Howard Schultz's Venti-Size Disaster

A triple-shot of horrible developments in American politics have been poured into one 2020 presidential candidate.

By JEFF GREENFIELD January 28, 2019

Jeff Greenfield is a five-time Emmy-winning network television analyst and author.

-snip-

Let me float three reasons behind Howard Schultz’s long-shot bid, which he announced in a 60 Minutes interview on Sunday evening, followed by an introductory tweet that met with widespread derision from political insiders.

Reason No. 1 is the notion, at least a century old, that a successful business career suggests presidential timber. It’s why Henry Ford was at one time a leading contender for the White House (he won the 1916 Michigan Republican primary). It’s why Mitt Romney based his 2012 presidential campaign on the strength of his business successes, rather than his record as governor of Massachusetts. And it’s why the fictional portrait of Donald Trump as a firm, decisive business leader on The Apprentice was the key to his political credibility in 2016.

The second development is the now-limitless ability of very wealthy people to spend as much as they want in the pursuit of office. It’s not that wealthy politicians always win—they often don’t. But big money now provides direct access to the playing field. It offers an ability to become a serious candidate with no other asset, such as the potency of your ideas, or a track record of public service, or the support of a significant constituency.

And the third is the powerful draw of “independence,” the idea that an alienated majority is waiting for an alternative to the two major parties.

All three of these notions are either wrongheaded or deplorable. Combining them into one candidacy would not only increase the odds of a second term for President Trump, but it would also encourage other rich people to follow Schultz’s lead. Instead of one Trump, we may be about to see dozens of Trumps.

It’s not that success in business can’t lead to success in politics. Our current president is evidence that one can lead to the other, at least if you define success by winning elections. And Trump’s career of running enterprises into bankruptcy while lying about nearly everything turned out to be an excellent guide to his presidency. Still, the skills to build a successful business tell us little about an ordinary CEO’s ability to work in Washington, with its competing power centers and ideologies. At the least, aspiring tycoons-turned-presidents should test their political skills by running for a lesser office, as Michael Bloomberg, Romney and many others did. Seeking the presidency first suggests, at the least, an excess of self-esteem.

more
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/01/28/howard-schultz-2020-224382