Connect with us

Americas

The Perils of President CEO: 7 Reasons Why Business Icons Don’t Make Great Presidents

Dr. Matthew Crosston

Published

on

Let us first start with this declaration: this is not a diatribe against Donald Trump. Rather, it is a tsk, tsk, tsk to the American people for not being careful about what they wish for. For years, if not decades, we have heard how much better off the country would be if the people would only elect an accomplished CEO as president.

This is what we need, so I was told. A CEO would know how to fix things, get things done, and not deal with the ridiculousness, so I heard. I always felt this inflated optimism was dangerously misplaced, but not because of any specific CEO that might become president. Rather, because I was wary that the people were misreading the fundamental characteristics of most super-alpha CEOs, which are actually mismatched with the necessary character qualities of a great president. Since the first year of the current President CEO seems to be showing this wariness to be well-founded, I thought it might be worthwhile to make explicit just what this mismatch is and why. I therefore offer seven simple axioms that explain why any business-tycoon-turned-president in the 21st century might be fated to be a completely ineffective and irrelevant chief executive. In this case, it isn’t so much about the person as it is about the culture:

1.“Yes” people problems

Despite what many CEOs will tell you on the lucrative rubber-chicken public speaking/inspiring leadership book tour circuit, the reality is CEOs have a notorious reputation for being extremely thin-skinned. This reputation manifests itself in two primary ways: in their heart of hearts, CEOs don’t truly value being directly challenged or questioned and therefore surround themselves more with people who will affirm their opinions rather than confront them. In the corridors of executive political power these two things are disastrous. Modern American politics has evolved to the point where the Presidency has almost no veneration whatsoever. As a result, media and social media can be intensely vicious in their criticisms. Trying to counter that by surrounding yourself with “yes” people only exacerbates problems, rather than resolving them.

2.Style over substance

The actual details of being President of the United States tends to be rather tedious, even boring, requiring tons of study time, briefing time, meeting time, etc, etc, etc. This is quite the opposite of the corporate atmosphere preferred by CEOs, who like being able to sketch out the rough details of the big picture and then let the senior executive staff flesh out the explicit parameters of making that picture a reality. Presidents are often anally fastidious and meticulous, wanting to get down in the weeds of policy far beyond a normal human capacity. CEOs decidedly do not seek that unique bureaucratic hell that is quite innate to Washington DC.

3.Tighter tip of the pyramid

While most presidents have not copied the amazing ‘Team of Rivals’ model utilized by Lincoln (where he literally laced his Cabinet with opponents and critics simply because he believed in their talent and their dedication to the country, if not necessarily to him personally), they nevertheless have always tried to build a Cabinet full of talented people whose talent would be largely unquestioned. In many cases, given a two-term President, the people come to expect his successor to emerge from that team, so highly vetted and accomplished they should be. Thus, the top of a presidential pyramid has a much broader top, more convex than pointed, allowing other talented people to be very near the summit of the structure. The top of the CEO pyramid is the tip of the spear. While having a talented executive team is important, it is not nearly as close to the very top as in the White House, where the President is going to be quasi-grooming his/her successor if/when he leaves the position. A CEO is much more of a lone wolf than a president could ever hope to be.

4.Dominance over compromise

This is one of the biggest differences. While some politicians might argue today that compromise is weakness, the reality of presidential politics inevitably involves an ability to not just accept compromise, but be the innovator that initiates it. The CEO environment often takes compromise only as a last-ditch, only-way-to-salvage-the-deal measure, and even then, takes it reluctantly. More preferable to compromise as strategy is old-school dominance: a take-no-prisoners, hear-the-lamentations-of-the-woman-and-children approach that will place the CEO and the company at the top of the mountain with no questioned rivals in view. Do not mistake this as arguing a President cannot be strong: it is just that in politics strength is often measured by how well you can accomplish your goals while still building bridges, not by how much devastation you leave behind in your wake. CEOs conquer. Presidents construct.

