Having reached the top of a major corporation and amassed a fortune, chief executives often wonder: What is next?
After Donald Trump, the answer may well be a run for the White House.
Trump had no political or military experience, the traditional routes to high political office. Virtually his only qualification was his business career, and a checkered one at that, considering his own brush with personal bankruptcy.
Illustration: Yusha
“There is this sense that if Trump got it, why shouldn’t they?” said David Gergen, codirector of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard Kennedy School and an adviser to four presidents. “They’ve been more successful, they have more experience and they’ve run a public company, which is more equivalent to what a president does than a private company” like the Trump Organization.
Stu Loeser, once press secretary for former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg who considered a presidential run last year, concurred.
“If you run a company that has employed tens of thousands of people, and generated lots of profit and been undeniably successful, and you look at a sitting president who, to be honest, a lot of businesspeople don’t have much respect for, you think, why not me?” he said.
Loeser runs his own strategic consulting firm and told me he has clients who are business executives considering a run for high public office.
“I can’t tell you their names, obviously,” he said.
Boldface corporate names widely discussed as contenders for the next Democratic presidential nomination include chief executives like Howard Schultz of Starbucks, Robert Iger of Disney and Marc Benioff of Salesforce.com, along with Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook chief operating officer, and Oprah Winfrey, chairwoman and chief executive of Harpo Inc, which owns half of the Oprah Winfrey Network.
All deny they are running, or even seriously considering it. However, everyone demurs so far ahead of the first primaries, as did former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton four years ago, and it has not stopped anyone from speculating. That is especially the case for people who, appalled by the Trump administration, can hardly wait for the next campaign.
“I feel many of these chief executives are responding to a public longing for a strongman, or woman, a strong leader,” Gergen said. “There’s a sense that’s why Trump got elected. You’re seeing the same thing in Europe, in Asia, in a long list of countries. People are dissatisfied with standard politicians. Military types and businesspeople with a strong track record offer an attractive alternative.”
Apart from proven business experience, they have widespread name recognition or identification with major consumer brands — and they have enough money to finance their own campaigns.
I have spoken this week to multiple people who have at least discussed the possibility of running for office with Schultz and Iger. (All declined to be named discussing what were private conversations.)
Schultz, 63, with a fortune estimated by Forbes at US$3 billion, came close to making a bid last year, but backed out after concluding it would be very difficult to defeat Clinton, who seemed to have the Democratic nomination all but locked up and at the time seemed likely to win the presidency.
Those circumstances have obviously changed drastically. With Trump in office, the next Democratic race appears wide open, and many friends and potential donors are urging Schultz to run.
Schultz seemed to pave the way in December, when he announced he would step down as Starbucks’ chief executive next month.
However, he continues to be actively involved in the expansion of the company’s high-end “roasteries” as well as its social-impact initiatives.
“Howard Schultz is definitely being pursued,” Gergen said. “He has a powerful social conscience. He comes from a very different place than the kind of chief executive with a big ego who wants the trappings of presidential power.”
Schultz declined to comment.
Last year Iger, 66, told the Hollywood Reporter that “a lot of people — a lot — have urged me to seek political office,” and last week the entertainment publication fueled renewed speculation when it reported that Iger had discussed the possibility with Bloomberg.
People who have discussed a possible presidential run with Iger told me that his discussion with Bloomberg, some years ago, focused more on a possible run for mayor of New York City, where Iger has an apartment. New York has long welcomed nonresident candidates like Clinton, so Iger’s California residency is not seen as an obstacle.
Both Iger and Bloomberg declined to comment.
Whether any of those jobs, including the presidency, would actually be better than being chief executive of Disney remains an open question. After earlier announcing his retirement, Iger recently said he was willing to extend his contract, which would eliminate the need for any high-profile exit strategy, at least for the next few years.
Campaign buttons emblazoned with “Vote for Benioff” and “Marc Benioff for President” circulated two years ago at Salesforce’s annual Dreamforce conference in San Francisco, which draws hundreds of thousands of participants and has been viewed by some as a likely launching pad for any Benioff campaign.
