Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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:
Published in GeneralOver 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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe if he had said he would enjoy firing Barack Obama?
Mark, I completely agree with that quibble and would never use that phrasing myself (don’t think I wasn’t hearing Paul Rahe in my head). I left it in, however, because it strikes me as a formulation Romney would use (which may say something instructive about him).
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”. ·Jan 10 at 9:59pm
As Romney found during his time in the private sector, some turnaround jobs are too much for anyone to salvage.
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. ·Jan 10 at 9:16pm
Mendel: 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. ·Jan 10 at 9:16pm
I still say that the term “mandate” is grossly misused, and multiple different concepts- some bad, some perfectly fine, are errantly conflated.
I do wish that Troy would moonlight now and then writing speeches for Romney. Or consulting for the campaign.
One quibble for those defending Romney: the statement is in essence “I like having the freedom to choose,” and none of us can argue with him on it. The problem, however, is it is coming from the man responsible for telling the people of Massachusetts that where their healthcare is concerned they do not have a choice. Does he only want the freedom to choose for himself, or does he want it for others as well? If he does want it for others, then please explain the mandate.
He wants to turn America into a European-style entitlement society. We want to ensure that we remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity.
This President takes his inspiration from the capitals of Europe; we look to the cities and small towns of America.
This President puts his faith in government. We put our faith in the American people.
He is making the federal government bigger, burdensome, and bloated. I will make it simpler, smaller, and smarter.
He raised the national debt. I will cut, cap, and balance the budget.
He enacted job-killing regulations; I’ll eliminate them.
He lost our AAA credit rating; I’ll restore it.
He passed Obamacare; I’ll repeal it.
When it comes to the economy, my highest priority as President will be worrying about your job, not saving my own.
Internationally, President Obama has adopted an appeasement strategy. He believes America’s role as leader in the world is a thing of the past. I believe a strong America must – and will – lead the future.
Excellent words. His delivery was rushed and staccato: he needs a better speech coach.
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.
I didn’t misinterpret his words. I noted they will be isolated into a soundbite for political ads for others to misinterpret.
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.
Unless you think that a three-second video clip of Mitt saying, “I like to be able to fire people,” won’t be used against him in political ads, the first part is essential.
And yes, Troy formulated the second part far better than I could.
Amen. This is coming from someone profoundly skeptical of Romney … the managerial progressive who happens to be the Republican’s next-in-line. But that was a pitch-perfect speech on substance. He even called for Congressional term limits … if that was part of his platform before, I’d missed it. I still harbor grave doubts as to how much of it he truly believes, but at least he’s singing the right tune … for the moment.
In order to understand RomneyCare, ObamaCare, and the health care debate you need to understand that the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act signed into law by President Reagan mandated that hospitals provide emergency medical care to all patients regardless of their ability to pay. This was a federal mandate that contributed to the increasing cost of medical services for those who have insurance. In fairness, RomneyCare mandated the 7 percent of those without insurance in Massachusetts should purchase private insurance and take personal responsibility for their own medical expenses. These people had all kinds of choices, just like the 93 percent.
It’ll be tougher in the general, but if he’s disciplined and relentless in his message he can do it — at least enough that the Bain attacks are blunted and the focus goes back to Obama.
I fear this sort of response lacks the tough counter-punch Romney needs to inflict if he’s to defeat the Chicago street fighter he’s up against. It’s not enough to provide an alternative interpretation and wait for the subject to change. What’s needed is a crisp counter-narrative that puts Obama’s actions as President in the cross-hairs and draws a deep and divisive contrast with Romney. Just saying that the ‘vulture’ attack is akin to attacking free enterprise does not give the voter something negative to reflect on that Obama did as President—special deals to Big Union pals with the GM bailout, to Big Contributors at Solyndra, etc. Gingrich excels at counter-punching. Unfortunately, Romney seems ill at ease with it, or even incapable of it. Obama is neither.