Trump in 2012 won’t make the cut

Real-estate mogul Donald Trump continues to flirt with the idea of running for the 2012 Republican nomination for president. He recently told Forbes Magazine he will likely announce a decision to run in June, after the season finale of his show “Celebrity Apprentice.”

Trump advocates running the government “like a business” and touts his corporate success as evidence of his presidential aptitude. But is he really a viable candidate for president?

Trump is a successful businessman by all accounts. Forbes estimates that his net worth is in excess of two billion dollars, and he is the CEO of the billion dollar real-estate firm The Trump Organization. He deals in everything from top dollar “Trump steaks” to multi-million dollar real-estate developments.

Fortunately, his considerable economic resources and subsequent potential to finance a colossal campaign are the only reasons to address his candidacy in a somewhat serious fashion.

Despite Trump’s successes in business, he clearly lacks the experience, skills and temperament necessary to be a serious contender for president, let alone a viable candidate for Republicans. He was formerly a proponent of universal healthcare.

The next 10 years in Washington will be extremely political and contentious. The federal government almost shut down last week because politicians couldn’t reach an agreement over funding the remaining fiscal year, and tremendously controversial debates over entitlement spending still loom. Consequently, Americans will need a leader who is willing to lobby, negotiate, and if necessary compromise for them in 2012. Trump won’t make the cut.

He may have a degree from the Wharton School of Business, or as he so timidly put it, “the best school in the country,” but Trump lacks critical political and emotional intelligence.

Trump has never held a political office. He is notorious for his tenacity and lack of empathy. His obstinate personality and “you’re fired” attitude are not going facilitate bipartisanship in Congress and will not resonate well among politicians, special interest groups or the public for long.

The reality is that his interest in the presidential race is likely nothing more than another attempt to remain in the limelight. Like Trump’s argument about President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, his campaign is merely a distraction from legitimate politicians and issues.

While Trump’s campaign may be just a publicity stunt, his argument about running the government like a business is cause for a more serious debate: Should our government be run “like a business?”

The common argument for adopting the business model is that it will allow the US government to balance the budget and “cut through the red tape.” This argument is flawed.

We’re beginning to emerge from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, brought about largely because of regulatory lapses and excessive corporate lending. Banks leveraged far too much by borrowing and investing substantial sums of money into derivative packages so complex and wordy that even seasoned brokers had a hard time explaining them.

As a result of this financial irresponsibility, many banks became insolvent and the government had to bail out the survivors. To say that adopting a business model will naturally solve America’s budget woes after suffering a financial crisis caused primarily by such models is imprudent.

Business models often induce, if not require, corporations to make hefty, precarious loans and investments that intrinsically leave them prone to volatility, potential budget crises and bankruptcy. All three of these components run counter to fundamental objectives of government.

A business has the ultimate goal of turning a profit. Governments, however, exist to provide stability and protect basic rights, freedoms and social needs like national defense. The business model does not provide for the incentives or means to perform these vital tasks. Moreover, free rider problems and market externalities would prevent any business-run government from providing goods and services at socially optimum levels.

The Constitution would also have to be dramatically altered for our government to run like a business. Businesses operate in an autocratic manner with the CEO or board of directors calling the shots and receiving little or no input from average employees. Adopting this model of government would require an immense transfer of power from the people to the president, who would inevitably resemble the CEOs that mainstream America has loved hating for the last three years.

While Mr. Trump may be a first-rate capitalist and his approach to governing novel, what’s good for private business is not necessarily good for the public or government of the United States.

If Trump’s past is any indication of his future, we can imagine that his presidency would morph the US from being in a condition of quasi-democratic to ‘family owned and operated,’ with Donald Trump Jr. as the Vice President and Ivanka Trump the Secretary of Treasury.

Trump should stick to what he’s good at: developing real estate, bankrupting casinos, hosting reality TV shows and selling high-end beef products.

Voters, however, should focus their energy on serious candidates with potential to win.