Harry Truman was a dry-goods store owner and Jimmy
Carter had the family peanut farm, but neither of them ran for office based on
their business skills. Of the others, there was one actor and quite a few professional
politicians. (I’m limiting my search group to presidents in my lifetime.) Three
candidates stressed their business experience and promised to bring those
skills to running the government. That would be George W. Bush, Donald J. Trump
and H. Ross Perot.
(I’m leaving out Willard Romney. Most of his resume was
business related, but it was not the kind of experience that anyone would want
voters to even know about, much less consider, being all robber-baron stuff.)
The funny part is that the two men in that small group who
actually won the presidency were awful businessmen. W. Bush’s resume included
several business failures that lost a lot of money for other people but from
which he was curiously bailed out, plus a few downright shady deals (The Texas
Rangers episode), and even included allegations of insider trading. Not a lot
of textbook success there. D. J. Trump talks a good game, but his own record is
full of bankruptcies, defaults and the stiffing of partners and vendors. The
Donald received a few curious bailouts himself (like his dad buying millions of
dollars’ worth of chips to help him meet payroll in Atlantic City). Neither of
those fellows seems to have been very successful at running businesses at all.
The one who was demonstrably a wild business success
was H. Ross Perot, and he is the only one of the three to fail in his bid for
the presidency.
Being a third-party candidate hurt his chances, but he
made a historically great show from that status. He got 19% of the popular vote
in 1992 (19,741,065 votes). (Zero electoral votes, although he did win
majorities in many individual counties.)*
Perot, unlike those other two clowns, was a business wiz.
Everything he touched turned to gold. He was a graduate of Annapolis, the U. S.
Naval Academy. As a salesman for IBM he made his quota for the year within a
month or so and decided that he could do all that and more if he were on his
own. This was the early 1960s. Perot started Electric Data Systems and it was a
winner. In 1984 he sold that company to General Motors for two point four
billion dollars ($2,400,000,000.) In 1988 he started Perot Systems Corporation.
That company was sold to Dell Computers in 2009 for three point nine billion
dollars ($3,900,000,000).
It’s safe to say that Henry Ross Perot was the best
businessman ever to run for the presidency.
They say, though, that running the country is not like
running a business, and it’s true. It’s totally different, is what it is. If
you are running a country, you cannot default on loans just to achieve some
strategic advantage. You cannot declare bankruptcy just to put pressure on
creditors. And then there are the things that you can do, such as printing
money and borrowing at low interest. It’s totally different.
W. Bush, and now Trump, only proved that business
experience not only does not help, but also is very likely to make matters
worse.
What would Mr. Perot have done in office?
1.
Balance the Federal budget;
2.
He opposed NAFTA (he came up with the
quote, “that giant sucking sound that you hear is jobs moving to Mexico;”
3.
He opposed gun control;
4.
End job outsourcing (i.e., shipping jobs
overseas); and
5.
Reduce the deficit by imposing a gasoline
tax and cutting Social Security.
That looks an awful lot like Donald Trump’s professed
goals. It’s a program without a chance of working. In fact, it’s a program that
will do more harm than good. So I guess that even H. Ross Perot, the genuine
business success, would also have failed to run the government better than mere
politicians.
Incidentally, H. Ross Perot is alive as of this
writing. In 2015, he was listed as the 129th richest man in America,
with $4 billion dollars. He was an odd bird, but likeable, in his way. I wish
him well.
*Which major party candidate was assisted by the votes
that went to Perot? That’s about as clear as mud. Perot’s votes seem to have
come from all points of the political compass, so you can’t say that he took
conservative votes away from George H. W. Bush. Perot’s votes came mostly from the
middle-class, so the votes of the rich and the poor went to their respective
natural beneficiaries. I’m no expert, and I haven’t made an exhaustive study of
it, but it appears likely that Clinton won in spite of Perot, and not because
of him.
No comments:
Post a Comment