Like Schultz, Benioff has pursued an ambitious social and philanthropic agenda. He started “Pledge 1%,” the Salesforce model of donating 1 percent of their product, 1 percent of their equity and 1 percent of employees’ time to help nonprofits achieve their missions — a practice that Salesforce says is now followed by 1,400 companies.
Benioff was an outspoken defender of gay and lesbian rights, and helped create a network of corporate leaders to oppose bills limiting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in states like Indiana, Georgia and North Carolina.
Benioff, 52, whose stake in Salesforce alone is worth more than US$3 billion and who has a net worth estimated by Forbes at more than US$4 billion, has also written three books, including the best-selling Behind the Cloud. Still, he is hardly a household name, and is best known in business and technology circles.
Asked for comment, Benioff said: “Business is the greatest platform for change.”
Sandberg’s coming nationwide tour to promote the new book she coauthored, Option B, which describes coming to terms with her husband’s sudden death in 2015 and other stories of coping with adversity, has fueled speculation (and possible wishful thinking) that the book could be a springboard for a presidential campaign.
As a billionaire (US$1.47 billion, Forbes estimates) and a key executive of the hugely successful Facebook, Sandberg has enormous name recognition. Her previous book, Lean In, was a best-seller and inspired a rallying cry for women.
She has worked in politics before, as an assistant to former US secretary of the Treasury Lawrence Summers, and was a donor to Clinton’s campaign. She was considered a candidate for a top post in any Clinton administration.
Sandberg has denied any immediate presidential ambitions, insisting that she loves her job at Facebook. At 47, she is under no pressure to run this election cycle.
(Widespread reports that Facebook founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg would run for president seem even more far-fetched. The speculation appears to have been set off by a Bloomberg News report that Zuckerberg would retain voting control of Facebook even if he sold his shares and served in a government position for up to two years. Zuckerberg has denied any interest in running.)
Then there is Winfrey, 63, who for many Democrats might amount to the dream candidate: She has unrivaled star power, is an African American woman, has run a successful business, and has a fortune estimated by Forbes at US$3 billion.
In an interview broadcast last week on Bloomberg Television, but taped in December, host David Rubenstein brought up the idea.
“It’s clear that you don’t need government experience to be elected president of the United States, right?” Rubenstein said.
“That’s what I thought,” Winfrey replied. “I thought: ‘Oh gee, I don’t have the experience, I don’t know enough.’ And now I’m thinking: ‘Oh! Oh.’”
However, when Rubenstein began to ask: “As you consider whether you are going to run for president of the United States or not...,” she interjected: “No, that won’t be happening.”
While some may disparage Trump’s credentials for the presidency, he did bring to his campaign a level of recognition that will be hard for other executives to replicate, with the possible exception of Winfrey.
“Trump spent decades building his brand and his image as a successful businessman,” Loeser said. “He was the star of one of the most-watched television shows in America. If you landed at La Guardia, you saw the Trump jet. If you went to Las Vegas, the tallest building in town has Trump’s name emblazoned on it.”
Gergen agreed.
“Trump has been a performer for years,” he said. “Most chief executives aren’t performers.”
Moreover, chief executives “aren’t prepared for the scrutiny,” Gergen said. “It’s especially tough to work with the press. They’re used to having layers of people around them, but in politics you’re out there dealing with reporters every day.”
“Look at Rex Tillerson,” he added, referring to the Exxon chief turned secretary of state. “He’s extremely well regarded in corporate circles, but he’s having trouble with the press.”
Loeser said he was helping clients assess the kind of attacks they could expect in a hard-fought campaign.
“You have to anticipate how they’ll come after you, because they will,” Loeser said. “Oprah is one of the most beloved people in America, but has anyone gone through every minute and every hour of every show she’s ever done to see if there’s anything controversial? Because someone will.”
Gergen suggested that some chief executives might want to lower their sights.
“I think business chief executives tend to make better governors or mayors,” he said. “They can be more pragmatic and less ideological. Some of the names you’re hearing, I have trouble picturing them with the [US senators] Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders wing of the party. I wouldn’t call that a match made in heaven.”
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing