The business of
business is business and the goal of business is to earn a profit in
the provision of goods and services. The business of government is
service -- well managed, one hopes, and not wasteful, but never at a
profit. There is no such thing as government money. Governments have no
money; they have only what they take from their citizens, either in
taxes or by inflation. And if government accrues profit it can only
have done so by taxing too much or eroding the value of the citizens'
income and savings -- in either case doing harm, not good, to the people
who have created it for the advantages such a common effort is presumed
to bestow.
Businesses seek maximum efficiency; governments seek
sufficient efficiency. We might well save a considerable amount of
money by delegating our national security to mercenary armies drawn
from other countries (as opposed to keeping a high-cost standing army
and paying U.S. wages to private combat zone contractors), thus erasing
the need to maintain a perpetual and costly military infrastructure. We
could assign the processing of Social Security checks and welfare
payments to low-wage workers in Madras or Oaxaca. State governments
could close welfare offices and require that all transactions with
government be conducted electronically, with no recourse to potentially
sympathetic human beings. These are choices governments make
reluctantly and businesses make routinely.
Consider the question
of earned merit. In business, very much a merit-based enterprise, one's
employment is continued so long as he or she maintains sufficient
production. Producers continue to receive paychecks; non-producers are
cut loose. That may seem unfair to the bleeding-hearted, but it is
productivity that provides profit and insufficient productivity that
drains profit and therefore survivability. Distinguish that ethic from
the commitment of government to provide a safety net for those who are,
quite often due to no fault of their own, non-productive members of
society (at least as measured by the workplace). In business, the
non-productive are cut loose; in government, the non-productive are cut
checks. That is because the society as a whole, with the full support
of Republicans and Democrats alike, believes widows, orphans, the
mentally or physically infirm deserve sustenance and protection. Men
and women whose careers are in business may, in fact probably do, share
that belief, but it flies directly in the face of a belief in
maximizing profit and winning bonuses but cutting loose the deadwood.
I
do not mean by this to suggest that the corporate experience is, or
should be, an impediment to elective service. It does mean, however,
that candidates for public office should not hold out that expertise in
business as a primary qualification for election. Yes, okay, so you've
run a company and you've made money; it'll look good in your obit. But
it is important to spell out how that experience translates into
meaningful preparation for service in government. Granted, it may curb
the temptation to be profligate, and that's a definite plus, but
government is about security (military capacity and homeland security
at the federal level; police operations at a state and local level). It
is not about your entity (the government) making a profit but about
helping to ensure that the government's economic policies are not
inimical to others making a profit. It is not about slashing spending but
about meeting society's obligations with efficiency and accountability.
For business, forests exist as a source of lumber; for society, forests
exist as a source of pleasure.
Business and government are not
opposites, but they are distinct; the mindset is necessarily different;
the understandings are different; the obligations are different.
Whether you cheer for these three women, and others like them, to win
or lose in November, we should demand of them a downplaying of the
business credential and a focus on how they would meet the actual
challenges of governance on the specific terms of public, not private,
service.