Doctors, Generals, and Bankers

Thoughts on the need for persuaders in politics

I worked in the backrooms of politics for about two decades. One of the weird facts that I came to believe was that lawyers and teachers made good politicians, but doctors did not.

Every doctor I saw in politics sucked as a politician. It puzzled me. The doctors were obviously well educated. They were smart. Most were fairly personable. They tended to have good ideas about policy.

But they sucked as politicians.

The doctor that really crystallized this opinion in my mind was a guy named Jim Melenchuk. He was a doctor who became President of the Saskatchewan Medical Association. In the 1995 Saskatchewan election, he ran as a candidate for the resurgent Liberal Party. The Liberals increased their share of the popular vote by 14 percent and their seat count by 550 percent. But Melenchuk lost a winnable seat to an NDP backbencher who was changing ridings.

Despite this, a year later Melenchuk was anointed as Liberal leader. He ran in by-election. Coulda, Shoulda won but the good doctor lost to a nurse.

Then almost half his caucus crossed the floor to join the Conservatives to form the Saskatchewan Party. A little while later, another member crossed over to join the NDP. Yet another kept trying but was rebuffed.

Melenchuk limped into the 1999 election. He won his seat, but the Liberal were reduced to three seats. Melenchuk was convinced to join the NDP in a coalition government. This effectively spelled the end of the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan. Melenchuk lost his seat in the 2003 election. There’s never been a Liberal elected to the Saskatchewan legislature since.

I feel safe in asserting that Melenchuk sucked as a politician.

But an incident stuck in my mind.

A school class visited the Legislature. After Question Period, the politicians went out into the rotunda to do media scrums (oh for the day when there were enough reporters to do a scrum!). In the middle of the third-floor rotunda there was a round hole in the floor. Around the hole was a waist-high fence constructed from ornamental short stone pillars. Some kids were leaning on the fence so they could look down at the action on the second floor. When the teacher told them it was time to move on, one kid could not. His leg was stuck between two pillars. The kid began to panic and the adults began to fluster about.

Melenchuk took control. He knelt beside the kid and calmed him down. He told someone to go the cafeteria and get a tub of ice. When it arrived, he made cold compresses for the kid’s leg. A few minutes later, the kid’s leg slid free. Melenchuk explained to the kid that the pressure from the pillars had caused his leg to swell a bit. The cold compresses brought the swelling down. All was good.

I watched this incident unfold. I was amazed. Gone was the stiff, arrogant, brittle wannabe politician. Melenchuk had suddenly transformed himself into a gentle, compassionate Batman with a great bedside manner. I realized that I had just seen Dr. Jim Melenchuk instead of politician Melenchuk.

The guy was a much better doctor than politician. I wondered why.

General Sherman’s explanation

I got the answer from William Tecumseh Sherman. He had been a very successful Union General in the American Civil War. He was known as “Uncle Billy” amongst his troops and the devil incarnate amongst the Confederates. After the war, Sherman became the top soldier in the American army. He moved the army’s headquarters from Washington DC to St. Louis, Missouri so that he could get away from the politicians.

In 1884, the Republic Party convention was trying to choose between six candidates (including Sherman’s brother John). Deadlock ensued. Someone suggested Sherman as a compromise candidate. Everyone agreed. They sent a telegram to Sherman telling him they were planning on giving him the nomination. Sherman immediately wired back, “I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected.” That seemed definitive so the convention moved on.

Sherman later explained his refusal in letters.

The first reason was personal. He did not want to be President. He had, said Sherman, built a good reputation. As President, this could be (would be!) destroyed by the incompetence or corruption of other officials who he would never even met.

The second reason was principled. Sherman did not feel himself qualified. A general’s job was to command. A politician’s job was to persuade. Those, said Sherman, were different skills. He asserted that the mayor of the smallest village was more qualified to be President than the commander of the greatest army. Sherman noted that since 1828, following the election of General Andrew Jackson to the Presidency, the American people had developed the bad habit of electing generals to the Presidency. Five of the eleven previous Presidents had once been Generals. According to Sherman, all had been bad Presidents. This included is wartime colleague and close friend, General/President Grant.

Sherman’s letter explained why doctors make bad politicians. Doctors are trained to diagnose and prescribe – not to persuade.

Patients are expected to follow doctor’s orders. Citizens have to be convinced.

Bankers, Doctors, and Generals

All of this came to mind when I watched video of Mark Carney’s interactions with the press at the start of this campaign. Something seemed off. He was snappy and seemed to resent perfectly normal questions from the media.

By all accounts, he is a smart, experienced, and fairly personable sort of guy. But he reminded me of Dr. Jim Melenchuk.

Carney seems not accustomed to feeling the need to persuade. It makes sense. He’s probably not had a lot of practice.

As a banker and as chair of a massive investment fund, he’d have become accustomed to people trying to persuade him. As the keeper of the keys to the vault, he got to decide.

It would have been similar when running the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England. The most important decision he faced in these jobs was setting interest rates. Once he decided, a diktat would be issued. The decision was made. The public would be informed. Persuasion was not necessary.

I’ve been reading British press coverage of Carney. It is not flattering. The Guardian, The Times, and The Telegraph (and everyone else) are united. They are happy Carney is in Canada rather than still in Britain. This “good riddance (but what are the Canadians thinking?)” sentiment covers the political spectrum.

It goes past policy. The common element is that Carney is not a persuader. They all point to Carney’s role in the Brexit campaign. He broke away from the traditional banker’s reticence and tried to persuade people to vote against Brexit. Or rather, he basically ordered them to vote against it.

How did that go?

Both Brexit supporters and opponents agreed that Carney probably tipped the referendum to a “leave Europe” position.

But let’s be clear.

He was trying to convince (order?) Brits to vote the other way.

General Sherman made a convincing case that generals should not be political leaders. My observation is that this applies to doctors. My gut tells me it applies to bankers. All three are occupations that are accustomed to command rather than persuasion.

This is a problem. It goes beyond policy. Canada is facing real challenges. We must deal with an unstable President south of the border. (Let’s note that Trump has spent his whole life running a personally owned business. He’s not had to persuade shareholders or directors. He’s been “THE BOSS” his whole life. Trump has been a commander not a persuader.) Canada has a stagnant economy, regional divisions, and diminished influence in the world.

If we are to pull out of this, we need a leader who can persuade.

I fear a banker is as ill-suited for this ask as a doctor or a general.