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.
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.
posted by Old Neocon at 8:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home