Why are some here still willing to consider businessmen with no government experience?

[question everything]

Yes, I am talking about Yang and Steyer. No doubt, both are progressive with great ideas. Philanthropists even.

But the White House, as we've seen, should not be a training ground. Especially for individuals who have owned their own businesses, who have made decisions on their own and expected their employees to follow them without questions.

Why, because this is the way successful businesses run. The owners are not answerable to anyone, not even a board of directors or shareholders that CEOs of public companies are. (Except, of course, they have to follow the law and regulations, if applicable).

They will look at Congress and federal agencies as distractions. They probably will surround themselves with 'YES' men and women who would follow them no question asked.

After all, this is how the current occupant, that so many voted for him because they thought that a "businessman" is what we needed, got elected.

And he sees Congress as hindrance. He makes a decision and changes his mind. He has private meetings with heads of states and does not think that he has to provide an account of these.

And, really. there are currently 24 credible - more or less - candidates. (In 2016 there were 1780).

Twenty of them have held office as elected Democrats. Why, with such a diverse, skilled field do we have to look outside the ones who have proven themselves worthy of votes, many in Trump country?

And if the final nominee is not a Democrat, or someone with no government experience, why should we expect the rest of the country to accept him (or her?)

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Great point and as I said on the other thread, I dont want them.

Diametrically opposed viewpoints are held by business and government, it is WHY we have government in the first place in a capitalist nation, to CHECK the capitalists who more often than not prove to be greedy and uncaring about the people or environment around them.

There are some good corps or business, Costco for example But most are in need of government supervision.

[JI7]

2. the fact they don't run for lower office is a huge turn off for me

and Tom Steyer isn't saying anything that others haven't said.

i still want to know why he is not supporting Warren.

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. Maddening, to have all that money and not use it to ASSURE election of a sane patriot so as to

remove an insane traitor.

If I had his money I would go to the DNC and say here is a billion dollars, do what you need to do with it.

[Mike 03]

32. +100

[George II]

5. About 15 years ago we had a guy locally who decided to run for office. Not for an office...

...in town, or even Mayor, or even State Representative - he went STRAIGHT for State Senator*. He got his ass handed to him. Tried it again two years later, lost even worse. We haven't heard from him since.

*I should point out that he was a "life long" Democrat, switched to the republican party to run. Second huge mistake.

[Thekaspervote]

3. Yes, haven't we seen enough of that!!

[msongs]

6. a person who has never been accountable to an electorate is suspect IMO nt

[hlthe2b]

7. Your original post disappeared (perhaps it was in GD)? Here was my planned reply:

I want someone with major applicable experience. That said, I can understand why many see
this argument as "apples and oranges" since Dems are not putting up a GWBush* and certainly not a Trump--both who were clearly not bringing either applicable experience nor anything but ideology (Bush*) or Trump's malignant narcissism and showman's manipulation skills to the table.

Both Yang and Steyer are intelligent and not just spewing BS. They are well-informed--perhaps not as much as our lead candidates, but certainly acceptably so. Intelligent people who are not malignant narcissists tend to bring other intelligent, competent people along with them, so it is not out of the question that they could and would bring highly effective governance to the table. That said, not KNOWING Congress, not KNOWING all the government agencies, structures, and legalities puts them at a definite disadvantage.

So, I understand why some see these two and think, well, maybe. My argument against them is that we have soooo much damage from Trump's term that it is imperative that we have someone who can quickly get the right people in these agencies to turn things around. There will be no "honeymoon" period. They simply MUST be ready to go well before inauguration day.

[Tipperary]

8. Good post.

[question everything]

9. I probably should have added that these individuals can certainly serve the country

in the cabinet, or in other federal agencies, even ambassadors.

But the transition from an absolute decider to the first among equals will cost us.

[mucifer]

10. I was against Governor Prtizker of IL in the primary. He is a billiionaire

He is doing all sorts of liberal things in IL that really surprised me. He has a progressive tax proposal he is heavily pushing, we got legalized marijuana with a progressive law regarding expungement of previous arrests and progressive regarding the business behind it. He signed a law that all single bathrooms in businesses have to be all gender. He got huge transportation capital bill, a funding public education bill (pretty much the opposite of Alaska's education bill), expanding abortion rights. More restrictions on guns, $15 minimum wage bill.

I am sure I am leaving something out there is a lot. It helps we have a big dem majority in the state legislature. We do have a huge budget deficit. So all is not great here.

Lots of billionaires are evil. I voted for the liberal University of Chicago math Professor Daniel Biss. He does not have a lot of money. Even Daniel Biss says he's impressed with Pritzker and what he has done. I do wonder if Biss would have had the political skill to get what Pritzker got passed.

So prove me wrong about my governor and tell me why he a billionaire businessman should not be in politics.

[brush]

19. The OP seems to be judging businessmen who became president against W Bush and trump...

two of the dumbest, worst modern presidents ever, and not co-incidentally, both were abject failure at business.

That is not fair to successful businessmen who have to surround themselves with good people to be successful through delegation of tasks, among other skills.

The two successful businesmen before W Bush and trump were Democrats Carter and Truman—both not bad presidents.

[question everything]

34. Carter was the governor of GA; Truman was a senator from MO and then of course a VP

And, really, I don't think that we can draw much parallel from the previous century. Still..

[brush]

39. They were both businessment before though. And hiring/appointing of staff and delegation...

are key skills needed in business and politics.

We certainly can't judge all businessmen/women by the failures of trump and W Bush.

[question everything]

40. But they did not jump directly to run for president

This is where many comments here say: first run for mayor, or member of Congress, or a senator. Carter, too, was a state senator.

I have nothing against businessmen per se. I just think that first they need to gain experience as elected official, humbly working with others even the ones that they loath, negotiate and, yes, compromise.

[brush]

41. It's up to you who you vote for. It's up to whoever runs for president to declare/run. If Wang...

or Steyer somehow get the nomination that's that. It's not as if Pres. Obama had any time in an executive position, having been an attorney, organizer, state rep and US senator. He was never a governor or mayor but he turned out pretty good.

I say let them make their case. Wank especially, with his guaranteed income proposal, has already demonstrated a good understanding of how to boost the economy.

[question everything]

22. The next president will have to start be restoring the presidency and our democracy

to the way it should be. S/he will have to have the experience on how the executive branch works with the other two. Even if from a municipal or a state office. Will have to know many of the players in Congress. Will have to know how the agencies work.

I am sure that Pritzker and others who just jumped to an office did not have to face these tasks.

And, no, I am not against "evil billionaires." I am against the White House, the highest office in the land be used as a training field.

[SouthernProgressive]

11. I'm open to considering one.

I’m not currently considering one.

[IronLionZion]

12. Before Trump, Eisenhower was the last president to have not been elected to prior office

Yang and Steyer are polling low enough that you shouldn't be too worried. They're not getting nearly as much attention as Trump got at this point in the campaign.

People have also made the argument that executive experience (like a governor) is better than legislative experience. The last Senator elected president was Obama. Presidents without legislative experience were W. Bush and Clinton.

Either way, Dem voters will decide. The top polling candidates are all legislators. A president with executive experience and VP with legislative experience sounds like a good combination, but that also describes Trump and Pence.

[question everything]

35. I know I should not be worried about either getting the nomination

but I am worried that a relatively large number here, among political junkies, want them. Does this mean disillusionment with our party, enough for many to stay home, again?

I hope not.

[IronLionZion]

37. I hope our side has learned from past mistakes and nobody stays home this time

I wouldn't worry about losing Dem votes if we don't nominate a businessman. Those candidates are mainly promoting their bold ideas to include into future policy or legislation in our party, not to win the election.

[thesquanderer]

13. re: "And if the final nominee is not a Democrat..."

According to the DNC, everyone running in the Democratic Primary has met the qualifications necessary to call themselves Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

14. I am not willing to support such a candidate in the primary.

[dsc]

15. I completely agree

Yes, both of them are at least decent businessmen but the skill sets are utterly different. Neither have shown any knowledge at all as to how government works or ability to make government work. In terms of experience and skills I think Inslee is the best but sadly most people apparently disagree with me in that regard. Of the three I think have a real chance (Warren, Biden, and Harris) I think Warren is most prepared, Biden 2nd, and Harris 3rd. Unfortunately Steyer can't be counted out since he has enough money to buy an organization in the early states. I do think he would be very problematic in office.

[Doodley]

16. There are no lessons to be learned from Trump as president.

He was incompetent as a businessman. He inherited a fortune from his father and squandered it in bad deals. He cheated, lied and exaggerated all his life to a degree that is unfair to compare to Yang and Steyer.

Building a business up from the ground is good training to be president. I have very little doubt that both Yang and Steyer would be excellent presidents. I don't see being a professional politician as providing more relevant qualifications.

What do the candidates have to show as people of good character? What have they done for others? These things are important to me. What are their ideas now and their values?

If they are self-made millionaires or billionaires (unless they are a deadbeat like Trump), they have probably proven they can develop winning ideas and strategies and lead and negotiate to see those things implemented. What are their relationships like with their employees? Do they treat them well? And their business partners and all other stakeholders? Have they been socially responsible? I don't see a person who has shown drive, initiative and leadership to build a successful business as a negative. They show a contrast to Trump who is a pretend businessman, bailed out by dodgy business practices and creditors.

[greyl]

17. Yang just did a great job with Don Lemon,

giving excellent answers that most any Democratic candidate could use. He's not my choice, but very happy he'll be in the next debate.

