A common belief among Republicans concerning qualifications of their candidates of choice is that experience in the private sector as a entrepreneur and/or executive makes one uniquely qualified to be in public office. In fact, this is axiomatic to most Republicans. While certainly a conceptually attractive perspective it is remarkably devoid of logic and hindsight.
It is true that experience in the private sector enables one to better understand the logical and actual effects of public policy. Being on the receiving end naturally gives one a greater understanding of and sensitivity to the manner in which taxes, regulation and legal frivolity negatively impacts business start-ups, development, employment and general purchasing and investment decisions. Thus, it is understandable why “conservatives” conclude that an individual with an entrepreneurial and/or executive background is better suited for public office. Yet it is highly doubtful that any Republican would consider voting for a Warren Buffett, Ted Turner or Steve Jobs, each of whom built highly successful business empires in keeping with the greatest traditions of capitalism. Nevertheless, although their professional expertise cannot be ignored, each man possesses a worldview that is an anathema to Republicans and utterly at odds with his own personal and professional experience.
But this doesn’t prove that private-sector experience is a non-factor in choosing a candidate. To most ‘conservatives” this merely evinces the fact that Leftists are hypocrites. In their opinion these men are typical limousine liberals who support Socialist/Statist policies because 1) it makes them feel better and 2) they know that they would never actually feel the burden of such policies. While each of these charges may have some merit, perhaps better examples then are individuals on the political right who achieved similar levels of success and likewise advocated and/or supported a public policy agenda not unlike that of their leftist counterparts.
One such individual is former US President Herbert Hoover, who is almost universally regarded as the man who ushered the US into the Great Depression. This assessment of Hoover is at variance with the truth but what matters here is the political temperament of the man himself. Nowhere is there a more honest and straightforward presentation of Herbert Hoover than in The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression (2007) by Amity Shlaes.
In addition to dispelling a plethora of well-crafted myths concerning Hoover’s supposed culpability in orchestrating the collapse of the US economy, Shlaes points out correctly that Hoover’s real transgression was in paving the way for the massive growth in central planning which marked the administration of his successor, Franklin D Roosevelt. Hoover was a constant tinkerer in the private economy for he believed that he knew what was best for business given his own success. In fact, prior to his ascendancy to the presidency, Hoover was one of the most successful mine-owners in the US. He can justly be regarded, the “Steve Jobs” of his day. He generally thought himself to be the smartest guy in the room, and oftentimes he was. The mistake however was the assumption that he therefore knew how to manage the many nuances of the marketplace better than the individuals therein who had, until his time, lived their lives on the basis of the concatenate order of things rather than the coordinated order which Hoover envisioned. And yet Hoover’s belief in an economy coordinated from the top was a consequence of his own private success. Since he ran his own business in such a manner, constantly micro-managing various aspects of the operation, naturally the grand economy of the US would enjoy a similar success through the application of these same methods. But Hoover cannot be described as a Socialist. A more accurate description would be “Statist,” for he brought to government the temperament of Socialism without the philosophical ideology thereof.
This intelligent man who once proudly described the American system as one of “rugged individualism,” did not possess the prescience to see that his policy agenda was an attack on that very spirit. In the history of American Socialism, Hoover tilled the soil and planted the seeds; Franklin D Roosevelt simply made it grow.
In the current Republican bid for the White House Republicans are likely to nominate former executive and governor, Mitt Romney. Mr. Romney has a proven track record of success in the private sector as CEO of Bain & Company and co-founder of Bain Capital. He also demonstrated remarkable leadership and executive acumen as head of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics. Were that the only portion of his background available for public inspection we would be free to draw inferences as to his prospective use of the public trust therefrom. But Romney has a record in public office as Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Mitt Romney led Massachusetts for a single term (Jan 2003 to Jan 2007). During this time he established a record that is, like that of Herbert Hoover, a testament to the ideals of the political Left.
Romney opposed the sweeping tax-cut initiative of then-President George Bush, supported and advocated tougher gun-control laws and regulations, increased the Minimum Wage, increased the number of government employees, opposed all broad-based tax-cut initiatives for the Commonwealth, increased 57 existing Commonwealth fees and introduced 33 new fees (most of them mandatory) and introduced the nation’s first mandatory socialized health-care system. To his credit, he did belatedly stand in support of a citizen-led referendum to reduce the Commonwealth’s Personal Income Tax from 5.95% to 5%.
Those who support Mr. Romney insist that this record is not reflective of the character of the man, rather the climate in which he governed. Granted, Massachusetts, like most of New England, is decidedly left-leaning. The legislature is dominated by Democrats whose temperament evinces a penchant for radical Socialism. This is an admittedly hostile and intractable climate for anyone advocating a conservative/libertarian public policy agenda. But is it not reasonable for right-leaning voters in Massachusetts to have expected him to make the effort? The governor of a state/commonwealth has far more authority in setting policy than does the President of the United States.
Time and again we have witnessed private sector geniuses prove themselves to be big-government, crony-capitalist, radicals. Even billionaire developer, Donald Trump, who many Republicans once hoped would toss his hat into the ring as a Presidential contender, has repeatedly supported and/or advocated the kinds of policies that would make any conservative/libertarian recoil in horror. And need I mention New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg?
Too many people blithely accept the idea that a successful business person turned-politician is more likely to deliver the kinds of policies most conducive to the advancement of individual freedom and, as a result, economic progress. History however, is replete with evidence to the contrary. When all is said and done, we can only assess the likely manner in which an individual will use the powers of office from an understanding of his/her world-view.
Perhaps it is high time we remember that the only difference between Socialism and Statism is the intentions of the proponent. The Socialist seeks central planning because he believes it to be the answer to the problems which plague society. The Statist seeks central planning out of a misguided desire to correct the supposed “errors” of free-enterprise. No matter the motives involved, the results are always the same.StreetArticles.com - Tomas B Phillips