5.Selfish over selfless

This is a simple but profound differentiation between the bottom lines of politics and business. No matter what anyone tries to argue in terms of corporate philanthropy, the job of a CEO is to ensure profit, raise stock value, and depress the competition. It is an inherently selfish endeavor justified by the perceived glory of the end results. The job of President is not only selfless, more often than not in the modern world, it can seem thankless. The best presidents are ones not motivated by personal desire or striving for individualistic gain. As president, you are meant to be the literal embodiment of the hopes and dreams of all of America’s diverse population. Selfish motives, therefore, spell doom.

6.“Schmoozing” is not diplomacy:

CEOs are famous for working a room. The mistaken assumption is that what it takes to work a boardroom or business environment is perfectly synonymous with the skills required to perform diplomacy. These skills are not the same at all. In fact, stories are legion of just how poorly ‘insincere’ communicators fare in diplomatic corridors. Photo ops are nice and make for great media. But they rarely turn into actual policy achievement, peace declarations, or conflict resolutions, which are the lifeblood and true purpose of diplomacy. Thus, experience in CEO ‘glad-handing’ is not the ideal training ground to become the Commander-in-Chief and handle critical life-and-death situations that often face that office.

7.The country is NOT actually a corporation

This might be the hardest axiom for people to accept. Since politicians in general are held in such low regard today and since politics are considered by many to be a major part of the country’s problems rather than its solution, I can understand why so many want the ‘outsider-ness’ of a non-politician business icon to lead the country. So yes, while it’s always about the economy and jobs often matter more than anything else (aside from security), the reality is the running of a country is so much more than the decision-making calculus of a corporation. Side issues and multiple layers of complexity force a president to have to think far beyond just single-item issues or quick and convenient solutions. The interdependent interconnectivity of a country, across economics, defense, social welfare, health, and the environment (just to name five out of hundreds), means that the president cannot just look to address problems from a bottom-line-what-is-the best-profit-margin result. Largely because that result will only be approved by a small segment of society and rejected by huge swaths of the other segments. So, while admittedly trite and catchy, treating the country like a corporation from the highest office in the land is actually the worst strategy to employ if interested in having a healthy, happy, and safe nation.

So, there you have it. Seven reasons why a President CEO is perhaps destined to create an ineffective and uninspiring presidency. Keep in mind these seven reasons apply to the sub-type ‘CEO.’ It does not take into consideration a specific CEO who may happen to be president at the moment. But if you take these general explanations and apply them to a specific case study, it may just help you understand why these first nine months of 2017 have been so uneven, so inconsistent, and so haphazard. In some ways, it was inevitable and only the American people have themselves to blame.

Dr. Matthew Crosston is Senior Doctoral Faculty in the School of Security and Global Studies at the American Military University and was just named the future Co-Editor of the seminal International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence. His work is catalogued at: https://brown.academia.edu/ProfMatthewCrosston/Analytics

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Americans’ Self-Contradictory Views of Socialized Healthcare

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

On December 3rd, Gallup bannered “Government Favored to Ensure Healthcare, but Not Deliver It” and reported that 57% of Americans say “It is government’s responsibility to see that all have healthcare” but only 40% of Americans want a “government-run” healthcare system to be available to everyone who wants it. In other words: many Americans want other Americans to be forced into corporate and non-profit — privately run — healthcare. Lots of Americans are irrationally rabid against any sort of socialism, even the democratic types of socialism that exist in many European countries such as Sweden, where the quality of healthcare has been proven in international studies to be superior to America’s, and where the per-person cost of healthcare is around half as high as in America. The healthcare industry and its executives and its lobbies and its paid-off politicians have plenty of libertarian fools in America who, by their political participation, make life worse for all other Americans by effectively blocking socialization of the healthcare function. Gallup’s December 3rd poll also found this mental illness, libertarianism, to be especially common among Republicans: Whereas 65% of Democrats endorse universal availability of a government-run healthcare system, just 13% of Republicans do. So, Republican voters are terrific for the drug companies and the rest of the ‘health’care (actually sickness) industries.

