CEO vs President
Hmmm. Where to start?
How about with Ken Lay? (Enron)
Bernard Ebbers? (WorldCom)
Richard S. Fuld, Jr.? (Lehman)
Robert B. Willumstad? (AIG)
John Rigas? (Adelphia)
It appears that some big name CEOs aren't quite ready to play President either. How about Martha Stewart? She'd make a lovely President now wouldn't she? The WHite House would be decorated with impeccable taste, fully soundproofed to muffle the screaming fits of rage, and you can bet our intelligence services would be well funded.
Well, the Wall Street branches anyway.
Or how about Bill Gates? We'd get a new and improved version of the Constitution every three to seven years. Of course, we'd have to patch it 12 times and it wouldn't work well with older documents like the Bill of Rights, and security leaks would be nightmarish, but the blue screen of death might become a desirable feature, particularly when Congress is in session.
Or maybe Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry's fame. The White House would smell like fresh baked waffles, the bitterness would be removed from Congress by quarts of New York Super Fudge Chunk, and labor unions would flourish across the land.
Except in Ben and Jerry's factories, where unions are not allowed.
Yes, CEO's would make for wonderful Presidents. A Harvard MBA is all the education you need to know when to deploy the military. A degree in Finance certainly qualifies you to negotiate arms reduction treaties. And I can't think of any better preparation for holding the nuclear trigger in your hand than a background in buying and selling computer code.
Sorry folks, but the comparison stinks. The jobs are too different. Being a CEO is one small piece of the President's job, and that means a Presidential candidate cannot afford to specialize to the extent a good CEO does. It's just that simple.
Please contact us by email if you wish to comment and we will enter it manually