Not that Fiorina was much of a CEO — no one has offered her aÂ CEO job since she left HP in 2005 — but this to me screams out loud why being a CEO and a POTUS are two different things —
Carly Fiorina said Sunday that neither she nor Hewlett-Packard should be faulted for the sales of millions of HPÂ printers in Iran when such business was prohibited byÂ U.S. law.
Appearing on Fox’sÂ Fox News Sunday, Fiorina said that despite being the CEO of HPÂ when the Iranian sales took place via a third party, she was unaware of them. …
… â€œIn fact, the SEC investigation proved that neither I nor anyone else in management knew about itâ€¦â€ she insisted, adding, Â â€œ…when the company discovered this three years after I left, they cut off all ties. The SEC investigated very thoroughly and concluded that no one in management was aware.â€
A 2008Â Boston GlobeÂ investigation found that, while U.S. companies were banned from selling goods to Iran, an Indian company in Dubai calledÂ Redington Gulf hadÂ sold HP printersÂ there. They sold them so well, in fact, that HP had 41 percent market share in Iran by 2007. Redington Gulf obtainedÂ the printers through a European subsidiary.
Wallace asked Fiorina why HP had named Redington Gulf its “Wholesaler of the Year” award in 2003 if the company wasn’t aware of its sales to Iran, Fiorina again deflected blame.
It’s possible Fiorina wasn’t aware of how Redington Gulf made its sales, because that’s not the sort of thing a CEO has to worry about. Sales are sales.
(However, according to a 2004 article in Forbes, Fiorina’s HP was one of the companies that knowingly — or, at least, they must have known — shipped products to Dubai to be re-exported into Iran. Halliburton was another company named, of course. This practice was openly winked at even as the companies in question denied they ever sold goods to Iran.)
A POTUS has to have a more, shall we say, nuanced view of the world, in all of its complexities. And a POTUS is held responsible for things a CEO can get away with denying.
JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, not someone on my most admired list by any stretch, did say something insightful awhile back. When asked if a CEO’s skills would make someone a good President, he said, “It’s not sufficient. I think you have a whole ‘nother set of attributes. I think it’s really complex â€” politics. It’s three-dimensional chess.”
And if politics is three-dimensional chess, foreign policy is 12-dimensional chess. Businesses, even big corporations, operate within relatively narrow parameters – – cost, profit, cash flow, sales figures. CEOs don’t have to worry about whether selling widgets to France will cause a war with Spain. Presidents do.
Back when Mittens was running for POTUS, it struck me that he is probably very shrewd but not intelligent. By that I mean he seems to have a knack for calculating how to wring every dollar out of a business venture. But how does he understand history? How does he understand the causes of poverty, or the dynamics of race, or why certain wetlands have to be protected from development, or what it’s really like to be poor and have no health insurance? I very much doubt those things were even on his radar.
The purpose of a corporation is to make money for the investors. And if you have to wreck the environment or move jobs overseas and screw your employees in the process, that’s okay in the business world. The purpose of a government is to support fairness, justice and a decent standard of living for its citizens. And by “support a decent standard of living” I don’t mean hand out welfare, but to enable citizens to be self-supporting by preventing the malefactors of great wealth from exploiting the hell out of them, and to enable upward mobility through things like education and public health policies.
These two purposes are completely at odds with each other, and I don’t think the CEO presidential wannabees grasp that. Or, if they do grasp it, they don’t care. Winning the White House would be the ultimate “regulatory capture.” Why be content with getting industry-friendly executives appointed to federal regulatory agencies, when you can take over the entire executive branch?
Further, CEOs are tyrants. They exercise power largely through intimidation. David Corn wrote of Carly Fiorina,
At HP, Fiorina developed the reputation of a manager who knocked heads togetherâ€”or who chopped them off. And there were massive layoffs during her tenure. In 2003, the company announced it would dismiss almost 18,000 people. (That year, the firm posted a $903 million loss on $56.6 billion in revenue.) When the outsourcing of jobs turned into a national political issue, Fiorina became the poster-girl for an industry campaign aimed at blocking any legislation that would restrict a company’s ability to can American employees in favor of workers overseas. She and executives from seven other tech companies issued a report that argued that any such measures would hurt the U.S. economy. The best way to increase American competitiveness, they declared, was to improve schools and, yes, reduce taxes. At a Washington press conference, Fiorina said, “There is no job that is America’s God-given right anymore. We have to compete for jobs.” The remark did not go over well with critics of outsourcing, who have ever since used it as an indicator of corporate insensitivity.
