TNR’s Clay Risen had a good piece today exploring the notion of the CEO political leader. In Bush’s case, the president was supposed to use his MBA, a first in presidential history, to run the nation like a business and be the CEO President. Except, as we now know, that never worked out for Bush, in part because he embodies the qualities of an abysmally bad chief executive.
Risen, however, suggests Bush didn’t necessarily fail because he’s a bad CEO; the strategy failed because people don’t really want like CEO-like leadership in politics.
[T]he sentiment among Bush’s fiscally conscious critics seems to be that if he had only applied his Harvard Business School training a little better — if he had built a strong team, balanced the budget sheet, and marketed his plans and achievements — he would now be surfing a crest of popularity into the fall elections.
Except, as Risen argues, that’s completely wrong. Risen cites the example of Bush’s former OMB director, Mitch Daniels, who was elected governor of Indiana and became the CEO leader Bush promised to be. He cut spending, outsourced state jobs, ended collective bargaining for government employees, and remade state government “in the corporate image.” Voters hated it — and Daniels’ approval ratings have tanked.
Running government “like a business” sounds nice. It conjures images of efficiency, customer service, and profit. There’s even some notion of accountability through shareholders and a board of directors. But applied to government, something gets lost in the translation.
[W]hile most voters like the sound of “running government like a business,” they blanch at its implications: weakened collective bargaining, massive outsourcing of government services, deep cuts in state jobs. Business’s bottom line is the bottom line; government’s bottom line is the health and welfare of its citizens.
It’s a good point.