Do you need a CEO President?

During the Republican National Convention last week, I was struck by (among other things) the number of Donald Trump supporters who cited his business background as a reason for their support. The same response has shown up in polling data over the past several months, and a similar narrative was spun about Mitt Romney’s business acumen back in 2012. This familiar trope appears in many political contests — especially down-ticket races. But what does running a business have to do with being President? Absolutely nothing.

Government is nothing like a business. For one, governments do not produce a product for profit. They give stuff away for free. Most of our wants and needs are filled by private consumption; the government, however, provides public goods, which — as the name implies — are not provided by the private sector.

A public good is something that is nonrivalrous and nonexcludable. Put simply, it is something that is open to everyone and cannot be used up. This includes things like roads, street lights, fire departments, clean air, and national defense; things that are free — for everyone. Casino ownership, or similar business credentials, might not offer any useful insights for the provision of non-market services.

Additionally, the President, unlike a CEO, does not manage funds. Congress compiles a budget and appropriates the funds. The President is essentially a bystander in the process. Sure he (or possibly she) submits a draft budget to kick-start the process, but the document has no constitutional significance. The Pope could submit a budget — anyone could. It means nothing. Congress controls budgeting.

Moreover, if you aspire to elect a successful business person, why not someone who hasn’t required bankruptcy protection — several times — for their ventures. Perhaps someone like a Mark Zuckerberg?? After all, he’s worth over $30 billion USD. I’d call that a success! Especially if we contrast the social and economic value created from Facebook compared to the Trump Taj Mahal, for example. It would seem like a no-brainer. Not so. Zuckerberg has been chastised by Trump fans, and conservatives more broadly, for alleged bias in Facebook’s news feed algorithms. He is anathema to Trump supporters.

So, success in business might be a necessary condition for Trump voters, but it’s far from sufficient. It may be one factor in determining their support, but it isn’t the only one. More likely, it is a post-hoc explanation to justify a partisan choice. Opposition to trade, immigration, certain religious minorities, and political correctness might really be driving their support, but “he’s a good businessman” sounds better.