Presidents Need Both CEO and Foreign Renations Experience

Our entire world view can be permanently altered merely by moving from non-boss to boss! It is that drastic a change. The level of decision making and of responsibility is the greatest, however, for the boss of bosses, the CEO (Chief Executive Officer.)

Every organization has to have a CEO. Why? Simply because very few organizations can be run by a committee. Ultimately, there must be one person in charge, to make the ultimate decisions and bear the ultimate responsibility for thair decisions. That is why being CEO can sometimes kill you.

To be done well, being CEO has to become an ingrained habit. There is awkwardness at first, and many errors. So we like to move CEOs up from smaller to larger positions. That way, their CEO habits gradually expand to handle greater responsibilities. Moving up is a vetting process. At each upward move, we can see who to weed out and who to promote.

Some CEOs make weightier decisions. Being CEO of a speaker's club does not compare to being the CEO of a police department. Why? More is at stake. More hangs in the balance. Errors cost more.

The President of the United States bears more responsibility, has more power, and can do more harm, than any CEO in the world. So we like our Presidents to already have proven CEO experience, with CEO habits of thought and action, on "Day One" of their Presidency..

We often elevate Governors to President. State governments are in many ways smaller versions of the federal government, so there are many parallels. While business leaders have CEO habits, the organizations they run are less similar to the U.S. government, so there is not the same fit as for governors.

Then our President also needs foreign relations experience. Most countries have more foreign relation experience than they want! We have had less. The U.S. is so isolated by geography that we have ignored most other countries for long periods of time. Our history has been "foreign relations by fits and starts," with relatively little continuous experience outside crisis periods. It has been said that "Wars happen to teach geography to Americans!"

Governors and CEOs of very large businesses may have some foreign relations experience if they are large or strategic enough to negotiate with foreign governments.

Senators and members of Congress may have considerable exposure to foreign relations if they have traveled abroad extensively enough on fact-finding tours, or if they sit on Foreign Relations Committees, and if they have really paid attention, over a long period of time.

Being in the Senate or Congress, however, is not a CEO experience. Just the opposite. Legislators must make joint decisions. They cannot make effective decisions without the collaboration of a majority of other legislators. So they are accustomed to joint rather than solo decisions - the wrong training to be a CEO.

So what are our choices in the 2008 Presidential elections, in terms of getting a President with CEO experience, foreign relations experience, and experience in general?

In one party, we have two Senators. The Presidential candidate has no CEO experience and no substantial foreign relations experience. There is also almost no Senate experience, as he has been running for President for most of his one term in the Senate, rather than spending much time on Senate business. The Vice Presidential candidate has no CEO experience, but considerable foreign relations experience. He also has many years of Senate experience.

In the other party, we have a Senator and a Governor. The Presidential candidate has conserable foreign relations experience and also many years of Senate experience. In addition, he has had CEO experience in the military, becoming commander of a Naval air squadron in Florida in 1976, where "he turned around an undistinguished unit and won the squadron its first Meritorius Unit Commendation." * The Governor has some interaction with Russia, but otherwise little foreign relations experience. She has been Governor only 1 1/2 years, but a very activist, decisive governor during that time. In addition, she had previous CEO experience as mayor of a small town.**

What difference does all this make? In one party, the Presidential candidate has no CEO and almost no foreign relations experience, as well as little Senate experience. His Vice President has no CEO, but considerable foreign relations experience, and long Senate experience in general.

In the other party, the Presidential candidate has some CEO plus considerable foreign relations experience, plus long Senate experience in general. His Vice President has significant CEO experience but almost no foreign relations experience.

How would that work out if they won? The President, as Chief Executive, would have to make CEO and foreign relations decisions from Day One. The Vice President would not. The Vice President could help him with decisions, if asked and if the V.P. were experienced enough.

How important would the Vice President be? Very important, in the first party. He would be the one with all the experience. Less important, in the second party. She would have more CEO experience. But the President would have some CEO experience, and much more foreign policy experience.

Is there time for on-the-job training? Not much, for the President. Events will not wait. He has to jump in immediately.

But the Vice President would have a lot of time, hopefully, unless the President died or was incapacitated and the V.P. had to assume the Presidency. The V.P could have been prepared for the Presidency by the President, if he had worked toward that. Some Presidents have done that, and some have not. Roosevelt did not, and Truman was woefully unprepared, except by his Senate experience. Clinton and Bush II did better at familiarizing their V.P. with the President's job, assigning important tasks to them and keeping them in the information loop.

So we have, in one party, a Presidential candidate with neither CEO nor foreign policy experience. His V.P has foreign policy experience but no CEO experience. Theoretically, he could tutor his President in foreign policy, but could not impart to him either the facts or habits needed by a CEO. Would a President have time to be trained by his V.P.? Would he even accept the training?

In the other party, we have a Presidential candidate with some CEO experience and rich foreign policy experience. His V.P. has more CEO experience, but almost no foreign policy experience. Would he have time to train her in foreign affairs? Would he make the effort? Judging by the health, strength and intelligence of his 96 year old mother, it looks like a good bet that he would have the time. Hopefully, he would make the effort

Who will decide between them? That would be us, the voters.

_________________

* See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain#Commanding_officer.2C_liaison_to_Senate.2C_and_second_marriage After that, he served as Navy Liason to the Senate until elected to the Senate in 1982.

** She also served as Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

Shattering the Mold - Gov. Sarah Palin

First Impressions:

We know she is a hugely popular (80% favorables) reform Governor of Alaska. We know she is Senator John McCain's choice for running mate. But who is she? You can look her up on Wikipedia. But this is how she struck me.

She is refreshingly direct. Though a real beauty, she gives a strong impression of plainness - plain in speech, action and thought. She could be doing her own hair! It seeps through that she is an athlete, pilot and outdoors woman, used to wilderness hunting and fishing, and small town life. It is hard to imagine her in a mansion or exclusive club. Her energy seems to spill over, though she is married with 5 kids including a baby, as well as being a very activist governor. She also seems sharp, intelligent and no-nonsense, yet at the same time, approachable and informal. Totally, totally unpretentious.

Her husband Todd is a big guy, an event-dominating champion athlete as well as professional fisherman and oil field worker. He left his long-time oil field work to avoid any hint of favoritism between his company and his governor-wife. Now he takes care of their children while his wife runs the state. He likes that.

Trig, their fifth child who was born in April, is a Down's Syndrome child. They knew that before he was born, and wanted to have him anyhow. "So he has an extra gene," she said. "He looks perfect to me."

Somehow, I just hope Margaret Thatcher has already had the pleasure of hearing about her!

Michael Phelps - New Hope for ADD Kids

Michael Phelps told the interviewer about being an ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) kid, in a long magazine article a couple of years ago. He simply had incredible surplus energy. He told about how he would check in at home after school, then leave for the park. There hs would tear around, trying to burn off as much energy as he could, so that when he returned home, his behavior would not exhaust his mom. Pretty insughtful for a kid, obviously. And pretty considerate of his mom too.

Then came the big revelation. Michael did not tire like other athletes. His energy just did not stop. He was one of those rare athletes who could do more than one major swimming event in one day's time. If fact, he sometimes did more than two in one day! He seemed not to get tired, not in the way the other athletes did. His energy came right back.

Think what that means. Many believe that kids are often misdiagnosed as being ADD when they are not, and medicated when they should not be. Most ADD kids are boys - who are often more energetically active than girls anyhow - and whose energy and restlessness may be disruptive in a classroom.

But what Michael's case shows is that many of them may simply be exceptional, super-charged future athletic champions. How many more "Michael Phelps kids" are out there, controlled by ADD medications rather than working out until they drop? It may be that what many ADD kids need to be doing is working exceptionally hard to become champions, rather than being medically quieted down.

Today Michael told an interviewer that as an ADD kid, he didn't want to take the medications. Instead, he asked his parents to let him burn up energy by working out hard at the pool. That was the start of his sizzling-fast surge to championship. Michael was just 15 at his first Olympics. Now, at age 23, he is already being called "The Greatest Olympian," with 11 lifetime gold medals - more than anyone in Olympic history. He may even win more before these Olympics close..

Smart coaches looking for young potential champs would do well, it seems, to look among ADD kids in the future. Rather than a handicap, an ADD label may actually indicate great possibilities for unusual success.

If so, Michael Phelps' incredible achievements in swimming could someday be eclipsed by what he has added to our understanding of the strange phenomenon of ADD, and even of some possible great advantages.

So The Old Russia Is Back

It will be awhile before the smoke clears and better-verified information comes in about Russia's attack on Georgia. With apparent efforts to obscure the record, we may never have an undisputed view of what really happened. But so far, this is what seems to have happened.

The situation in South Ossetia was bad. There had been considerable firing from the South Ossetian town of Tskhinvali into the Georgian villages in the hills around, killing and injuring people and destroying property. The Georgian government tried to stop it peacefully, but without success.

Although South Ossetia is legally a part of Georgia, it is inhabited by Russians who were moved in by Stalin, in an effort to tie the area more tightly to Russia. These people carry Russian passports, and have a sign outside Tskhinvali saying "Putin is our President." They would not stop firing from the city into the Georgian villages above. So Georgian troops finally went in to stop them.

That was legally justified, but probably ill-advised. In fact, many commentators think it was all set up as a provocation by the Russians, to give them a pretext to invade. There is growing evidence that Russia in fact had planned this invasion months ago, quietly rebuilding a defunct railroad to enable them to bring military vehicles and troops into Georgia, around the one tunnel connecting Russia to Georgia through the mountains.

When the Russians poured into South Ossetia last week, the Georgian troops retreated back into Georgia, and the President announced a cease fire. Apparently the Georgians observed the cease fire, but the Russians did not accept it.

With control of the airspace, the Russians bombed heavily from the first day. Their bombs cannot be well-aimed, and have destroyed much buildings, infrastructure and lives. In fact, this seems to have been done on purpose.

For instance, when the Russians neared Gori, a city 40 miles from Georgia's capital, the Georgian army vacated Gori long before the Russians arrived. Western reporters broadcast from Gori, saying that it was an empty city. No Georgian troops anywhere, and few remaining civilians. The city had been vacated. Yet the Russians then bombed it heavily, destroying much of the city - a move which seemed meant solely as punishment, as they did not have to do battle or bomb to capture the city. At this point it looks like pure brutality, without excuse of any military necessity.

Now they are demanding the resignation of the Georgian President, saying they cannot do business with him.

Georgia is a democracy, with a freely-elected government. It also is one of the few countries to send troops to help us in Iraq.

This is all too much like the way that World War II began. Apparently the old Russian KGB has had a resurrection and now seems to be running Russia. See http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2008/0808.html)

All in all, it has become urgent to take a new look at Russia. We cannot go on relating to Russia as we have been.