In our book Disorganized Crimes (Palgrave Macmillan 2013), we stress the importance of a political and legal system is for establishing a context (the nest) for proper corporate governance. Is it not ironic that the hammering of JPM over recent months, and the publication of an apparent settlement with the DoJ, (indicating a huge failure in corporate governance) has occurred at the same time as President Obama is foundering in his own governance crisis

There is a huge difference, however, between the formal structure of political governance and corporate governance. With our national political governance, the power of the Presidency is unrivaled and much can be done through Executive Order that would not pass our political systems checks and balances. This is best characterized by the famed Obama quote that Elections have consequences. I won. Uttered by the President in 2009, responding to a Republican stimulus proposal in a meeting with Republicans shortly after his smashing electoral victory in November 2008, the President ignored opposition suggestions. Obama is now ensnarled in an unending series of executive setbacks, mistakes and according to some, a continuing tissue of political lies.

The President has been forced to admit that his promise If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it was wrong. Critics can and do now point to the hubris implicit in that campaign slogan. By- passing political and institutional checks and balances has consequences too! Isnt that reminiscent of journalistic claims of hubris and greed in our two recent eras of corporate misgovernance

Before running for President, Obama taught constitutional law at a leading American law school, but was apparently unfamiliar with the substance of his own signature legislative accomplishment. The latest faux pas for HealthCare.govis the delay for over a year in the mandatory enrollment date for businesses with less than 50 employees announced November 27, 2013 on top of other delays given earlier to individuals.

The growing list of Presidential stumbles began with the poor economic response to his 2009 Economic Stimulus package and his unwillingness to compromise with Republicans in the design of the tax reduction-expenditure mix they presented. It was at the meeting with Eric Cantor and his Congressional colleagues in 2009 that the Obama diktat cited above first emerged. Even after the election reversals in 2010 in which Republicans captured the House, the President pressed ahead with denials of responsibility for the killing of the US Ambassador to Libya in Benghazi; a threat to bomb Syria, quickly reversed when Congress objected; a re-opening of political dialogue with Iran and a subsequent agreement to give up tough economic sanctions in exchange for Iranian promises not to seek atomic weapons despite strong Congressional resistance to a weakening of sanctions without proof of Iranian compliance.

On the domestic front, the Presidents push on Obamacare (the ACA) has revealed a huge foul-up with multiple website failures and an apparent walk back on his promise that individual could keep their existing health insurance and their own doctors. It is interesting to compare this governance crisis with that of corporate governance failures. What are the essential points of difference

In Disorganized Crimes, we placed great emphasis on the effectiveness of an active and diligent Board of Directors for establishing and maintaining good corporate governance. All the other corporate monitors such as the auditors, credit rating agencies, outside general counsels as well as the full panoply of government and private regulators take their cue from the behavior of the board. The President has no board save the impeachment powers of the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate. The Cabinet and a coterie of Presidential advisors and staff are not the equivalent of an active board of directors. The President can listen to his advisors or he can disregard it, but he can easily fire advisors whose views conflict with his own. A corporate board can fire the CEO. A President can only be fired by an electorate voting once every four years. A President may be advised by his partys leaders, particularly those who must run for office in two years, but he can, if he so motivated, ignore their concerns. Presidents who are concerned with achieving a bi-partisan economic or foreign policy have often given significant time and consideration to the concerns of the opposing party. Beginning with a view that elections have consequences has created an environment conspicuous by its inattention to opposition views. Yet, listening to those who do not agree with a Presidents policy is a safeguard against greed and hubris.That is a self-imposed discipline. Some Presidents have have it. Others, simply know they are right!