Politicians have long been the target of public ridicule. But voters, having uttered their disgust, traditionally cast their ballots for incumbents. And when those same politicians decide to run for higher office, the public often still chooses the insider over the outsider.

But maybe not this year.  As we noted in our May 26 post, 2010 has become the year of the "anti-politician." There is a growing eagerness across America to find a new breed of leader - someone untainted by the partisanship, inefficiency and do-nothingness that voters associate with government.

A recent Washington Post /ABC News poll reports that only 29% are inclined to reelect their congressional representative, the lowest approval rating for incumbents since 1989. 

So who should take the place of our current crop of career politicians? The Tea Partiers? Not likely, says the same survey. Half of respondents have an unfavorable impression of the loosely-knit group that has received more than its share of media attention. While Tea Party-supported candidates will make inroads this November, don't expect government to be flooded by grassroots libertarians.

Or, could this be the year when voters decide that a dysfunctional government needs to be run by professional managers? It's hard to imagine such a scenario, given the low opinion most Americans have of CEOs. But the high-profile candidacies of Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in California keep the question in the public's mind. If political leaders can't create jobs or balance budgets, people seem to be thinking it's time for leaders who've done so in the private sector.

Whitman, the former eBay CEO who is the Republican candidate for governor, and Fiorina, the former Hewlett Packard chief who is the GOP's choice to vie for Barbara Boxer's Senate seat, play up their real-world experience. Whitman's website highlights her "strong ideas about the ingredients for 21st century success at every scale, from small business to the corporate level, from local to state to national government." Fiorina's site refers to her as one of the most recognized business leaders in the world who has "proved her leadership in tough times."

These aren't the only business execs in the running. Former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon is campaigning aggressively for Connecticut's open Senate seat. Rick Scott, another former CEO who once ran Columbia/HCA, leads the GOP primary race for Florida governor. And, as in California, Florida has more than one top executive making political news. Billionaire real estate investor Jeff Greene is running for the Democratic Senate nomination.

Media coverage of the CEO-turned-politician has been scarce. Of those newspapers, websites and blogs that have analyzed the trend, many have focused on why self-funded campaigns are often unsuccessful. (Answer: Because it takes more than money to win elections.) I'd rather think about whether CEOs have the right stuff to become effective politicians.

It's clear that many CEOs do have talents that would benefit them in the public sphere. As Newsweek observed earlier this year, the most successful "CEO pols" tend to be politically savvy, detail-oriented, non-ideological and visionary. (Think New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.)  A Wharton Business School report notes that smart executives have learned how to mobilize, motivate and align people behind a strategy - skills that would serve them well in government.

When campaigning for office, it helps that CEOs can brag about balancing budgets and creating jobs in the private sector.

There is a downside, however, to spending 30 years in the business world. As author and scholar Kathleen Hall Jamieson tells Wharton researchers, "The question is: Can you manage an image of efficiency while still showing you're humane?" Because most executives have had to lay off workers at some point, for instance, one's political reputation as a "job creator" can be undercut by former employees who lost their jobs on a CEO's watch.

CEOs are also used to setting priorities for subordinates and dealing with various groups - employees, investors, suppliers, large customers - with similar interests. But that experience won't prepare a governor for dealing with a hostile legislature or a senator for handling partisan opponents.

To connect with the public, politicians need high emotional intelligence, says Michael Useen, a Wharton management professor. "You have to understand how you express your own emotions and understand how people react to what you say." Actually, top executives need the same ability. Most are managing a workforce that is less loyal, more culturally diverse and more worried about their jobs than ever before. Thanks to the rising expectations of various stakeholders and more intervention from government, they've had to hone their communications and public affairs skills. Those without emotional intelligence are being forced into retirement, and they'll never make a successful transition to politics.

Jamieson adds that female candidates benefit more than male candidates from their corporate background because their business experience blunts the perception of some that women can't manage large enterprises.  At the same time, she says, they benefit from another stereotype - that women are naturally more compassionate than men.

Given this advantage, will Whitman's and Fiorina's corporate resumes launch them to positions of political power? It's too early to tell because voters are split. A Field Poll released earlier this month asked Californians to list the attributes they value most in candidates running for top political office. Forty-two percent rated experience working with legislative leaders highly, while 41% said substantial business experience was highly desirable in a candidate. 

That's about as close a race as you'll see this election year.

Comments? Email me at http://pac.org/contact/blog.