Gallup has polled Americans on many questions about healthcare policy. One poll they published 16 May 2016, titled “Majority in U.S. Support Idea of Fed-Funded Healthcare System”, reported that 58% of Americans wanted “Replacing the ACA [Obamacare] with a federally funded healthcare program providing insurance for all Americans.” Only 37% opposed it. A tiny 5% had no opinion. Perhaps that was a high-water mark for the American public’s support of socialization of the healthcare function in America.

On 20 November 2014, Gallup headlined “Majority Say Not Gov’t Duty to Provide Healthcare for All” and reported that, “For the third consecutive year, a majority of Americans (52%) agree with the position that it is not the federal government’s responsibility to ensure that all Americans have healthcare coverage. Prior to the start of Barack Obama’s presidency in 2009, a majority of Americans consistently took the opposite view” (that it’s not government’s responsibility to see that all have healthcare). But if it’s “not the federal government’s responsibility to ensure that all Americans have healthcare coverage” (presumably meaning for all basic healthcare, but not for vanity medical services such as “tucks” and other non-health-related medical services), then even life-saving medical care, and also essential preventive care (which lowers overall medical costs), will be available only to people who can pay for it; other people will just have to die, unless they can find someone (perhaps a relative) who is willing to pay. Of course, this type of system — the “Greed is good” system — will also mean that people die young and that disability-rates, and associated incapacity at work, will be high, and all of this will lower economic productivity. Welcome to the United States! (Of course, it’s lots better than places such as Honduras.)

Is it likely that majorities really do want single-payer, but not from the government? Hardly: a gratuitous addition of stockholders’ profits into the costs for providing essential and economic-productivity-enhancing healthcare services that everyone should have access to if it’s really needed (lawfully prescribed etc.) won’t just distort the incentives to medical-services providers (and so reduce both health and economic productivity), but it will also waste the money of medical consumers (government or otherwise). But what about having ‘non-profit’ firms provide the single-payer services, instead of the democratically accountable government doing that? Non-profits cut out profits, and so eliminate the distortions that stockholders’ wants introduce into the providing of any services (wants such as stockbrokers have, who pump the investments that pay them the highest commissions, which necessarily harms their investors). However, the top executives even of ‘non-profit’ firms can pay themselves whatever their friends who sit on their board of trustees will approve; and so a ‘non-profit’ provider, too, can be, at least to that extent, a scam. (And, of course, in an entirely free market, there is no regulation, and therefore scams will be routine; so, only crooks would want that, anyway. But all the propaganda in the U.S. praises “a free market.”)

These are reasons why the countries that have the highest life-expectancies, and therefore the best health-outcomes, are the same as the countries that have socialized basic healthcare services, paid for normally entirely through taxes and provided to all citizens as a basic human right instead of as a privilege that’s available only to individuals who can afford it. (Of course, “tucks” and such get charged extra to the patient.) The United States has by far the costliest health care in terms of not only what Americans pay for it but in terms of healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP, and yet the U.S. has the lowest life-expectancy of all OECD countries; the U.S. has the most-free-market healthcare, and also the worst healthcare, among all of the economically developed countries — all (except the U.S.) of which provide guaranteed basic healthcare services to all citizens: essential services free as a right, not charged as a privilege. America’s combination of the worst healthcare plus the by-far-costliest healthcare is no coincidence; and healthcare profits in America are the world’s highest; so, the present American system is terrific for those stockholders (whose firms hire the lobbyists and their politicians who write America’s healthcare-laws). Because basic healthcare in the United States is a privilege instead of a right, the U.S. is the only economically developed nation that does not have universal coverage, health insurance for 100% of its citizenry, healthcare as a guaranteed right instead of dependent upon the patient’s ability-to-pay. When Barack Obama entered the White House, the uninsured rate was 14.6%; when he left office it was 10.9%; the insured rate when he started was 85.4%, and it was 89.1% when he left office. His repeated promises of “universal coverage” were blatant lies. His plan was in no way designed for “universal coverage”; that promise was a lie from the very outset.

In the OECD’s “Health at a Glance 2015” (which covers 44 nations), the United States scored at or near the bottom for almost all indicators of healthcare-quality, including: Life expectancy, Access to care, Quality of care, Doctors per capita, and Hospital beds per capita. We were by far the highest on Pharmaceutical expenditure per capita. Oddly, three nations, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary, were exceptionally high in both their heart-disease death-rates and their cancer death-rates; plus their life-expectancies were even lower than America’s, and their most carefully medically calculated measured “Quality of care” rankings were also generally as bad as the United States. However, in the latest calculated year, which is shown there, which was 2013, “Health expenditure per capita” (p. 165) was U.S. $8,713; Switzerland $6,325; UK $3,235; Czech Republic $2,040, Slovak Republic $2,010; and Hungary $1,719. So, America’s was over four times as high as the healthcare costs of some of the other countries in its class — i.e. in the overall worst class. Generally the top-performing nations were: Japan, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Italy, and Switzerland. Switzerland was the second-highest in cost-of-care ($6,325), right below the United States. Norway was third-costliest, $5,862. Sweden was fifth-costliest, $4,904. Japan was 14th-costliest, $3,713. Finland was 17th-costliest, $3,442. Italy was twentieth-costliest, $3,077. The average OECD cost for all the 44 nations was $3,453, which was less than half of America’s obscene $8,713. Whether Obamacare changes any of those U.S. rankings is too early to tell. However, the U.S. is such an extreme “outlier” so that our healthcare system would need to be replaced root-and-branch in order to be competitive with any other nation’s in terms of delivering value-for-the-money, instead of rip-off (which is its existing outlier status — unparalleled by any other country’s, for delivering lousy value). It is so bottom-of-the-barrel, that it is below the barrel. This is by far the world’s most-free-market healthcare system, but our government spends more per-capita on it than do other nations’ governments that pay almost all of their citizens’ healthcare costs. Wow! In fact, as shown in the chart “9.3. Health expenditure as a share of GDP, 2013 (or nearest year)” on page 167 of that OECD report, the U.S. is the only country where the private sector pays more of the nation’s healthcare costs than does the public sector, the government. America is a libertarian’s paradise. No other nation comes anywhere close to that degree of non-governmental providing of the healthcare function. Every other nation has socialized the healthcare-function to a vastly higher extent than the U.S. has. That’s how corrupt America is.

Lots of other countries are more corrupt in the pettier forms of corruption such as bribery, but perhaps few match America’s higher-level, and far more complex, systemic corruption. It benefits only the super-rich, and their lobbyists and other agents.

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump’s Troubles Enter A New More Dangerous Phase

Frank Vogl

Published

on

Surprisingly, it snowed in Washington, but the temperature rose in the White House. So far, the array of investigations centering on president Donald Trump have been prologue. Now, Chapter One is starting to be written.

The president is alarmed. He Tweets in the middle of the night. “No collusion,” is his daily favorite phrase, with “witch hunt” a close second.

He claims that all alone, free of legal advisors, he has written replies to questions from Special Counsel Robert Mueller about Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign and that this ends the Mueller-Trump discourse. Nobody believes the president.

No lawyer would ever allow a client to freelance written answers to investigators. Moreover, the Mueller questions did not relate to what in time may be the central issue of impeachment hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives: Obstruction of justice.

Four distinct threats

As I have previously reported, there are multiple parallel sources of danger for Trump. Right now, he faces four distinct, yet overlapping threats to his political and business fortunes:

  1. More indictments of former Trump friends by Special Counsel Mueller.
  2. A series of high-profile court sentences of former Trump associates who have pleaded guilty to assorted crimes.
  3. A host of investigations to be launched by various committees of the House of Representatives, now that the Democrats have the majority there.
  4. The determination of New York State’s newly elected attorney-general, Letitia James, to go after Trump after she noted in her victory speech: “New Yorkers, we can spot a con man.”

Mueller takes aim

Washington is awash with rumors that Special Counsel Mueller, who has already issued over 30 indictments against individuals related to his investigation of Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign, is about to bring charges against more Trump associates, including just possibly Donald Trump Jr.