Note that candidate Fiorina already is promising to lay off government workers. It’s what she knows how to do.
Presidents, in contrast, have highly restricted powers. And they can’t fire Supreme Court justices. One of Fiorina’s excuses for her failures at HP is that the Board of Directors was hard to work with, and there may be some truth in that. But, my dear, have you seen Congress lately?
Nor do CEOs concern themselves with coming up with plans — that’s what the help is for. Note that Fiorina’s official campaign web site doesn’t have a “Carly on the Issues” section. It’s all about her resume, not her policy ideas. (Donald Trump has recently added a “positions” section to his, although the only two issues he addresses are 2nd amendment rights and immigration.)
(I am reminded of the Ultimate Donald Rumsfeld memo. This is what you get with a CEO secretary of defense.)
I’m not going to look at every presidential candidate website, but I will note that Bernie Sanders has an extensive issues section that would take someone a while to read.
Right now Trump and Fiorina are one and two in the Republican polls. At least Scott Walker seems out of the running; that’s some comfort.
Good post! Let me put a finer point on your argument – corporations are NOT democracies. They are dictatorships. Most CEOs don’t know and don’t care about what their constituents (employees) think about a particular issue or proposal before they act on it. After the disastrous Bush-Cheney presidency, I hope to God that Americans don’t want any more of that willful detachment!
For the record…another Bernie site, but not from his campaign:
It’s official – Scott Walker is out.
Button, button… who is next?
That’s a dramatic implosion for Walker, especially considering he was one of the favorites awhile back. hehe.
“Note that candidate Fiorina already is promising to lay off government workers. It’s what she knows how to do’
Right, the only thing tea-tard republicans know how to do is cut, cut taxes, cut spending, cut the workforce, cut throats, etc. They do not know how to govern or get more from less they only know how to turn out the lights.
Could we have a moment of silence for the Walker campaign? Maybe buckyblue might want to say a few kind words over the loss of our dear friend Scott Walker’s presidential aspirations?
Well, at least he didn’t linger. I heard he was approaching a flatline status, but I didn’t expect him to expire so quickly.
Another one bites the dust.
“That’s a dramatic implosion for Walker”
It seems premature? Maybe something surfaced in his all his Wisconsin cronyism/corruption that he can’t get a judge to sweep under a rug? Either way glad to see him out, he is one of the most hostile to labor of all the hostiles running!
Meanwhile….. Good article about the guy with the squirrel:
Tom_b, that looks like a good article, I’ll have to read it when i get time. I think Trump is running because Obama crushed his fragile ego at the 2011 white house correspondents dinner, Obama made him look like the fool he is and everybody laughed!
Uncle dad: Agreed.
In a betting market, I’d actually go 80:20 Bush:Trump for the reasons outlined in the article– what does not destroy Trump seems to make him stronger. His “kind of robotic” comment about Fiorina.
If he ends up the nominee, our candidate (95% HRC I would guess, though I prefer Bernie) better recruit Big Dog to do some heavy lifting. And I think she should consider a staff overhaul, on that contingency.
Fiorina made Walker redundant in the GOP lineup. Same malevolent attitude toward working people (losers) but she’s got a bit more brainpower and pizzazz than Scotty.
Everything you said about government comes from the context of the left’s idea of what government is; the right wants a government that is like a corporation: dictatorial and no room for dissent. Fascism, in other words.
And so their hearts beat faster when a CEO is in the running. Even a failure like Fiorina, who gets them excited with her cavalier attitude toward the losers, whoever they may be. I’ve actually watched right wingers get excited when Trump fires somebody on “the Apprentice”. They really eat it up, and this is what they want in a President. Someone who will kick butt and take names.
May she become the new front runner! And may her record at HP not become widely known until she has passed Trump and Carson. Plenty of time for the truth to come out as the other Republicans bring out the long knives; the Dems need do nothing discredit her lovely business record.
Pingback: Need to Know | The Mahablog