Should public office be limited to business executives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vonsalza
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vonsalza

Guest
My brother in law and I were having a nice dinner and he proposed that the only people who should run for office are those who have operated some sort of business at the decision-making level.

While this sounds good prima facie, I quickly came to the realization that such people do not actually represent most Americans. Moreover, such a requirement would ban teachers, police officers, social workers and the entire cast & crew of non-executive private enterprise from holding public office.

But IT WOULD limit office to those with experience forcing balanced budgets.

What say you?
 
Last edited:
Having managerial experience and budget vs objectives responsibility hardly equates to being independently wealthy.

I agree in principle with your brother, this is experience we should look for in candidates.

I’ll give you an extreme example, Obama had never held an organizational leadership role where he had to hire and fire a number of employees and be measured on the success of his strategy.

We then put him in charge of the largest employer in the US.

FYI, running a non-profit provides equally valuable managerial and budgeting experience, though the connection between revenue and activity is a bit disconnected.
 
Last edited:
No. Because then we become a plutocracy at best, and an oligarchy at worst.

No. Because then we limit government to only people with specific interests.

No. Because the goals and methods of government are different from the goals and methods of private enterprise.
 
Last edited:
Good heavens, no. We have to realize that statecraft is a thing, not just any Joe Schmoe can do it.
 
An interesting thought, at that, and I’ve heard a variation of it before, by a liberal.

If everyone had to pay some taxes, even people in the zero tax bracket, and people on public assistance, they’d have some “skin in the game” and they’d have to weigh that in their vote. That is, they might not automatically vote for the person or party that wants to raise taxes on everyone else.
 
Apologies if the thread title is a bit misleading.

In my anecdotal experience, those who successfully manage budgets at an organizational level and “the independently wealthy” are generally the same folks.

Mea culpa.
 
Vonsalza said:
In my anecdotal experience, those who successfully manage budgets at an organizational level and “the independently wealthy” are generally the same folks.

Mea culpa.
Click to expand...
While I agree there is a high overlap, at leas
Vonsalza said:
In my anecdotal experience, those who successfully manage budgets at an organizational level and “the independently wealthy” are generally the same folks.

Mea culpa.
Click to expand...
I agree there is a high overlap, at least among people who have earned their wealth (not inherited). But there are far more people who have not sought wealth but have had serious positions and learned how to manage people, budgets, and projects to successful outcomes.

If you interpret what your in-law said to only apply to the wealthy, you have created a strawman.
 
Theo520 said:
If you interpret what your in-law said to only apply to the wealthy, you have created a strawman.
Click to expand...
Not likely.

We both come from families where, professionally, then men historically answer to no one except “Their wives and Jesus”. As such, that almost certainly was the paradigm from which he approached it.

But I do see your point.
 
Thing is, a government is not a business. Governmental leaders need to have business-minded people on the team, but, statecraft is far more than balance sheets.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Thing is, a government is not a business. Governmental leaders need to have business-minded people on the team, but, statecraft is far more than balance sheets.
Click to expand...
State craft is for the Dept of State, or were you thinking of political savvy? Also, how much experience do you have in business?

It goes without saying that you won’t get elected without that political savvy, but it’s not enough. You need some experience in actually running things and getting results, you can’t just delegate it.
 
Last edited:
Or, given the disasters created by a business executive who was elected to the highest of public offices, maybe the question asked should be, " Should business executives be prohibited from assuming public office?".…hmmm…probably will start a good dialogue here, but on the World News page, you can bet the regulars would be losing their minds!
 
HolySpirit said:
Obviously, you flunked High School Civics and World History. (Or you are under 25 and went to public school
Click to expand...
I’m 30 years old with some college education as a Radar Approach Controller in the United States Air Force.

Obviously, all you can do is toss around ad hominem’s and non sequitur’s because you have nothing of substance to offer to the conversation.
 
HolySpirit said:
Obviously, you flunked High School Civics and World History. (Or you are under 25 and went to public school.)
Click to expand...
Examples where public school kids outperform private school kids are boringly common… Are you aware of this?

And I think @Spyridon is accurate in assessing your rhetoric.
I don’t think I particularly espoused a position, so your hip-fire critique seems to be based on either laziness or a lack of functional literacy.

Moving forward, I hope you have something substantial you’d like to add…
 
Trump will be remembered as one of the greatest Presidents ever. That is unless the political elite get him removed. Why is it so many are against the man? Could it be that he will get done all the promises they have been making for the past 4 decades?
 
Should public office be limited to business executives?

That would rule out…
Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
FDR
Theodore Roosevelt
Thomas Jefferson
Eisenhower
Woodrow Wilson
Andrew Jackson
Reagan
JFK
Andrew Jackson
John Adams

Harry S. Truman ran a business but was a failure at it.
 
Last edited:
philipl said:
Trump will be remembered as one of the greatest Presidents ever. That is unless the political elite get him removed. Why is it so many are against the man? Could it be that he will get done all the promises they have been making for the past 4 decades?
Click to expand...
I’ve been fairly anti-Trump this past year…

But if he can pull off ending the Korean conflict, reunifying the Korean peninsula, and denuclearization of the North, then he will earn massive levels of respect and adoration from me - potentially to the point where I would consider voting for him in 2020.
 
No… moral fiber, trust and credibility… leadership are the most important traits for me.

Look at our current dilemma with President Trump… truth, morals and leadership are second to ego and money… we need a good parent to run the country and world
 
Not a chance… he is a man who has lowered the office of President and the morals of the entire country and world
 
Hereiam said:
Or, given the disasters created by a business executive who was elected to the highest of public offices, maybe the question asked should be, " Should business executives be prohibited from assuming public office?".…hmmm…probably will start a good dialogue here, but on the World News page, you can bet the regulars would be losing their minds!
Click to expand...
Not sure whom you are referring to, but the OP was limiting it to people with management experience in an enterprise, at a strategic level. “those who have operated some sort of business at the decision-making level”.

This would include non-profits, plus senior positions in City and State Government.
 
Politics should be restricted to single mothers who successfully raise children to be good citizens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top