Mueller has been investigating whether the Trump campaign was involved in the timing in late 2016 of the publication by Wikileaks of torrents of damaging e-mails from the Hilary Clinton campaign.

A central figure in the inquiry is Roger Stone, an old friend of Trump, and a former partner of Paul Manafort, the one-time 2016 Trump campaign manager, who now faces jail. James Corsi, an associate of Stone, has publicly stated that he expects to be indicted soon. Wikileaks is believed to have obtained the information from Russian hackers.

Related to this inquiry is the pursuit by Mueller of all the events that surrounded a meeting at Trump Tower with Russians said to have close Kremlin ties, involving Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and his brother-in-law Jared Kushner, for the express purpose of securing damaging information on Hilary Clinton.

A volcano of bad publicity

Meanwhile, Trump cannot escape a volcano of bad publicity as his former key associates face judgement in the courts.

On December 12, Michael Cohen, Trump’s former top business lawyer will be sentenced after reaching an extensive plea agreement with prosecutors, which includes the revelation that he lied to Congress about the dealings of the Trump organization in Russia – Cohen now says he was negotiating with top Moscow officials  until June 2016 about building a Trump tower building there and he continuously kept Donald Trump and his family informed. Until now, Trump has always said he had no dealings with the Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Cohen has also provided information to prosecutors about the hush money payments he made just before the election for Trump to cover up alleged affairs with two women.

On December 18, Michael Flynn, the former White House national security chief and former Trump campaign foreign policy advisor, will face court sentencing after having pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his various dealings with Russians in 2016.

And, then on February 9, Paul Manafort, who was found guilty by a jury on various charges of fraud and tax evasion, while he also entered into a plea agreement on charges related to the presidential campaign. Now, Mueller has suddenly announced the plea deal is invalid as he claimed Manafort has consistently lied and Mueller will provide full details to support this claim in the courts before long.

Manafort’s deputy as campaign manager and his former business colleague, Rick Gates, is still cooperating with Mueller and his sentencing date has yet to be set. It seems likely that this may coincide with the conclusion of the Mueller investigation and the finalizing of a comprehensive report.

Attempts by the new acting U.S. attorney-general, Matt Whitaker, to stop the public release of the report would likely be challenged by prominent politicians in both houses of Congress and add to the sense of White House crisis.

Trump’s worst nightmare

Indeed, Congressional investigations may prove to be the worst of all of Trump’s impending nightmares. There are many targets and many members of Congress keen to take aim.

They will go after Whitaker himself, who seems to have been selected by Trump solely on the basis of his many previous public statements deriding the Mueller investigation and whose qualifications as America’s top law enforcer are questionable.

Plans are taking shape for a host of investigations led by the Democratic Party majority in the House of Representatives, including: the alleged unethical conflict-of-interest activities of several of Trump’s cabinet members.

These include the secretaries of Interior, Commerce, Environment and possibly Treasury, and the business profits made by the firms that are still controlled by Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, despite both of them being on the government’s payroll as White House advisors.

There is also the issue of expenses for security that the U.S. government has as Donald Trump Jr. travels the world promoting the Trump brand – his trip to India alone is said to have involved around $100,000 in taxpayer cash.

And, of course, there will be several House investigations, including public hearings, which explicitly relate to the alleged multiple connections between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russians, including Trump business dealings.

Letitia James enters the stage

Now, as the curtain goes up on the made-for-Broadway drama, “The Decline and Fall of Donald Trump,” so Letitia James enters the stage.

The first African-American woman to be New York state’s leading prosecutor declared as her election victory was announced: “We can spot a carnival barker. I will shine a light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings, and every dealing.”

It is just plain old good politics for Ms. James to secure as much publicity as she can by targeting Trump and her sights will be on the tax returns that the president refuses to make public, the international sources of funding that the Trump organization has tapped over the years, as well as alleged fraud by the Trump foundation.

All of these events combined will dominate Washington politics for months to come. As the facts emerge and as Trump’s troubles mount, so the number of Democratic Party politicians to announce plans to run for president in the 2020 elections will multiply — but that’s another story.

The original version of this article was first published by TheGlobalist on November 21, 2018 and subsequently by SALON.com – this is an updated article.

