Yeah, that would make sense if all the president had to do was meet some objectively defined goal of "efficiency" in services, and didn't have to decide issues involving legitimate disagreements or conflicts of interest.
Political conflict happens because people disagree on things (abortion, tax structure, foreign policy, trade regulation, environmental regulations, labor law, etc.). They will still disagree about them even if a nice, moderate, technocratic guy is elected president.
You seriously think that GLAAD and Focus On The Family will realize that they have the same stance on gay marriage once Bloomberg explains which solution would be efficient? That Cato and EPI would agree on Social Security? That CAIR and AIPAC would agree on a Middle East policy?
Really?