[brush]

18. W Bush and trump, the last two repug businessmen who became president are decidedly not the...

Last edited Wed Aug 14, 2019, 11:19 AM - Edit history (1)

sharpest knives in any drawer. They are both dummies and are considered the worst two modern presidents, if not the worst all time.

One thing GOOD businessmen know how to do is to surround themselves with smart people and delegate. I would be willing to say Yang and Steyer know this as they have been successful at business. W and trump have been anything but successful at business.

Selecting a staff and cabinet would be the first step towards delegation. I would take a chance on a successful businessman being able to handle that better than the two recent dummy repug businessmen that have become president.

And looking back in modern political history there haven't been many businessmen who became president so judging other potential businessmen with the examples set forth by trump and W, well, they couldn't do worse. In fact, IIRC the last two Dem presidents who were businessmen were Carter and Truman, both not horrible presidents.

[question everything]

23. Didn't Yang, in the last debate, complain about media coverage?

Successful businessmen often rely on their own decision making and will not tolerate dissenting ideas or criticism.

This is why Trump has been complaining about the media and, it appears, Yang tends to go there, too.

[brush]

25. Complaining about not getting called on in the debate is the same to you as what trump does?

[YOHABLO]

20. Why do we elect Presidents with no military experience, and they become the Commander in Chief?

Why do we elect Presidents with absolutely no knowledge of the Constitution, yet they're sworn to defend it?

[BeckyDem]

21. Excellent OP. I have zero interest in seeing any buisness man who is also a billionaire

run for POTUS.

[IrishEyes]

24. I totally agree. Thank you for saying it.

Of the 24 current candidates in the democratic primary, 21 have served or are serving. 4 as mayors, 7 as senators, 6 as congressman, 3 as governors and 1 as vice president. Some have served more than one kind of office. If Steyer, Yang and Williamson want to serve in political office then they should run for a smaller office. Going from no experience to president is not a good idea.

If any of them are the democratic nominee I will support them fully. I have nothing against them personally and they have good ideas. However, I won't vote for Williamson, Steyer or Yang in the primary.

[mathematic]

26. Yang was a small businessman and is not a serious candidate

By "serious" I mean he's not running to win. He's running to get his ideas out there. He's not running to attack or undermine the legit candidates. If that changes then I'll change my mind on yang.

Steyer is a billionaire and he's trying to buy the nomination. Obviously he's running to win and I agree he should be treated as a hostile debate presence.

Also, in one of your responses here you mentioned yang attacked the media in the last debate. I agree that attacking the media is generally bad form but the only thing I remember him saying was that the debates were being treated as reality show entertainment instead of with the seriousness they deserve. This is a position I agree with. People that think they should be entertained by politics and government are part of how we got trump.

[spooky3]

27. I believe Steyer is as committed to his principles

and reasons for running as anyone. He donated a lot of money to get out the vote in 2018 and to try to convince voters to support impeaching Trump, long before he declared a candidacy.

[question everything]

36. We can be enriched by having both in the discussion

but, please, not Williamson.

But if they are in the debate, they take space of others who have proven their effectiveness in running offices like Bullock and, yes, Ryan and Moulton.

It would be nice if a cable network can have small group discussions of several of them. Just to sit and discuss different issues. No timer, no "how to you reply to X?" etc. After all, they have 24 hours to fill.

In 2008, I think, CNN once had three of them talking about their faith, or something.


Good dreams, I know..

[dlk]

28. It's Amazing How Many Americans Don't Understand the Many Differences Between Government & Business

They operate very differently and success in one area doesn’t automatically translate well to the other.

[Wounded Bear]

30. About the same number who think the gov't budget is just like their household budget...

[dlk]

42. One of the Many Reason a Successful Democracy Requires a Well-Educated People

Ignorance is damaging in so many ways.

[Wounded Bear]

29. I certainly don't...

It is my experience, through living and reading some history, that 'businessmen' in general have been among the very worst of our presidents.

[mtnsnake]

31. Most likely it's because

there are a significant percentage of Democratic voters who are still uncertain enough about any of the "government experienced" candidates that they would consider an outsider if they feel that that outsider has a better chance of beating Trump than any of the other candidates.

[question everything]

38. Agree, and it scares me

especially on these page where DUers should know better.

I remember all the "traditional Republicans" - David Brooks, George Will, the WSJ editorial board - and others, were so certain that Trump would not win. By the end the party leadership could not decide who was scarier or more loathsome: Trump or Cruz.

[Politicub]

33. Great point -- government is not a business and should not be run as such

It should never be thought of as an enterprise which seeks to turn a profit. That is the definition of modern business and that kind of thinking has no place in government affairs.

And those without public service experience have too steep of a learning curve to be effective. We need people with relationships with other public-service professionals who know how to run government departments because those departments need to be rebuilt.

We need someone who can hit the ground running on day one. Righting the ship will take every second of every day.