A friend and coworker once said to me, "I would like to see the government run like a business. That’s why I voted for Ross Perot both times." Well, I’m not sure that’s the answer to our problems, but the theory is interesting.
Then it hit me: That’s exactly what we’ve been experiencing these past few years. Remember the papers touting GWB as the "CEO president?" That claim remains in doubt, but we do have a CEO presidency. The questionable interpretations of Executive Power within this White House has precedence in the business world. Whether or not our Commander in Chief is a Chief Executive Officer notwithstanding, our VP is all business.
Unlike public servants, a corporate head can have closed meeting with influential players and make all decisions therein, fully expecting the workers to comply. Dick Cheney did that with his energy policy.
Unlike public servants, a CEO can act unilaterally provided he has the shareholders trust. The trust of employees is not considered. Acting as shareholders, the Republican majority in previous congresses did indeed trust the White House, rubber-stamping anything that came their way, even as the people’s trust diminished.
A CEO can fire people without much threat of retaliation. The test of whether an administration can act similarly is currently playing out in congressional hearings. Clearly, the administration believed it owned the right to do so.
A primary goal of any corporate leader is to ensure continued growth despite economic and market factors. The primary goal of this administration is to expand American influence globally.
A CEO must be aggressive in dealing with competition. Ruthlessness is rewarded.The degree of importance of this tenet is reflected in the language used to describe business tactics, such as "hostile takeover." Many phrases from corporate-speak are of militant origin.
In light of all this, it should be no surprise to find our corporate-styled administration embroiled in an endless struggle for dominance - not only on the global stage, but within its borders as well. It’s just business as usual.
Businesses, by necessity are pyramidal structures, managed top-down. In this aspect, they are not unlike Monarchies. In every company I’ve worked for (more than a few) There have been equivalencies to kings, princesses, counselors, chancellors, knights and knaves. Modernization has done little to change this basic organizational structure beyond giving the various players new titles. Businesses are, in fact, tiny kingdoms. Scott Adams illustrates this best.
Whereas businesses are monarchies, and our current presidency is being run like a business, there should be no surprise that detractors are increasingly replacing "CEO President" with "King George." It doesn’t help matters when the White House issues proclamations like this one. Yesterday, Tony Snow fielded questions about the US Attorney scandal and Bush’s subsequent reluctance to allows officials to testify under oath:
"There are — in this particular case, the Department of Justice — the Congress does have legitimate oversight responsibility for the Department of Justice. It created the Department of Justice. It does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we’re doing something that we’re not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we’re doing."
In a monarchy and in a business, that would be true. The US government, however, is neither. At least, at the time of writing this.