ShareThis Page
Joseph Sabino Mistick

Joseph Sabino Mistick: Governing without 'run for sheriff'

| Saturday, Jan. 13, 2018, 6:39 p.m.
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara holds a news conference at the Pentagon in November 1961. He was one of the Kennedy administration's 'whiz kids' drawn from the top ranks of business and academia. (AP Photo | Harvey Georges, File)
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara holds a news conference at the Pentagon in November 1961. He was one of the Kennedy administration's 'whiz kids' drawn from the top ranks of business and academia. (AP Photo | Harvey Georges, File)

In “The Best and the Brightest,” author David Halberstam described the Vietnam War's hard lessons and the folly of the Kennedy administration's so-called “whiz kids.” Newcomers to the craft of government, they were drawn from the top ranks of industry and academia and charged with using their business know-how to reshape foreign policy.

They were an impressive lot. Even the worldly Lyndon Johnson marveled at their brilliance when describing John Kennedy's first Cabinet meeting to fellow Texan and House Speaker Sam Rayburn. Rayburn, Johnson's mentor and friend, was skeptical.

“You may be right, and they may be every bit as intelligent as you say,” he told Johnson, “but I'd feel a whole lot better about them if just one of them had run for sheriff once.”

As it turned out, Rayburn was right and Johnson was wrong. All the skills and intellect that made the “whiz kids” successful outside of government led to failure on the inside. It was a tragic miscalculation, and hubris was the sin.

Donald Trump, touting his gold-plated lifestyle, impressed his supporters, too. They wanted the confident guy with the private jet who promised he could make America as successful as he had made himself. It would be easy, he claimed.

Yet with Republican control of Congress, he is still a celebrity apprentice in the White House. Other than a new conservative Supreme Court justice, tax-code revisions that shortchange his voters while rewarding his rich pals and the dismantling of clean-air and clean-water protections, he has little to show. As it turns out, government is not so easy.

Democrats could easily repeat the mistake in 2020. Oprah Winfrey is just the latest celebrity to be mentioned for president and, along with Dwayne Johnson, Mark Cuban and a few others, they all have fame, fortune and success on the outside — without the experience or skills to be president.

Government is its own thing. Business principles can and should inform our government leaders, but the goals of government include helping the least among us, not growing profits and paying dividends to shareholders. And politics, the engine of government, is about compromise. None of us gets all that we want, but all of us get something and the nation advances.

There is both an art and science to this — not better than, but different from, the qualities required in business.

When you are sick and tired of your political leaders, “throw the bums out” has a certain appeal. But not all politicians are bums, and it is better to find the good ones, schooled in public service, who at least “had run for sheriff once.”

Among the memorable quotes in Michael Wolff's book “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” a keen one comes from David Bossie, described as a longtime Trump adviser. Bossie took issue with Frank Sinatra's hit “New York, New York,” in which the crooner sang, “if I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere.”

“Frank Sinatra was wrong,” Bossie said. “If you can make it in New York, you can't necessarily make it in Washington.”


Joseph Sabino Mistick is a Pittsburgh lawyer (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me