Bush as a "CEO President"
This moniker given to him by his supporters, often used to explain how great he is, really leaves me baffled. It has been touched on to varying degrees in other places, but here is my take.
As I understand it, the theory goes that what makes Bush great is his ability to delegate authority (and, apparently, responsibility) to the great staff he has surrounded himself with. This prevents him from being bogged down in policy minutia. He then takes the summary information his staff presents him with, and applies "decisive leadership skills" to lead our country in the right direction. His apologists seem to say, "He may not be the smartest guy, but he really knows how to manage his staff and make decisions." Thus he is more like the CEO of a large company, and less of a traditional President.
It's clever in a sense, because as we've seen whenever a problem occurs, Bush can plead ignorance. His mid-level managers (Rumsfeld)may have mentioned there was a problem (Iraqi prisoner abuse) a few months ago, but he never heard about it again. He assumes the problem is being dealt with. Therefore, it's not Bush's fault and he can't be held responsible. This situation is analagous to the pre-9/11 intelligence (there was chatter, but Bush got a memo saying the FBI was looking into it).
I rehashed all of that so I could say this: if a CEO of a Fortune 500 company is made aware of serious (life-threatening, criminal) situations going on in his company, isn't it that person's responsibility to follow up on those issues? A CEO in the business world cannot say "I thought it was being handled." The CEO must stay on top of issues like this, or he/she will be fired. It really is just that simple. In fact, the CEO and all the managers involved would probably be fired.
I know I'm preaching to the converted. To me, my diatribe is rational, critical thinking. To Bush supporters, I am being a liberal elitist. Can we ever speak the same language?
As I understand it, the theory goes that what makes Bush great is his ability to delegate authority (and, apparently, responsibility) to the great staff he has surrounded himself with. This prevents him from being bogged down in policy minutia. He then takes the summary information his staff presents him with, and applies "decisive leadership skills" to lead our country in the right direction. His apologists seem to say, "He may not be the smartest guy, but he really knows how to manage his staff and make decisions." Thus he is more like the CEO of a large company, and less of a traditional President.
It's clever in a sense, because as we've seen whenever a problem occurs, Bush can plead ignorance. His mid-level managers (Rumsfeld)may have mentioned there was a problem (Iraqi prisoner abuse) a few months ago, but he never heard about it again. He assumes the problem is being dealt with. Therefore, it's not Bush's fault and he can't be held responsible. This situation is analagous to the pre-9/11 intelligence (there was chatter, but Bush got a memo saying the FBI was looking into it).
I rehashed all of that so I could say this: if a CEO of a Fortune 500 company is made aware of serious (life-threatening, criminal) situations going on in his company, isn't it that person's responsibility to follow up on those issues? A CEO in the business world cannot say "I thought it was being handled." The CEO must stay on top of issues like this, or he/she will be fired. It really is just that simple. In fact, the CEO and all the managers involved would probably be fired.
I know I'm preaching to the converted. To me, my diatribe is rational, critical thinking. To Bush supporters, I am being a liberal elitist. Can we ever speak the same language?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home