What does it take to be President?
It's the toughest job in the world. No matter how smart or accomplished you are, chances are that you will end up being average (assuming of course you can get the job in the first place). Yes, I'm talking about being President of the United States.
So what does it take to be a succcessful president? Does one need prior executive experience? How helpful is a strong business record? Should it have precedence over public sector experience?
Obama's critique of Romney's Bain Capital record raises some interesting questions about what skillsets we look for in our commander-in-chief. On one hand, prior success as a business leader is a demonstration of one's ability to clearly set goals and execute them.
At the same time though, the presidency is very different from being a CEO. The latter has enormous control over the operations of the firm and overall strategic agenda. The president, however, has to work with a very partisan congress and is often at the mercy of forces totally beyond his control.
If this is the case, should we as voters really care that much about a candidate's past record of achievements? Given the unique nature of the presidency, we can make a convincing argument that we should focus on one's intelligence, character, raw instincts, and hustle instead of obsessing over his grades in college or whether his record as CEO was impeccable.
Taking a look at history, it is nearly impossible to predict who will become a great president based on his resume. James Buchanan was a successful lawyer, congressman, U.S. Senator, minister to both Russia and Great Britain, and Secretary of State. He even turned down a Supreme Court appointment. And yet, Buchanan's presidency was an utter debacle.
And of course, there are the famous examples of Lincoln and FDR, whose professional resumes were mediocre but ended up being transformational leaders. So in a sense, we really don't know what the heck will happen once someone takes the oath of office. In a way, we are taking a gamble with the most important job in the world.
I myself am divided on this issue. Like many other voters, I will take multiple things into consideration before I cast my vote in November. I do hope that before then we all think long and hard about what qualities we look for in our president, without being influenced by the non-stop political clownshow our media exposes us to. This great country needs a well-informed, thoughtful, and serious citizenry.
I don't vote and agree more with republicans, but I think that you cannot replace the knowledge learnt through politics with business. They're different. The skills needed for one doesn't seem like they would be as transferable as one would think.
Obama has proven it takes none.
What did George W. Bush prove?
That it takes none too!
America hasn't had a good candidate for a while. Politicians these days are weak.
It's times like this when I (sort of) admire the political system in China - you always know who the next President is, and you know that he is intelligent, patriotic, supports the military and will always work in the best interests of the country. Having a weak President is not something the average Chinese will have to worry about. In America, it's a different story.
I disagree with Rambo. The beating that gets taken throughout a campaign is enough to tear most people apart. The President will always be strong. But strength isn't just measured in stubbornness or refusal to listen to others, it's making the call with tough choices based on the maximum amount of information possible. It's looking everyone straight in the eye and making sure they have full confidence in your ability and decision, despite not agreeing with them. That's true strength to me. The courage to undertake and decide things that no one else can. It really is the loneliest job in the world.
As an aside, I'm currently reading "The Presidents Club"; it's quite a good read for those of you interested in the inner workings of the Presidency.
I was thinking about this today...the best presidents are the guys with no agenda or plans. Opportunistic and pragmatic.
This is why I love Clinton. He just went in there and let things be. He passed good legislation when he saw the opportunity, but he did not attempt to force his will on America (Hilary-care excluded...and that was mainly her deal).
It's like any job. If you go in with the idea "Goldman TMT to KKR to HBS to Baupost", you will probably fail, and you will be a miserable person to be around. You are also likely to miss better opportunities.
Obama could have done a lot of things differently, if he wasn't so committed to his own ideas. He could have used the crisis as a reason to restructure the tax code (e.g. kill the mortgage deduction, eliminate preference for debt over equity) and reform entitlements. Boomers are less likely to complain about social security cuts if you tell them their 401ks are headed to 0 otherwise. Instead we got Obamacare passed against popular opinion.
Clinton did a lot policy-wise, he just was a bit more pragmatic and avoided the pitched legislative/PR battles when he could (excepting budget/shutdowns, where he had less of a choice). Some of it was smart, some of it looked like a good idea at the time and ended up being terrible later.
I also think that personal capability matters a LOT in foreign policy, where the president does have quite a bit of control.
Of course, this was over 150 years ago but I mention Polk because he did what he intended to do. Had clear goals. Went in. Got it done and left.
I want a leader that'll make the hard/right decisions, not the decisions that'll get him/her re-elected. They should sacrifice their job security for the better of the whole.
Good point. I was going towards the idea that a leader needs a pair and should be willing to commit "career suicide" by following what he/she believes in. If he's been voted in, then majority of America should back him up.
I think the President is the most overrated job in the world. Why do we even need a President? What does he do? He gives speeches, introduces some random piece of garbage legislation every once in awhile, and sends troops off to random conflicts. He actually doesn't even do those three things because someone else writes his speeches, someone else writes the legislation, and someone else tells him where to send the troops. The President is just a talking head that usually has no idea what is going on. The Constitution only allows the President to entertain diplomats and veto the occasional legislative holocaust spewed out of Congress. All the other "powers" were made up by FDR and we've just gone with it since. End the Presidency and save the tax payers billions. You won't notice a difference I promise.
Couldn't possibly disagree more with this. Our bicameral legislature is practically built to ensure gridlock. A good President can rally the political troops to get things done that need to be. The Executive Branch is also the most agile in their ability to deal with things quickly. Without a President our nation would have been permanently split into a northern and southern country in the 1860s. Can you imagine what would've happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis? What are you going to do, bring every Senator and Representative back to the chamber and take a floor vote on what we should do to prevent a nuclear attack the next day?
I think the success of a President is dictated a lot more by the circumstances than most people would want to believe. Peacetime vs. war, good economy vs. bad economy, domestic problems (think Civil Rights Movement) vs. relative tranquility, these things matter tremendously.
Circumstances can even change drastically in the middle of a President's term. Think about LBJ...his political brilliance allowed the nation to heal after the death of JFK and he got sweeping civil rights legislation passed (which was by no means an easy task), but by the end of his term his approval was so low due to Vietnam that he chose not to run again, even though he could have.
no gag reflex
TARGET SCHOOL AND NETWORKING
in 2days age it takes a large online presents, and guess who is the master @ that. u probly guess ron paul but their is some1 even better, and he started buildin his presents in 2006, even B4 ron paul started doing his politix thang in 2007/2008, and now he run the game
http://www.youtube.com/embed/sxX6blWlUXo
money. lots and lots of money......
The biggest issue with the presidency is that the best potential leaders shy away from it due to the compromises that you must make to get elected and work with the other side (not that it is happening now).
I was extremely disappointed when Colin Powell refused to run. He's someone that may have actually had a chance at uniting the country. I got to spend some time with him around the time he was deciding to run or not, and I have met few, if any, more impressive people in my life.
I fully agree. If I was in the capacity to have an outstanding background that would enable me to become president, I'm not sure I would run. It's an incredible drain on your entire life. Everything is put out there for the world to see. Every comment you make, every move you make, every bond you break, every step you take, people will be watching you. (sorry, couldn't resist) Then when you finally get hazed by every single person running and every person who has a vetted interest in the election; when you actually get elected you have to deal with the insanity that is the partisanship of DC. It must be such a struggle to have come so far only to be limited by the people around you trying to advance their own political careers and ideologies.
I would be very frustrated. Similarly, that's why I don't believe being CEO in any capacity makes you qualified to be president. CEOs are effectively the only decision maker (with regards to overall management and whatnot). They may have to convince shareholders and a board, but these are people with interests in advancing the company the way the CEO feels (roughly) as they hired him. The President is not surrounded by people with similar interests; he has to face a large group of very diverse individuals all seeking their own spot.
To truly be a good president you need to be able to convince people to work with each other. If you can do it with logic, great! If it's intimidation or charisma that's fine too. The problem right now is that parties are just trying to find candidates who are compromises of a bunch of different people's ideals. That's why they seem so weak. You can't just have a president that says they agree with everything you say; you need someone who can convince you to follow them.
At the end of the day, though, I still agree with Douglas Adams: "one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
Boils down to three things:
Luck - Are you gonna have a September 11 or Cuban missile crisis during your tenure? Is the econonomy gonna shoot off like a rocket or are you gonna get a credit crunch?
Perception - Does the public view you as affable, intelligent and well spoken or a fool?
The people you surround yourself with - Prob the most important one as at the end of the day its these guys who will prob be making the decisions. Again a presidents hands are kinda tied here with political pressures to pick certain people and prior relationships/burnt bridges so feeds into the luck thing again.
At the end of the day a president cant do a whole lot...the whole democrat/republican thing is all just ideological BS....whoever gets in the policies end up pretty similiar and hands get forced by uncontrollable external events/political pressures.
I don't think being a CEO is that much different. CEO's are still answerable to the Board of Directors and untimately to the shareholders. If the CEO sets out a strategy with the Board and fails to achieve those objectives he gets canned. Also, while I agree that 99% of shareholders are sheep, management still have to own up to them at the AGM and seek their approval on remuneration. Imagine if Obama or Bush II had to go back to the "Board" and report on the objectives they promised in their election campaigns and how well they have executed that strategy.
Deserunt autem accusantium error necessitatibus sed. Laboriosam unde provident earum rerum nihil. Impedit et vero facere. Provident repellat ut qui et aperiam voluptatem ex.
Atque quia iure et quia eum. Molestiae suscipit error modi distinctio. Illum et dolorum illum ut. Et quos labore est praesentium autem.
Non non quia quis voluptatem nobis perferendis qui. Aliquid deserunt voluptate optio in ea est ipsa assumenda. Omnis ipsum est voluptatem fugit.
Eveniet officia quod ut exercitationem est quo rerum. Tempora reiciendis id et vitae adipisci optio eveniet. Eum qui et nam voluptate sit quas. In magni commodi itaque est.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Dolores facilis expedita repellat sequi officiis excepturi nisi. Placeat quo eligendi unde voluptatem. Rem veritatis quia non est architecto quisquam consequatur. Sint omnis mollitia voluptatem commodi omnis. Ut dolorem fuga libero ut ipsam doloremque ipsa. Aliquid consectetur dolor fugiat voluptates quo. Accusantium adipisci ducimus eligendi quae porro architecto eum aperiam.
In et voluptas qui. In explicabo distinctio et veritatis eligendi. Placeat quibusdam quis aut qui error dolorem voluptatem.