While an unusual number of business-oriented Democratic presidential hopefuls have ventured in the race this year, the party has quickly culled most of them from the top contenders list, leaving a field of candidates defined almost exclusively by their Government resumes. It seems that Democrats are as confident as ever in Government as the best domain from which to choose a President. Recent history suggests this could be a misguided strategy for winning, if not governing.
Career Time in the Private Sector
Republican Presidents have recently been more aligned with American voters than Democrats by one interesting criteria: paycheck. Is it possible that a common cultural understanding with average Americans, 70% of whom work in the private sector, has advantaged GOP Candidates in connecting with voters – even when the Party’s policies have not been particularly beneficial to them? The results of Bush II vs. Gore, and Trump vs. Clinton suggest this is possible. Consider some additional back of the napkin math:
“Only two of the last ten Presidential elections have been won by candidates of lesser business experience: Clinton over Bush I, and Obama over Romney. In the most recent election, Trump beat a top 5 field of well-qualified GOP candidates, with less business and more government experience. If Trump wins a second term, by 2024, Presidents with significant private sector experience (e.g. Carter, Reagan, Bush I and II, Trump) will have occupied the Oval Office for almost twice as many years as those with primarily government experience (Obama, Clinton) over the previous half century. ” – -gray_clouds
Business, The New Military for Presidents?
While these stats are based on subjective definitions of ‘private sector’ and are drawn from a very small data set, it would be foolish to ignore the possibility of a trend.
In past eras when armed conflict kept us up at night, both parties ran candidates with military experience and voters chose them for President, to nobody’s great surprise. It seems plausible that today, when the impact of economic competition with other nations (e.g. China) is now more impactful in the lives of Americans than the impact of armed conflict, voters might collectively lean towards a business resume as a proxy for competence in dealing with these threats.
I’m not saying that this trend is logical. Presidents with less military (FDR) or business background (JFK) have fared as well if not better than their counterparts (Truman, Bush II) based on the statistics we use to judge these sort of things (e.g. GDP growth, military victories). But this reality may be too complex or counter-intuitive to matter to voters. And even if it isn’t, it’s hard to argue that a bit of business experience is a bad thing for a candidate who’ll be running the largest economy on the planet, if he or she wishes to take an active role in doing so.
An Invisible Headwind
By wining the popular vote in both the Gore and Clinton losses, Democrats have been absolved of the need for deep self-reflection. The party points to election tampering (with some legitimacy) as the culprit for these losses, rather than fully confronting their own failure to connect with Americans outside of the Party. Liberals have concluded that Hillary lost because she was not Liberal enough (too friendly with business). These loyalists have reason to be as skeptical as ever of Business, given the spiraling crises of Climate, Deficit, Wealth Inequality and Guns that Capitalism seems largely accountable for. But in order to do something about these problems, Democrats need to appeal to a general population that, rightly or wrongly, seems to think that the accomplishments of American business people are more impressive and important to our well-being than those of the American political class. So far, this notion has been under-recognized.
What Next?
It’s probably too late to expect Democrats to address the shortcomings of the likely next candidate (Biden, Warren or Sanders) when it comes to business knowledge. In fact, prowess at trash-talking Capitalism may be the deciding factor in winning the candidacy in today’s Democratic Party. But perhaps there is still time left and an opportunity for the party to speak to the middle about business, and to build support among a business community anxious to find any partner who’ll listen other than Trump.
To do this, Democratic candidates should convey a business-inclusive vision by highlighting examples of companies that are making profits, providing good wages AND doing so sustainably. They should make it clear to Independent and Moderate voters, concerned about America’s declining status in the world economy, that the goal is to reform and improve American Capitalism, rather than to simply tare it down. Candidates should express a desire to make America Businesses more socially just AND more competitive at a time when China and other foreign competitors offer increasingly superior alternatives in every sector. And they should visibly include business leadership amongst their advisors and team personnel to signify an honest awareness of the limitations inherent in their lack of diverse experience. Democratic voters, for their part, should avoid the temptation to exclude candidates who embrace business. These candidates may be their best hope for change.