Most obviously, Donald Trump. Let there be no doubt, if the election were somehow to come down to a choice between Trump and Schultz, the choice would be a total no-brainer. Schultz is incomparably better than Trump in a whole lot of ways:
- Schultz is an actual, legitimate, competent, successful, self-made businessman, while Trump's business career has been fraudulent at best and outright gangsterism at worst.*
- Schultz has, so far as we can tell, a normal ability and willingness to learn.
- Schultz has, so far as we can tell, normal impulse control, a normal attention span, a concept of objective reality, etc.
- Schultz is, to all appearances, motivated by a sincere concern for the public good.
- Schultz does not scapegoat immigrants or celebrate hate as "authenticity."
- I am not worried about Schultz running the country for the benefit of Starbucks Coffee. I don't even see how such a thing would be possible.**
- He might very well be willing to sell his interest in Starbucks and put his assets in blind trust.
- Schultz shows no signs of vindictiveness or a belief that the federal government should be a tool for punishing enemies.
- Schultz does not appear to think that the federal government would be his private property if he wins, or that he would be an elective dictator.
- I am not worried about Schultz creating a crisis out of personal pique.
- Schultz has no sinister ties with a foreign country.
So all of this is clear advantage to Schultz over Trump. But Schultz shares a major shortcoming with Trump. He knows nothing at all about how government, politics, and policy work. And he sees this ignorance, not as a shortcoming to be overcome, but as a virtue to be touted. In this he is, like so many billionaires running for president, a classic politiphobe.
[Politiphobes] see the contentious give-and-take of politics as unnecessary and distasteful. Specifically, they believe that obvious, commonsense solutions to the country’s problems are out there for the plucking. The reason these obvious solutions are not enacted is that politicians are corrupt, or self-interested, or addicted to unnecessary partisan feuding. . . . [T]hey do not acknowledge that meaningful policy disagreement even exists. From that premise, they conclude that all the arguing and partisanship and horse-trading that go on in American politics are entirely unnecessary. Politicians could easily solve all our problems if they would only set aside their craven personal agendas.
And, given that real, deep-seated policy differences do exist, and that policy making is a complex set of tradeoffs, politiphobes tend to respond to discovering what policy and politics are really like by either becoming increasingly authoritarian or shutting down altogether.
Comparing Schultz to other CEO candidates, I would prefer him to Ross Perot in that he shows none of Perot's authoritarianism or paranoia. But I would rank him well behind Mitt Romney or any other businessman with actual experience in government. Schultz might more accurately be compared to Herman Caine -- a legitimate and competent businessman, but utterly clueless about how government and policy making actually work.
And finally, Schultz has one obvious disadvantage compared to Trump, Perot or Caine (though perhaps not Romney). Whatever else one may think of Trump, Perot, or Caine, they were at least colorful and charismatic, able to inspire followers. Schultz is about as colorful and charismatic as a mashed potato sandwich.***
___________________________________________________
*I realize that plenty of people either think gourmet coffee is a scam or else take gourmet coffee seriously but think Starbucks is merely overpriced imitation gourmet coffee. But that is mere puffery and in no way comparable to routinely stiffing subcontractors, banks, immigrant laborers, and anyone else who does business with you, let alone laundering money for the Russian Mob.
**Starbucks, overpriced though it may be, is still a retailer and, as such, operates on a low-price-high-volume model. Anyone wanting to engage in corrupt dealings would have to buy a helluva lot of Starbucks coffee to have any real impact. A President Schultz might set policy with an unusual consciousness of the needs of the retail industry or the food service industry, but that is not corrupt in the same way as running the country for the good of one particular company.
***Nothing against mashed potatoes, you understand. I love potatoes in all forms. I don't think I have ever met a potato I didn't like. But neither have I ever met a potato I would vote for as President.
No comments:
Post a Comment