It’s easy to make the case that no president of the United States has possessed less handson political experience than Donald Trump. However, given his vast executive experience, he should be just as capable of excelling in his new role as the men who preceded him.
History teaches us that predictions of presidential effectiveness are a sucker’s game. A person’s talents as a campaigner are not directly transferable to the job. Sometimes an individual’s behavioral strengths work against success.
Trump’s ability to apply his self-promotion and marketing expertise should not be underrated. Prior to throwing his hat in the ring for president he had already attained celebrity status, so he didn’t have to spend time on developing name recognition. Unlike any other candidate or political analyst, he visualized an opportunity for victory in the upper Midwest states that no one else even imagined. His oft-repeated and highly visible mantra was action-oriented, easily understood, and resonated with a broad swath of people.
Now that he is chief executive, Trump’s overall success will be dependent upon how well he applies his leadership and management expertise. Because Trump has spent more than four decades as the boss, it’s safe to say that few previous presidents were more experienced in being the guy on top of the organizational pyramid. That’s an advantage for him.
No executive can succeed without competent subordinates, and Trump’s cabinet choices are almost through the Senate confirmation process. His selection model—having top contenders trek to New York City and make their way through the media-saturated lobby of Trump Towerwas likely the most transparent in history.
Although those committed to maintaining the status quo have squawked loudly and often, the general opinion is that those chosen for cabinet positions are up to the task. Many of the nominees have been highly successful in their chosen fields, in careers that did not include electoral politics.
No one would confuse the bearing and temperament of Trump with that of Dwight Eisenhower. Yet they share one thing in common that is unique among most American presidents. Neither, prior to election victory, was an animal of Washington, and thus owed nothing to politicians, lobbyists and governmental institutions.
Each man demonstrated competence in leading huge entities outside of politics, over a span of decades. Both were required to lead and maneuver through vast organizational systems where bureaucracy, goal achievement, team conflicts, internal competition, saboteurs, as well as numerous other realities, challenged them as chief executives daily. Obviously, they excelled.
Although unappreciated during his time, and often underrated, it appears that historians and others have come to recognize that likable Ike was quite successful as commander-in-chief.
Trump’s areas of expertise are certainly different from Eisenhower’s—the corporate world vs. the military—but given the odds he defied in making it to the Oval Office, it seems foolish to bet against the new president’s efforts to make America great again.