Living in a Fallacy World

One of the interesting aspects of those supporting Donald Trump is that he would be a good president because he has been a good “businessman.” We need to first suspend reality to buy into the notion that someone who has made a fortune is necessarily a “good businessman,” especially in light of six bankruptcies, criminal fraud convictions, and a history of cheating or “stiffing” his business associates and contractors who provided services upon promist of payment.

But this latter aspect is relevant to establishing the “fallacy” that success in business translates to good leadership in public office. The premise and the “rules“ of practice are quite different in these two arenas. A businessman is answerable primarily to investors to generate profits and may do so without regard to the wellbeing of suppliers, contractors or employees whose contributions generate the profits. The businessman would be expected to have some special expertise in the narrowed confines of the business enterprise being managed. To be sure, SOME business owners and managers regard healthy relations with business partners and employee safety and morale as important tools for profit making. But sharp practices and behavior some would deem unethical are only constrained by the risk of the challenge and prosecution of civil or criminal judicial process. And as Trump has demonstrated frequently, delayed judicial processes create opportunity for profit, and the costs of civil litigation serve to favor the actor with deeper pockets. This is the “ethic” that has driven Trump as a “businessman.” And it is noteworthy that if this bullying and cheating modus operandus should fail, a bankruptcy may harm investors and employees, but the “businessman” can simply start over and continue the practices with a new company, not unlike a casino gambler who has lost on the roll of the dice.

In stark contrast, the role and responsibility of an elected official, and specifically a president, is to uphold and administer the laws, not to skirt the laws and evade prosecution. This oath and responsibility to “faithfully execute” the laws and uphold the Constitution is supposed to operate in favor of all citizens and the American public. Including those who did not vote for or “invest” in the candidate for that role. Their investment was in the stability and functioning of a system where the infrastructure of democracy is sustained, and opposition voices are respected.  The risks of a failure of leadership of a president, unlike that of a businessman, could be calamitous for all Americans, not just those connected with a specific business enterprise.  Also, an elected president does not typically have the option to just liquidate the nation and start over with a new country after a failure of leadership. 

While the analogy is far from perfect, think of the distinction between a butcher and a neurosurgeon.  The butcher, not unlike the businessman, seeks the slab of meat from which one hopes to generate a profit. The meat is cut and fat is trimmed to yield the more marketable selections which can be sold publicly at the highest markup, even if the quality of the original meat is slightly embellished or misrepresented. The profits are generated for the business owners, and the only yield to employees would be a continuation of jobs. If misrepresentations as to quality of the meat were discovered, the business might be sued and eventually forced to close. 

In sharp contrast, the neurosurgeon must carefully weigh the decision to operate, considering professional standards and consultation with the patient regarding risks and benefits. The professional oath of the physician requires: “By all that I hold highest, I promise my patients competence, integrity, candor, personal commitment to their best interest, compassion, and absolute discretion, and confidentiality within the law.” The physician swears to take only reasonable fees for the services rendered and no other financial profit from the relation with the patient. In conducting surgical procedures, the surgeon must be aware of the potential impact of surgical actions on all other systems of the patient that could be adversely affected. The more radical the procedure, the greater the risk to the patient. The goal and objective is to promote, to the extent possible, the health and wellbeing of the patient and, by extension, the public.

This comparison may help in understanding the complete fallacy of placing confidence in someone viewed as a “good businessman” as a presumptively good, elected president of the nation. The breadth of expertise, the ethics of professionalism, the standards of performance and the risks of failure are very different. The risks of failure in the role of president by the so-called “good businessman” are greater by several orders of magnitude. The breadth of expertise can be bridged by the selection of subordinates and advisors, But that remedy is only available IF the person chosen as leader adheres to the principles and standards of the Oath of Office and a sincere commitment to uphold the rule of law.  If the subordinates are chosen only because they swear fealty to the president, and the president has the moral compass of the “businessman” described above, the advice and counsel given to that president will be as flawed and lacking as the character and judgment of the elected president.

And during this time, all Americans are subjected to living in a fallacy world while their future and wellbeing depend upon the reasoning and judgment of someone committed only to personal power and profit.