Good business acumen doesn’t mean good politics - letter by Jay Moor

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

The author writes a letter replete with non sequiturs, undocumented assertions, and leaps of logic. The blizzard pace of these makes for some very difficult analysis. But we shall try.

----------------

Many politicians tout their business acumen as a sufficient and superior credential for public office. (First problem, right out of the chute: The descriptors "sufficient" and "superior." This artificially narrows the issue to two supposed reasons, excluding other, perhaps more valid reasons for having a business person in public office.

Indeed, we are in our present swamp because of career politicians who are mostly lawyers, and leftists at that. But the author apparently wants these types to maintain their stranglehold over our political processes by excluding people who actually know how to run successful organizations like businesses.)

Their experience making money, they claim, will help government run more efficiently. ("Business acumen" is not synonymous with "making money." And of course, no one has claimed that their experience making money is the reason for someone's suitability for running for office. 

In addition, the author tacitly admits that government is not efficient, but for some reason objects to electing people who have some skill in running efficient organizations.)

Unfortunately, many business folks enter politics primarily to re-purpose (i.e., corrupt) the powers of government. (Re-purpose" is not synonymous with "corrupt." 

Nearly everyone who enters politics does so to make a difference in government in some fashion. All of them are intent on re-purposing government. Everyone has an agenda. Everyone has an objective. And everyone has perceptions of their skills. 

But apparently only politicians with a business background are a problem, despite the fact that the Left has created our present situation by putting their people in government for the last 80 years.)

Among their bright, shiny, business-friendly objectives are: deregulation, lowered taxes, weakened labor and environmental laws and government offices packed with lickspittles. Such objectives, if achieved, turn a democracy into a self-dealing plutocracy. (Unless they are liberal millionaires like Bloomberg, Steyer, Soros, and even Buffet, who want pretend to want to be taxed and regulated more. Those businessmen always get a pass from people like our author.)

(No comes the sob stories, presented as representative of businesses....) Montanans should remember W.R. Grace, the super-callous firm that left over 200 residents of Libby dead from asbestos poisoning. A jury blamed lack of government oversight for the deaths, and Grace was off the hook. Investigations found that Grace and a group of asbestos producers had influenced federal agencies to weaken mining regulations. (Which of the W.R. Grace executives are running for office? Which of them are using their candidacy for advocating for lower taxes or relaxed regulations? Which of them are lickspittles?) 

The twin disasters involving the Boeing 737 Max jet happened because the company made a business decision to sell a safety component as an option – for additional profit – instead of making it mandatory for all 737 Maxes. (What Boeing executives are running for office? Which of them are using their candidacy for advocating for lower taxes or relaxed regulations? Which of them are lickspittles?) 

Now, it is alleged that Montana’s flashiest hospitals colluded with a private insurance company to inflate the cost of hospital employee premiums with the profits to be split between the insurance companies and the hospitals. (Which hospital executives are running for office? Which of them are using their candidacy for advocating for lower taxes or relaxed regulations? Which of them are lickspittles?) 

And, don’t forget Big Pharma’s “Halloween candy” business model that has led to opioid overdose deaths of more than 40,000 Americans, annually. (Which Big Pharma executives are running for office? Which of them are using their candidacy for advocating for lower taxes or relaxed regulations? Which of them are lickspittles?) 

Beware of politicians who promise to fix only government. (Why? What's wrong with fixing government? Since government is broken, doesn't it make sense for a person to run for government office so that he can actually be in position to fix the problems?)

Beware of politicians who insist there is nothing wrong with capitalism. (No one does this. No one has ever said that capitalism is perfect. No one believes that there is nothing wrong with it.) 

(Now comes the non-sequitur...) Clearly, America’s business practices need systemic reform. ("Business practices" is not "capitalism." Questionable business practices are not representative of capitalism. Bad business is not a feature of capitalism, it is a violation of capitalism.

And getting elected to office is not a license to "fix" the private sector. One gets elected is for the primary purpose of administering government properly, constitutionally, and efficiently.)

This cannot be done case-by-case through litigation. (Why not?)

Neither is communism the answer; it is reviled because it promised a wholesale fix that, overall, made life worse. (What about Socialism? Democratic Socialism? Monarchy? Stratocracy? The author seems to think that there are only two alternatives.)

To salvage whatever is left of capitalism’s utility to a democracy, (The purpose of capitalism is not its utility to a democracy. It has nothing to do with democracy. It does not serve democracy.)

we must elect people who will fix the private sector, ("Capitalism" is not synonymous with "private sector." 

And why should government fix the private sector? On what basis should we embrace this idea, which has never worked in the history of government?)

not excuse its defects. (Who excuses its defects?)