Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
As Ben Domenech noted this morning, the rhetoric being aimed at Mitt Romney on the campaign trail over the past few days has been an embarrassment to the Republican candidates who are peddling it. Rick Perry has called Romney and his ilk at Bain Capital “vultures”; Newt Gingrich has essentially accused of him of pillaging the companies that Bain took over; and Jon Huntsman has said that Romney “enjoys firing people.”
None of these men are economically illiterate enough to believe the full force of these charges, which means we’re at a high tide for election season opportunism. As Romney said in tonight’s New Hampshire victory speech, “President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him. This is such a mistake for our party and for our nation.”
What’s most frustrating from this former speechwriter’s perspective is that (A) Romney is doing a miserable job of explaining and defending his record and (B) his opponents are missing an opportunity to hit Romney on his Bain background in a way that is both consistent with conservative economic principles and likely to give primary voters second thoughts.
I’ll post tomorrow on what Romney’s rivals can do. For now, here’s the message I’d like to see coming from Romney himself:
Over the past few days, you’ve been hearing my opponents say not only that I was responsible for people losing their jobs, but that I actually enjoyed the process. That ought to tell you that these individuals aren’t ready to manage something as complex as the largest economy on the planet. We’ve already had three years of a president who believes that jobs are created or lost based on what kind of mood employers wake up in in the morning. But that’s just not true. Unlike politicians, employers have to face the harsh reality of balance sheets. Unlike politicians, employers often have to sacrifice today to ensure that they can keep the doors open tomorrow. A bad day for a politician is flubbing an interview. A bad day for an employer is not knowing how you’re going to meet the next payroll period.
I would remind my opponents – as I would remind President Obama – that work is a form of public service. Our ability to make money is directly tied to our ability to provide something of value to our fellow man. But sometimes when the customer’s needs change or when we lose ground to our competitors, we have to make changes. We don’t choose these circumstances. As a matter of fact, we hate these circumstances. But, like many Americans that are struggling today, we accept the things that we cannot change, we make the hard choices, and we persevere. That is never an easy task. And unfortunately, sometimes people lose their jobs as a result. But what, I wonder, do my opponents think the alternative is? If a company on the brink of failure has no choice but to let a few employees go now or to see all of their jobs disappear eventually, what should they do?
Those are the kind of painful choices that people face in the real economy. And I find it telling that that concept is foreign to my opponents. They’re not foreign to the American people – because they’re living through them every day. You can talk to anyone who’s ever sat behind a manager’s desk – whether it’s in a corner office or a corner store – and they’ll tell you that there’s nothing that they hate more than having to fire someone. Americans take pride in their work. Losing a paycheck hurts. But losing your sense of dignity hurts more. My experiences in business didn’t make me enjoy firing people. It made me loathe the politicians in Washington for whom those people are nothing more than statistics on a spreadsheet.
So let me tell you something that my opponents don’t understand. In businesses like the one I was in, you do well when the company you’ve invested in does well. And when they do well, it creates a virtuous cycle. Employees are better off because a thriving company can create jobs or increase pay and benefits. Consumers are better off because they can meet their needs within their budgets. And yes, management profits too when things are going well. And if my opponents have a problem with that, they’re running in the wrong primary.
- Comment (44)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Jul '11
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
You're hired.
May '10
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
That is a beautiful piece of prose--have you ever considered being a speechwriter?
Someone claimed on Twitter that Bain Capital had a 78% success rate, and implied that was not a very good score. I responded that Bain, from what I understood, specialized new companies and companies in distress, which I analogized to the "success rate" in a hospital's ICU or it's neonatal care unit.
Team Obama-DNC-MSM is champing at the bit to pain Mitt Romney as Gordon Gekko, or something. Part of the response needs to be to respond, "no, more like Steve Jobs and Warren Buffet."
Edited on January 11, 2012 at 5:29amRe: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
Stop this. Stop this now. We want you here at Ricochet, not hauled off to the campaign trail.
Dec '10
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
Troy, your speech doesn't actually deal with the reality that Romney said the words, "I enjoy being able to fire people."
The two parts of the required defense are:
1) "Apparently my opponents didn't pay attention to the context -- or perhaps they did, since Newt Gingrich admitted he took that quotation out of context. My remark pointed out that it's great to have a marketplace of choices, in which we are free to stop buying from a company that doesn't do what it promises and to choose a different vendor."
2) "Still, let's address the specific criticism that my opponents have made -- that the Democrats have and will make. As the economy changes, as new technologies and ideas arise, companies and employees have to adapt. A manager may face the choice between letting some employees go or having to shut down the whole company and put everyone out of work.
"But the other side of that coin is that companies that adapt can not only survive but thrive, and grow their revenues and their job rolls. Their employees grow in their careers. And the economy as a whole grows and employs more people."
Dec '11
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
When people talk about Mitt Romney's time at Bain Capital, it always increases my respect for him. Without financial services like the ones provided by Bain, we wouldn't have oil rigs, or skyscrapers, or anything that requires more capital than can be pooled by a small group of people. Mitt Romney has contributed far more to mankind than the pithy millions he has earned for himself. If his opponents want to vilify him, they should talk about RomneyCare.
Sep '11
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
Troy,
This is excellent, save one line: "I would remind my opponents – as I would remind President Obama – that work is a form of public service." It is not a public service, but certainly an essential part of the common good.
