Troy is back, folks.I think you can separate "businessman" with running the country as a business, and in that case, as a hypothetical, I wouldn't have any reason to assume that an effective business leader couldn't be an effective statesmen. The "running the country as a business" is a nonsense concept that doesn't apply to governance. I think the argument that Michael Lewis has made that the federal government should be seen as a giant risk management organization. The primary function of the government should be to mitigate risk, I think that thought exercise, if you apply it to the different agencies and what their purpose is, and the sort of goals they are tasked with, it just kind of helps simplify the vast operation that is the government.So you'd still consider a successful business man, yes?
Because I don't know that we're really gonna separate celebrity/biz/pols worlds again soon...
Businesses in general seek to maximize profits by increasing revenues and controlling expenses. Risk management is a check on those two functions.
Unfortunately all the ghouls that have attached themselves to our current government (this is going back decades of course), have turned the government, more into a vehicle that privatizes profits and socializes losses. So if you view Trump as the broken emblem, or really, the basest illustration of that concept, it is the result of placing a shameless figure atop of an organization designed to obfuscate this reality.
So it's not that Trump is destroying a pristine institution, he's just exposing what the ghouls used to do in secret, or with subtlety.
Mitigating risk sounds a lot like providing protection for its citizens from outside interference and enforcing contracts to me...the government sounds pretty out of the way in this scenario...over-simplifying, sure...but this doesn't horrific and overreaching the way I interpret your description...