WI: A Businessman President?

There have been quite a few attempts for a Businessman to become President. Such was the case with Ross Perot in 92 and 96, Trump briefly, and Herman Cain now. These men have generally run on something to the effect that they would run the nation like they run their businesses, and thus run the nation more efficiently and straighten things out better than career politicians would. So let's put that to the test.

What if a Businessman, either totally from the private sector with no political experience (such as Perot or Cain), or (though I prefer the former scenario for this discussion) someone whose had some political experience but is primarily a bussinessman (such as William Randolph Hearst) became President of the United States? How successful and effective would a President who ran the country like the owner or CEO of a Corporation be, and what policies would such a man put into place and pursue?
 
Man, that really does depend on the man -- I can't really think of anything that would unite how men of such divergent views as Hearst, Disney, Perot, Trump, and Cain would actually run the country...
 
Man, that really does depend on the man -- I can't really think of anything that would unite how men of such divergent views as Hearst, Disney, Perot, Trump, and Cain would actually run the country...

Well the core idea is how would someone who would run the nation like a CEO runs a Corporation, because they're coming from the Private Sector, run the nation?
 
One could say that Mitt Romney is running for President on his business credentials. He's also saying that he's a successful business owner, but he doesn't talk much about the four years he spent as Governor of Massachusetts, for obvious reasons. He didn't hold any other political office besides that one, so I suppose he's sort of forced to run on business credentials alone for the most part.
 
I feel like the results wouldn't be good. Especially if someone like Henry Ford became POTUS.
 
The set of objectives to be reached in running a company and running a country are so vastly different that I do not see any advantage of a business experience, except maybe generic leadership skills.
 
it depends on the man

some people like Steve Jobs and Donald Trump were/are known to be tyrants in terms of management whereas people like Alan Mulally and Jamie Dimon are perceived to be consensus builders

I would imagine the later would be more effective in politics because they can't fire or totally ignore their detracters
 
I think the general advantage that the 'businessmen' are perceived to have is the "I had to make a profit, so I'm better than politicians" subtext.

Problem is, being elected removes the constraint that you have to make a profit (not a real constraint anyway - look at all the executives who've gotten huge bonuses in years their companies lost money).

In short, I see no reason a businessman would do any better than anyone else once they actually got into office. Their campaign promises would probably have more substance, but I don't see any reason to believe they'd follow through on them any better than regular politicians.

Modern US executives also seem to be of the 'rob tomorrow to show a profit today' mindset to a frightening degree. I'm SURE we don't need any more of that in government.
 
Top