Wednesday, February 17, 2016

The Apprentice and the Presidential Island

I've  never been interested in the survivor type programs, including  Donald Trump's sophisticated program "The Apprentice", but am familiar with the basic way they work.  

"The Apprentice" provides the best model for choosing a president, but the political parties should also consider the process of "voting people off the island".   On the basic "Survivor"    programs contestants are divided into tribes and work together to survive in a wilderness setting.  They conduct periodic votes in which individuals are gradually "voted off the  island" until only one remains.  On "The Apprentice" contestants are assigned business related tasks.  Donald Trump, or comparable people in other countries, gradually eliminates  the least productive individuals by telling them "you're fired."

 Trump based his decisions on how well the individual contestants "walked the walk" rather than how well they "talked the talk."   Those who want to be the U.S. CEO [i.e.,  president] should have to first demonstrate they can run an organization such as a major corporation or state first.   Those candidates like Sen. Marco Rubio who have never run an organization should be fired or kicked  off the island in the first round.    Any candidate can mumble the appropriate political cliches and promise  to do this, that and the other thing.  Would be presidents need to demonstrate that they actually can do this, that and the other thing.
Governors should be the easiest to evaluate because their duties are similar to the president's particularly  in the area of working with the legislative branch of government.   Both corporate CEO's and governors  can be evaluated on how well they select subordinates. For example,  the New Jersey "bridgegate" scandal raises questions about  how well Gov. Chris Christie selects subordinates .  Voters would want to how well governors delivered on the promises that got them elected.   Investors are usually interested in the  profitability of a business which can depend on economic conditions.  Voters should be more interested in the type  of risks a CEO took while running the business.  For example, did the CEO take calculated risks or take reckless chances, or perhaps just continue doing things they had always been done.   Governors can also be evaluated on whether continued doing things the way they had always been done or found more effective ways to providing government services.

Democrats should have voted "Calamity" Clinton off their island long ago.  Calamity has been an ongoing disaster for the Democrats since her husband began running for President. She has a history of bad decisions. Her foolish decision to represent a corrupt savings and loan before a board appointed by her husband caused the appointment of a special prosecutor who eventually charged Bill with perjury. Opposition to  the health care plan she developed early in his administration helped the Republicans take control of Congress. 

She had our ambassador stay in Benghazi in spite of an attack on the British ambassador's motorcade in that city in June.  She seems unable to understand that she could have prevented his assassination by withdrawing him from Benghazi prior to 9/11/2012.  Many American cities recognize the possibility to terrorist activity on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack.  Why didn't Clinton?  Her foolish decision to use a private e-mail server while Secretary of State may have compromised national security.

No comments: