MBA Government...MBA Business Administration????

Today a con friend of mine sent me a conservative rant. This one started in on Health Care and postulated (with colored fonts and BIG font) that the United States health care system is the best in the world and is particularly better than socialized medicine models. Of course, this kind of contrasted markedly with the recent expose in Time Magazine, "Bitter Pill", that ripped the health care system in the United States as the greed based abomination that it is.

The second, and the rant warned most important, was a "study" of the number of people from private business that occupied positions in Presidential Administrations from Teddy Roosevelt to President Obama.

And, guess what, President Obama according to this "objective analysis" had the smallest percentage of business types. And, of course, this was used as "proof" that the Obama Administration is the least effective for the past 125 years.

How this supposition was arrived at was not explained of course, other than the quantum leap in logic that somehow the number of private enterprise backgrounds that are in an administration, the better the government.

Really? Really. Hoover was one of the leaders. And he almost blew the whole thing. Harding was one of the leaders, had a large percentage of business types, and ran one of the most corrupt administrations in history.

George W. Bush, who is NOT doing well as historical perspective sharpens, was our first MBA President. And, he appointed "Brownie" to FEMA and then there was Katrina. Oh, don't forget the brilliant leadership in Iraq, that decided to disband the bureaucracy and the army, and stood dumbly by as the country quickly plunged into Civil War; from which it still has not recovered.

Oh, don't forget the great economic success George W. Bush led us through, plunging the nation into a near depression and a financial meltdown that almost ended the whole ball game.

Conservatives amaze me with their rants, and their large font and colors even; and the total lack of any evidence, facts, or even reason.

Here is some reason: The fact that the Public Administration and Business Administration departments at college (that is a place people go to learn how to do things for some of my con buddies who have stopped reading and reasoning about 40 years ago) are separate; is because there is a (gasp) difference between public and business administration.

I was in the public administration sphere, and have a Masters in it. I spent 35 years in school work, with the balance in administration. I wince when I hear from my con buddies, that business people could do a better job running local government and schools.

The record does not prove this. Business leaders have tried school administration, with less than stellar results. In fact, most have failed miserably. Business leaders do not do well running governments!

That is because there is a difference between business models of organization and public entity models of organization.

Most business of any size are corporations, and corporations have Board of Directors, with one of them the CEO (or separate depending on the model) who are held responsible by their company's stock holders. No where, I mean no where, is the public interest considered. No where is any requirement for democratic decision making. In fact, many corporations are run like plutocracies.

Public administration is much different. At the top of all organizational flow charts is a big cloud labeled "The People", and a board of trustees, or legislature sits as representatives of the People. From there a Superintendent or City Manager runs a bureaucracy that delivers services to the school or city residents. Running through all of this is legislation enacted by representatives, that the administrator much follow, with check and balances throughout. And, in every part of this mix, is democracy, access to process, freedom of the press (Brown Act in California); etc.

Very different from the business model! No plutocracy here; nothing but democracy!

So, why, with this marked difference, do cons claim that President Obama's administration that apparently has government administration trained people in a majority, is somehow not qualified to run a government? And why do fools listen to this chasm of logic?

Look, good government does not just happen. Bureaucracies do not just happen, they must be recruited, trained, and led. They are the backbone of good government.

I would postulate, that MBAs, have no clue how to develop effective bureaucracies; none.

And this also implies that if a Public Administration trained person tried business, the results will more than likely be the same, as the lost MBA in government; ineffective leadership and disaster.

There is a reason why a MA in Public Administration is different from Masters in Business Administration: they are different!

So stop the bullshit that what government needs is to be run like a business. It isn't a business!