A J.P. Morgan research report traces the private sector experiences of presidential cabinet members since Theodore Roosevelt’s time.
The study examines secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Energy and Housing and Urban Development, in an attempt to see what impact these cabinet members had on economic advice to presidents.
Predictably, Republican Presidents had higher percentages of private sector cabinet members, with Eisenhower the highest at close to 60 percent, with Reagan, Bush II, Richard Nixon, and Bush I close behind at over 50 percent each.
The highest percentage for a Democrat was Woodrow Wilson, with just over 50 percent. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman are exactly at 50 percent Close behind in mid to high 40s are Harding, Coolidge, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford respectively.
Herbert Hoover is exactly at 40 percent, followed by William Howard Taft, Theodore Roosevelt, and Bill Clinton in the high to mid 30s.
Jimmy Carter is just over 30 percent, with John F. Kennedy, surprisingly, in the high 20s at the bottom, except for the fact that our present incumbent of the White House, is WAY DOWN at under ten percent of the cabinet members mentioned above having private sector experience.
So the question is whether it is good that most Presidents had a large percentage who had private sector experience, or rather that those Presidents who were lower, benefited from more public sector experience of their cabinet officers. And, of course, is it good that Obama is almost without any private sector experienced advisers?
I would argue that private sector experience IS important, but should not be as high a percentage as under Eisenhower, Reagan, Nixon and the Bushes. Rather than 50-60 percent being a norm, it is best that the percentage be between 30-45 percent, so that the majority are from public sector background.
It is clear that Obama has way too low a percentage of private sector experience, and it is hoped that the percentage will grow to be in the 30-45 percentile over time.
Ronald, thanks for those statistics. I had no idea Obama’s percentage of private sector was so low. It seems like he’s always surrounded by Wall Street types. Maybe he doesn’t need more of them. Doesn’t the private sector put profits first (often overlooking public interest), while the public sector’s role is to serve the public?
I tend to agree with you, but Obama’s percentage is so low that it probably ideally should be at the level of Kennedy or Carter.
Why?
It goes against the historical tradition since 1900 to have under ten percent of cabinet officers being from the private sector. Having said that, I suppose it is not a bad trend to change that tradition! 🙂
Yes, I tend to agree with you. 🙂
Not today we do not need anyone from the ‘private sector’ unless they are teachers, students (without degrees), the labor force, most certainly we DO NOT need any one from ‘Wall St or any part of the Corporate sector, they have killed this country. The answer is NO we do not need the private sector, NOT TODAY they spell CORRUPTION. We have enough of them private sector in the ‘Lobby Sector’ contaminating Washington and the entire political process.