Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman is running for governor of California.
Given her launch, this is not a bid I think she’ll win.
First of all, I have doubts about any campaign that would allow the photograph above to be taken. I’m not sure which tortured saint she is affecting to emulate, but much as the shrinking GOP base purports to love their narrow slice of religion, they’re not so much into the suffering. They want an action Christ to kick out the heathens and idolators and sodomites. The image above suggests someone who might, finally, be brought to say, “Please… just… don’t.” Whitman and her advisors have forgotten that the current governator was elected because he was a murderous rampaging robot. (And he then campaigned by smashing windshields with a sledgehammer. You just can’t make these things up.)
Secondly, if this piece in the LA Times is any indication, I honestly have no idea what the hell she’s talking about. And I’ve been listening to people run for office all my life, so this is saying something. She praises the governorship of Pete Wilson, but not his support of the anti-immigration initiative Proposition 187, or his having raised taxes to balance the state budget. Whatever one may think of them, these two items are the signal accomplishments of the Wilson governorship. Praising Wilson’s stewardship but not these policies is like saying that George W. Bush did a great job, except for that Iraq war, the botched Afghanistan war, the economic wipeout, the gulag in Guantanamo, the attorney general scandal, the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina, the do-nothing run-up to September 11th, and at least a few more things. It’s like saying, “The roses on the East Lawn were nicely tended.”
The thrust of Whitman’s platform, which simultaneously seeks to be anti-gay and pro-gay, anti-immigrant and pro-immigrant, anti-environment and pro-environment, is this: “I think maybe it is about time for a governor who has created jobs, who’s managed a budget, who’s led and inspired large organizations, who listens well, and who can drive an agenda.” This is the pro-forma rationale that seemingly “moderate” Republicans, of which Mitt Romney was only the most recent example, trot out to justify their candidacies. And I would ask: Can they name a role model, a successful major business leader, who proved to be a success at high office?
By way of example, here’s the generally accepted list of greatest U.S. presidents:
- George Washington, a soldier and farmer
- Abraham Lincoln, a lawyer
- Franklin D. Roosevelt, a lawyer
- Thomas Jefferson, a lawyer
- Theodore Roosevelt, a writer
- James Madison, a lawyer
- Andrew Jackson, a lawyer and soldier
- Woodrow Wilson, an educator
- Harry S. Truman, a businessman
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, a soldier
Judging by this list, if the country were in dire straits, I’d look around for a really good lawyer to fix it. Maybe they know things about compromise, and structuring deals, and getting warring parties to work together. (And, indeed, that’s just what we did recently.) It should also be noted that the lone businessman on this list above failed at that business, and then got a political position — which is where he started to actually succeed in life. It also shouldn’t go without saying that we recently had our first MBA “president.” His name: George W. Bush.
Who are recognized as the best governors California has had, people who actually presided over the state when it worked?
- Hiram Johnson, a lawyer
- Earl Warren, a lawyer
- Pat Brown, a lawyer
And before entering politics, what was Pete Wilson’s career?
He was a lawyer.
Given this history, and the lack of evidence that big business experience ever translates into good public governance, I don’t think Meg Whitman’s gubernatorial bid is a Buy It Now.
