Do we change "Business as usual" in Washington by simply electing a Businessman? Not necessarily...

                

We are witnessing the Armageddon of the two party system! The melt down is upon us! American politics is in complete disarray. The Republicans are witnessing the fracturing of their party, eerily similar to that of the demise of the Whig Party in 1854. Although slavery was at the crux of The Whig Party’s demise, a new type of “strong fisted subservience” that has suppressed the Republican electorate is now leading to a subversive revolt by its own constituents. For the Democrats, the Super-delegate ruse is emerging without apology, which is indicative to their governing style: “You’ll take what we give you and you will like it!”  In fact, the political two party system’s demise has been unwittingly set course by the obtuse and out of touch mentality of their political ruling classes. These political classes are subcultures, flush with elitism and self-imposed prestige. An exclusive club that “we, the people” have assumed to have elected as public servants to represent our interest. In actuality, we’ve elected to relinquish our voice and have essentially positioned ourselves to be completely shut out of the process all together. A desire of the citizenry for change is due, based upon decades of being governed against by our own representatives. It has led to a long past due overhaul, in order to reconstruct and change this behemoth of a ruling monstrosity. Those seeking change are seeking a different type of leadership.  Out of the box, creative methods are now being embraced as an alternative to the typical political styling of our current career representatives. What type of leader should we seek? Should we employ an outsider? Should our Chief Executive have “Executive Experience” with a history of leadership? Should we look towards a military leader? Or should we seek a successful private sector leader to steer the American Streamliner?  In an age of political discourse and disaffection of the political system, many believe a successful business person would be the most effective hire for this position. Although successful Private Sector experience is appealing on paper, with real world application this may not yield the most successful results.

Being a Business Owner may give you executive experience but, contrary to popular opinion, it does not qualify you to be the Chief Governing Executive of America. Yes, as a business owner you lead those to whom you have hired. The difference is, as President, we are NOT your employees. You work for us! As a Business owner, you're beholden to your board of directors. The Board of Directors in NOT AN EQUIVALENT to Congress. The Board of Directors represents the business interest. Conversely, Congress represents the interests of the people. It's a completely different mindset altogether. As a Business Owner, you make deals with other business interests in order to edify and satisfy the Company's interest with efficient ease. In Government, gridlock is instituted BY DESIGN in order to ensure that what makes it through the fire is a tortured result for the best interest of the citizenry. In business, the Company does not necessarily work for its employees. The employees work to further the goals of the business that employs them. The decisions that the business makes is not always in line with the employee’s desires. They are mostly enacted for the betterment of the business itself, to which the employees receive the residual benefits. In government, the representatives are elected to seek the interest of their citizens, with the Nation receiving the residual benefits of those decisions.  With business, you follow the businesses culture, code of Ethics, and Companies policies and procedures. If those policies and procedures and rules need adjusting, you adjust them for the betterment of the business. This isn’t necessarily the case with the Constitution of the United States. Although adjusting the laws is entirely possible, the lengths to which one must go in order to make a change to the Constitution are tremendously difficult to obtain. It should also be noted that the President cannot elect to make these changes themselves in order to fit the wishes of their desired results.  Although Government may have similar characteristics as that of a Business, they are diametrically opposed to one another with how they operate.

History has provided insight into the results of electing a businessman to the highest level of leadership in the land of the free. The last time we placed the faith of our nation in the hands of a “Businessman” was with the election of Herbert Hoover. Herbert Hoover was a successful businessman in the mining industry. Once he conquered the private sector, he yearned to conquer politics (although he gave the outward impression that he was being reluctantly pulled into executive cabinet positions).  He was affiliated with Woodrow Wilson’s “Ultra-Progressive” Democrat Administration. He switched his political party affiliation back to the Republican Party, which was the party he was registered to before the 1^st World War. He did show support for a period of time to The Bull Moose “Progressive” Party of Theodore Roosevelt. Hoover’s Populist Nationalism was something that he “mined” during the end of the roaring 20’s, leading into the beginning of the 30’s, just before the ensuing economic collapse. Increased Wealth Taxes on the highest tax brackets and higher corporate tax rates imposed by President Hoover aided in stunting the economic growth of the private sector while, at the same time balancing the Federal Budget. Trade Tariffs were passed, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, as a way of providing the Private Sector a form of protectionism in the burgeoning age of a new global economy. The Tariff Act of 1930 was actually counterproductive and further exacerbated the economic collapse, minimizing its attempts at recovery. The Great Depression ensued deeper, which led to unprecedented unemployment.  The various “Hooverisms” littered the legacy of this Big Business President. “Hoovervilles”, which were filled with the unemployed residing in dilapidated shacks, began to spring forth throughout the nation. Ultimately, having incredible success in the Private Sector was proven not to be the litmus test for an effective Elected Executor.

History is set again to repeat itself. With economic malaises continuing into its eight year, we face similar paths of economic recovery and governance.  With a political class that has rejected and ignored it’s very own electorate for the financial gains and influence of lobbyists and Big Business,  Americans are fed up with Crony Corporate, Career Politician relationships on both sides of the aisle. The question you'll have to ask and examine within yourself with is, "Why would I allow a businessman to cut corners, change positions on numerous occasions, and ‘grease the government wheels’ to their benefit in their personal life? At the same time, why would I demand with unwavering fervor, that a politician have consistency with absolutely no tolerance towards a movement in their policy positions?" We should also ask, “In the course of a national crisis, would the constitution be the guiding light to which the leader that we hire look towards for guidance? Or will an authoritative administrated solution of the basis of simple results, with no regard for Constitutional principles be the result?” These are the questions we SHOULD be asking of our selection for the executive leader of the free world.  Simply having business experience may not necessarily be the cure for our disaffection of the current political system.