Monday, April 30, 2012

Why we don't need a CEO-in-Chief

We've already talked about how Mitt Romney is planning to abandon any effort to challenge President Obama on the "likability" front. Instead, he seems poised to make the case that he'd be a better CEO-in-Chief.

I've posted this video a couple of times before. But I think its very instructive about why that won't work.

We should remind the American public that in 2010, we tried this experiment in several states with CEO-type approaches to governorships. When faced with opposition from legislatures and the public, what have governors like Scott Walker, Chris Christie, and Rick Scott done? They've done what most CEO's in that situation do - they've taken "executive action" to pull a power play. Here's a perfect description of how that came down with Gov. Scott in Florida.

The heart of the problem was that Scott was deliberately turning down thousands of jobs in a state with high unemployment, and turning his back on millions of dollars of economic development. But part of the political problem is that the governor acted unilaterally -- he hadn't told other GOP officials what he planned to do, didn't seek their input, and didn't care what anyone else at any level of government thought.

Scott says he's just acting like a CEO. Florida Republicans know this, and want him to stop.
We can have a discussion about whether or not this type of approach works for a CEO in business, but PespsiCO Chairman & CEO Indra Nooyi  is clearly wise enough to know that running the government in a democratic republic requires a very different approach.


  1. Government is not a business and should not be run like a business, and the President is not a CEO.

  2. That kind of top-down unilateral action -- if done without listening to the people in the trenches -- is stupid in a business, and disastrous in a government. It certainly doesn't work in a representative republic.

  3. What has happened to the budget in NJ and Wisconsin? What has happened to job creation?