Continue Reading

Americas

Shapers of America: The Role of George H. W. Bush in Foreign Policy Making

Published

on

Authors: Srimal Fernando and Pooja Singh*

The sad news on Friday of Former US President George .H. Bush’s death at the age of 94 spread all over the world in no time. His lasting legacy on the US political system and his accomplishments during his presidency from 1989 to 1993 touches nearly everyone. Former President Obama also paid tribute, saying: “America has lost a patriot and humble servant in George Herbert Walker Bush” While our hearts are heavy today, they are also filled with gratitude”.

In 1989 when Vice President Bush assumed power, his foreign Policy strategy was unfamiliar to the world. For the next four years, his administration tried to make the best out of the bad, often impossible task to change the course of United States (US) relations with former Soviet Union (USSR) and Warsaw bloc nations. Apart from diplomatic efforts his Presidency focused on economic diplomacy.  The signing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) transformed trade ties with the trading bloc. Former President Bush addressing one of his key speeches on trade, in 6 February 1989 e stated, “We don’t want an America that is closed to the world. What we want is a world that is open to America”

Bush senior was a modern American Foreign policy architect credited for ending of the Cold War. Hence looking back it was a moment for celebration and pride when George Bush was chosen as Vice President during Regan’s two-termed presidency.  It was apparent as President Bush laid out policy approach of overcoming numerous national security and diplomatic challenges. However, his major foreign policy   problems from the start had been the Soviet Union (USSR) and integration of East European nations into the European Union (EU). It took full four years and turned to be as one of the most rigorous consultative processes in the US- USSR relations. In fact, soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the meeting was held between George Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev on the Mediterranean island of Malta. The collaborative diplomacy between the two superpowers with considerable negotiations between Bush and Gorbachev in reducing the nuclear warheads during the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) -1 and 2 had its cost. Having the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) as the prime subject of summit and the arrangement took nine years in taking the real shape.  Comparatively START -1 was the main understanding since the marking of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by Reagan and Gorbachev in 1987. The idea behind conducting a summit on START is to lessen the percentage of nuclear weapons of both the United States (US) and the USSR by about 35 percent in more than seven years down the line.

During this period, there was intense debate about the meaning and scope of new foreign ties with Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS ) states, East European nations and the expansion of NATO agenda over the former Warsaw led nations. A crucial element in these changing pictures was US’s shift on the status question with former Soviet Union (USSR) nations, after the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1991.

Unexpected summer of 1990 turned out to be a testing time for his presidency on the Iraqi invasion by Saddam Hussein. The question was much concern and caused debate. Hence, the events in the oil rich Kuwait attracted considerable global attention. On 17 January 1991 early in the morning where the allied forces launched their first attack that included in excess of 4,000 bombings owned by coalition aircrafts and   a month later on 24th February a large scale invasion pushed by the allied forces liberated Kuwait. The US led Gulf war and liberation of Kuwait was highly sensitive issue and wreaked Bush’s Presidency. In 1992, President Bush of the Republican Party lost to Bill Clinton of Democratic Party in Presidential elections.

Over the decades after retirement from Presidency, there has been an opposing view on his presidency. In 2011 it was another turning point in US political history where Bush seniors son George. W Bush junior   became the 43rd President, which only happened twice after John Adam’s son who also served as US president. During his presidency, Bush senior along with Clinton toured tsunami-hit nations. In 2011 the much-loved peoples President was honored with the Medal of Freedom, the most astounding US non-military personnel respect granted by then President Obama.

It is a powerful reminder of the manifold ways his presidential influence go beyond the scope of America and well beyond the first world nations essentially shaping   global foreign policy   mandate. When America fell silent on the sad demise of George H. W. Bush, many Americans and the international community might have felt they lost a hero. Yet Bush’s legacy represents the aspirations, the hopes of the American people and the global community. Perhaps these beliefs and values can build a more tolerant and respectful global society in the near future.

*Pooja Singh, a scholar of Masters in Diplomacy, Law, Business at Jindal School of International Affairs, India.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy