Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
From Reuters:
Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney touted his record as a businessman on Monday as he sought to stem the momentum of Texas Governor Rick Perry, who entered the presidential race Saturday...
Though he did not mention Perry by name, Romney appeared eager to contrast his background, including more than two decades in the private sector, with that of the Texas governor, who has been in state politics since 1984."I have the credibility to talk about the economy in a way that nobody else on that stage will," he said. "I will not need a primer on how the economy works."At a campaign stop earlier in the day, Romney said that "having worked in the real economy" was essential to be in the White House.
I'm not sold.
Romney's argument relies on the listener equating experience in private industry with economic policy acumen. Were there a strong correlation there, Jon Corzine would have been one of the best governors in New Jersey history and Hank Paulson would have gone down as one of the nation's great treasury secretaries.
This isn't to totally dismiss the argument out of hand. Perhaps we can at least deduce that, having been a captain of industry, Romney is sensitive to the notion that government intervention in the private sector actually comes with costs, a fact of which the current White House seems stunningly ignorant. That's a serviceable floor for a GOP presidential candidate, but a very weak ceiling.
As we discussed on the most recent "Young Guns" podcast, the ideal presidential candidate marries the right policy instincts with suitable executive skills. Sufficient scrutiny of a figure who comes out of the business world should give us pause on both fronts.
When it comes to policy, it's important to remember that much of modern big business is rent-seeking. That's troubling to those of us who believe a conservative president should be pro-market, not necessarily pro-business. This difference isn't semantic. It means fewer regulations, not regulations more favorable to corporate allies. It means flatter taxes, not a tax code riddled with deductions and credits for well-connected industries. And it means having government clear private industry's way, not hold its hand.
There's also a question of executive temperament. Managing a private business is a much different task than managing the federal government. In the latter case, authority flows from the top down. A corporate head can essentially act as a dictator, with the only restrictions being those imposed by a board of directors. A president, on the other hand, has to deal with a legislative branch that's often adversarial, an entrenched bureaucracy that often ignores him, and a federal judiciary that will rein in his excesses. With those kinds of cross-currents, being a university dean may actually be more adequate preparation than being a Fortune 500 CEO.
Thus Romney's resume alone doesn't answer either of the two most important questions about his potential presidential style: will he push for the right policies and will he have the ability to see them enacted into law? What should be of greatest concern to him is this: those answers are a lot clearer when the questions are asked of Rick Perry.
- Comment (37)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
Some enthusiasm for 1) private enterprise rather than simply 'business' and 2) the health of small business would be in order. Obama's policies seek to yoke the power of big businesses like GE to the State and seek to shrivel the independence of small business.
Dec '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
Mike Bloomberg made much more money than Mitt. Does that mean Bloomberg is a super champion of limited government and market-based solutions? Or even competent at the basics, like for instance clearing the streets of snow?
By the way, I keep seeing little online ads for Mike Bloomberg's anti-coal pledge, which seems to be his stalking horse for an independent run at the Presidency. What a tragic disaster that would be!
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
A very good point, Stuart. Bloomberg's track record gets to another knock on the business class: there seems to be a heightened need amongst former executives now serving in government to act as problem solvers, regardless of whether the problem in question requires a public remedy. Being convinced that you can take on any challenge thus becomes being convinced that you know the proper amount of salt to accompany lunch.
Dec '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
Troy Senik
When it comes to policy, it's important to remember that much of modern big business is rent-seeking. That's troubling to those of us who believe a conservative president should be pro-market, not necessarily pro-business.
You nailed it.
If Romney's argument is that having lots of top CEO experience is a sufficient reason for conservatives to vote for him, does that mean we should vote for the heads of Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook too? Executive experience is helpful, but not sufficient.
Jul '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
I think you are right Troy. The argument doesn't hold water. The chief problem is that a business has to make money, and add value to the investments of its shareholders through growth and expansion into new areas. A Conservative President must actively seek to shrink the 'concern' that he heads and take it out of as many areas of activity as possible. I won't go so far as to say that the two jobs are antithetical, but there is a significant disconnect here.
So, I appreciate Romney's experience, but I don't think it represents the slam-dunk that he thinks it does.
Dec '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
That's it, exactly.
Business executives are conditioned to a command-and-control environment, in which they can give orders and enforce compliance with the threat of demotion or dismissal. That model doesn't work well with entrenched bureaucrats and civil servants, and it works even less well with taxpayers and voters: turns out just because you pass a law or write a regulation, citizens don't necessarily see it as their duty to salute and fall in line.
Just as the best business executives and military commanders inspire and lead rather than relying on strict command-and-control, the best political leaders and Presidents need to inspire the citizenry and lead the people as well as their colleagues in government. Is Romney an inspirational leader?
Nov '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
Troy Senik: A very good point, Stuart. Bloomberg's track record gets to another knock on the business class: there seems to be a heightened need amongst former executives now serving in government to act as problem solvers, regardless of whether the problem in question requires a public remedy. Being convinced that you can take on any challenge thus becomes being convinced that you know the proper amount of salt to accompany lunch.
I would never make this comparison!
Bloomberg thinks like Buffett and Soros- that financial success has much to do about "luck" and that annoyingly misguided concept of "privilege." Romney has made it clear that he believes in the power of hard work, perseverance and sacrifice (see: his story of 30 months of work as a missionary in France- which greatly impressed this areligious individual).
There is a moral and ethical purity to this man that others in his financial stratum do not share.
Dec '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
Elizabeth Dunn
I would never make this comparison!
Bloomberg thinks like Buffett and Soros- that financial success has much to do about "luck" and that annoyingly misguided concept of "privilege." Romney has made it clear that he believes in the power of hard work, perseverance and sacrifice (see: his story of 30 months of work as a missionary in France- which greatly impressed this areligious individual).
There is a moral and ethical purity to this man that others in his financial stratum do not share.
The problem with claiming that Romney possesses a saintly moral and ethical purity is that he hasn't exhibited the moral clarity that would underpin that purity. He flip-flops, and apparently he flip-flops for political advantage. That speaks to a lack of a true moral and ethical compass by which he has steered (and will steer) his actions.
Dec '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
So, if his business experience is his biggest positive (at least according to him), then what was his governorship all about? Did he do it simply as a required wicket en route to the White House? I believe his single term as governor apart from holding any other elected office makes him much more akin to Bush than Perry ever could be. Romney and Bush share a very similar background.
Nov '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
Yes, I know you're all angry at him for Romneycare. Get over it. That was in 1994 and he certainly is not supportive of this policy on a national level in 2012.
Although ideologically opposed to his healthcare bill in MA, I do give him "managerial" credit for manipulating the federal govt to fund programs for his state. After all, he wasn't responsible for the other 49!
Good CEOs focus on what is best for their individual companies. I believe Romney has nothing but America's best interests at heart and is gifted with impressive intellect, education and a vast diversity of experience.
And don't get me started on Ann!!!
Edited on August 18, 2011 at 10:40amJul '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
Not going to happen. Once a technocrat, always a technocrat. If that's how the GOP chooses to be represented, they will reap the consequences.
Nov '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
Sisyphus
Once a technocrat, always a technocrat.
Romney is no technocrat; he's the kind of man who succeeds at protecting his turf- Bain & Co, Bain Capital, Salt Lake City Olympics and the state of Massachusetts.
Oct '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
So is his turf going to be the US of A or the Whitehouse, the nation or his personal place in history, your grandchildren's standard of living or his re-election?
Nov '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
genferei
So is his turf going to be the US of A or the Whitehouse, the nation or his personal place in history, your grandchildren's standard of living or his re-election?
If he's elected as Leader of the Free World, his turf will most certainly be the US of A.
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
Romneycare was in 1994? Check your facts. The "Massachusetts health care insurance reform law" was enacted in 2006. That's only 5 years ago.
And no, we will NOT get over it, especially when "Obamacare" was basically modeled after Romney's approach. Get over expecting us to get over it.
What Romneycare tells us about Romney is that his instincts are basically technocratic. He thinks he's such a great leader and manager and that he can therefore fix our problems for us. As the post points out, this is great for a CEO but not for government, which is almost never good at fixing problems. Even if he does manage to manage things well, in spite of not having the top-down kind of authority he has used in the past, it only takes incompetent bureaucrats or the next incompetent president to totally mess it up with little recourse.
Edited on August 18, 2011 at 2:43pmRe: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
Romney has the qualities to be a terrific Secretary of Commerce.
Feb '11
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
You got it: "Managing a private business is a much different task than managing the federal government". It has been my experience that the worst government managers are straight out of the private sector.
May '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
Elizabeth Dunn
If he's elected as Leader of the Free World, his turf will most certainly be the US of A.
I'm not so sure. He will protect/lead the USA, but only to the degree that it forwards his own interests. That's a natural human instinct and part of the way the free market and the world works, and it usually just works out as long as the incentives for the individuals line up with the good of the larger organization.
But sometimes principles matter more than self-advancement. Sometimes what's best for the institution may require self-sacrifice from the leaders. Never more so than with this debt and spending crisis. The reason we are here is that the incentives for politicians are set up so that they want to avoid a crash or a downturn during their tenure, at any cost. They sacrifice long-term solvency for short-term avoidance of pain.
Unfortunately with Romney, it's pretty clear from his history that he has too often put opportunistic self-advancement above any principles he may have. Or perhaps he doesn't have that many principles. Why else would he flip-flop all over the place and say basically what he thinks each audience wants to hear? In short, I trust him even less than previous politicians to make the hard choices we need now.
“Those are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.” (Groucho Marx)
Edited on August 18, 2011 at 3:11pmRe: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
Troy I made that very argument in a column about Corzine when he was running. Business and government aren't the same. A businessman has nothing in his business bag of tricks to fix government.
In business, if part of your company is losing money, you can close it and stop the bleeding in one day.
Try that with a road.
Sep '10
Re: Mitt Romney's Big Argument Doesn't Work
"qualities" - excellent. We need to be concerned with far more than policies and experience. Bush and Obama were both lacking the qualities it takies to be a good president. I do not think the country can afford a third.