible state.)
Box Stores.  This is the term they use around here for chain stores such as Walmart and Lowes, and similar multi-outlet corporations.  At first, they were able to sell things at low prices because they could negotiate favorable terms because they bought in bulk.  Today, they get their goods from China, and similar countries where wages are low.  (Of course, tariffs change the dynamics of this dramatically, and it will be interesting to see how it ends up, if we can survive a season of buying substandard goods at high prices until the administration chooses to make a deal with China.  Eventually, the Chinese Government must begin to take the interests of Chinese Labor seriously; at the moment they do not.  When that moment comes, we will need to pay prices that the goods are really worth.  Modern economic theory says that Worth is in the eye of the Buyer.  It will be interesting to see what an Iphone, for instance, will be "really" worth, if trade unions are tolerated in China.
Trade Unions. Do you really know what trade unions are?  They are organizations that sprang up in the early years of the last century to protect workers: the Teamsters, the United Auto Workers, the Lady Garment Workers, and so on.  Until these unions were established, workers were paid peanuts.  Gradually, as legislation was passed that enabled these unions to legally negotiate with management for higher wages and better conditions, workers in unions became more affluent, and workers had a certain amount of pride.  Now, of course, management (some of whom belonged to what we call, today, the 1%, but back then they were about 5% of the population!) hated unions, because so much had to be paid to the workers, which could have gone to the shareholders instead!  Gradually, over the seventies and the eighties, a lot of furious propaganda vilified Labor, blaming it for the 'Low' living standards of everyone.  Unions lost a lot of their power, and today the garment industry in the US is practically dead, and Far East factories make most of our clothes, even Trump ties; car makers build their plants abroad, etc, etc, and unions are unable to provide their members with a good wage.  Teachers Unions still exist in the state of New York, for instance, and New York teachers have a love-hate relationship with their union, which has been saddled with the responsibility for maintaining academic standards.  All in all, unions have done a lot of good, but being under the control of labor legislation, depending on the laws governing them, and the burdens placed on them, they can no longer be depended upon to carry out their responsibilities, and labor management tends to become increasingly cynical.  A political candidate who declares hostility towards Labor is a bad bet, because he or she automatically takes the side of management in labor disputes by definition.  Labor unions are no longer able to negotiate incredibly high pay rates for workers; management (and conservatives) simply capitalize on past hostility towards labor, and I, for one, do not approve of this attitude.  A political candidate who supports Labor is a better bet.  Big Labor is a weak instrument for progress, but it is the only instrument we have.

Arch