Jun '10
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
For what it's worth, Bain came in to Intel Corp. where I worked at the time several years ago and recommended some significant changes. I think it helped us a lot by trimming in areas where we were overstaffed. From then on, we had a solid model to run on and it helped the company flourish.
May '10
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
Dave Molinari, your comment reminds me that, I believe, Bain Capital did/does two distinct things: it buys and sells companies, but it also consulting to fix companies; It's this later activity that caught my attention about Romney, and why/what makes him so promising as a POTUS.
Edited on January 11, 2012 at 6:07amMay '10
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
Peter Robinson: "Stop this. Stop this now. We want you here at Ricochet, not hauled off to the campaign trail." Peter, are you valuing Ricochet ahead of the country? If Troy can help to defeat Obama, I can approve of a leave-of-absence....
Edited on January 11, 2012 at 6:06amDec '10
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
Bain & Co. is the main company fixer. It's a distinct entity from Bain Capital, but Romney got his start at the former and started the latter.
Mar '11
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
Troy,
any chance you could draft a speech for Romney to distance himself from the individual mandate in a face-saving way?
If anyone can do it, it's you.
Dec '10
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
Flagg Taylor: Troy,
This is excellent, save one line: "I would remind my opponents – as I would remind President Obama – that work is a form of public service." It is not a public service, but certainly an essential part of the common good. · Jan 10 at 8:42pm
Adam Smith tells us that work is indeed a public service, even if it's undertaken for private gain.
Jun '10
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
Apparently, Sen. Jim DeMint came very close to predicting that Romney would win in South Carolina (predicted it and then pulled back somewhat, discounting his ability to predict) and also sounded like a Mitt Romney win would be fine with him. If Romney gets the DeMint endorsement, that's something. Then he's got both Haley and DeMint.
Edited on January 11, 2012 at 7:19amMay '10
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
Bain & Co. is the main company fixer. It's a distinct entity from Bain Capital, but Romney got his start at the former and started the latter.
Yes. I was just trying to say that, at least in the past few days, the capital aspect has been emphasized, and the consulting/fixing thing has been almost absent--that's the part that fuses with Romney's Gov. experience to make him so impressive (at least to me...)
Edited on January 11, 2012 at 6:59amApr '11
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
The King Prawn
Bain & Co. is the main company fixer. It's a distinct entity from Bain Capital, but Romney got his start at the former and started the latter. ·
Well, sort of. Bain & Co.'s innovation was to have the consultants integrate much more closely, and over a longer time, than previous consultancy firms had, in order to really make reforms stick. It also avoided conflicts of interest by supporting only one firm in a given sector. Bain Capital intensifies this by purchasing or founding the companies, allowing for a yet greater degree of control.
Paris is right that it's the consulting, rather than the buying and selling, that Romney revolutionized the industry with and that taught more skills transferable to the public sector, although he did also make significant changes to leverage buy-out practice.
May '10
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
Great analysis and speech, Troy. I had to keep reminding myself that those words hadn't been transcribed from the speech of some orator at a podium.
I have one quibble though, in the second line of the speech. The president doesn't manage the economy. Such a comment sounds just like a claim that governors "create jobs".
Oct '10
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
How Newt is Helping Mitt against Obama
1. By going all out against Mitt Romney on Bain Capital and putting Capitalism on trial in the GOP primaries. If this is how the Dems will attack Romney, then better for it to come out now in January rather than later in October.
2. By calling Romney a Massachusetts Moderate. Could hurt Mitt in the primaries, but help in the General Elections.
Dec '11
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
Let's try this:
"People say I'm phony. Look, that's not my fault. I just have this habit of chuckling insincerely when I'm under pressure. But you can trust me, really. Look at my wife. Look at my kids.
My actual record? (Chuckle), no, no, don't look at that..."
Apr '11
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
Stuart Creque: Troy, your speech doesn't actually deal with the reality that Romney said the words, "I enjoy being able to fire people."
The two parts of the required defense are:
I'm not sure that the first part is helpful. The fact that Gingrich, in attacking him for saying something that he does say fairly frequently, managed to choose a time when he didn't say it should be embarrassing to Gingrich, but relying on that overly opens Mitt up to problems if Gingrich ever gets a staffer to read, eg., Mitt's books. Huntsman's suggestion that Mitt enjoys firing people obviously does need a rebuttal including the fact that he never said that, would never, and does not enjoy it, but in response to Newt the unfairness of the original charge can be ignored.
The second part was a great formulation, but not so terribly different from Troy's excellent response.
Nov '10
Re: Recalibrating the Romney Rhetoric
Good point Stuart, but you mount the wrong defenses for this. I thought Romney's statement was fine and stands on its own. But it is so consistently misread, even here by you, that I suppose it requires clarification.
Romney should say "I said I enjoy being able to fire people, and I stand by that. I did not, however, say that I enjoy firing people, which is quite a different thing."
You see, Romney's point was a good one about liberty, not about economics. In context it was about health services: the ability to fire those providing you service means you have choice. The inability to do so means you don't. The same principle applies in the workplace: No employer likes the idea that an employee is unfireable. It is especially important that public-sector employees are fireable. Yes, there could or should be laws protecting the stability of an individual's employment against arbitrary dismissal; but such laws ought to strike a balance between liberties of one and the rights of another.