An interesting pair of views on Romney as president

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Melissia**

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/mitt-romney-0

It's Mitt's world, we're just living in it

Oct 25th 2011, 13:33 by W.W. | IOWA CITY

WRITING in New York, Benjamin Wallace-Wells makes a case that Bain Capital under Mitt Romney played a significant role in creating the contemporary economy:

“Mitt Romney is the real thing. He was, by any measure, an astonishingly successful businessman, one who spent his career explaining how business might operate better, and who leveraged his own mind into a personal fortune worth as much as $250m. But much more significantly, Romney was also a business revolutionary. Our economy went through a remarkable shift during the eighties as Wall Street reclaimed control of American business and sought to remake it in its own image. Romney developed one of the tools that made this possible, pioneering the use of takeovers to change the way a business functioned, remaking it in the name of efficiency. Whatever you think of his politics, you have to give him credit,” says Steven Kaplan, a professor of finance and entrepreneurship at the University of Chicago. “He came up with a model that was very successful and very innovative and that now everybody uses.”

The protests going on at Zuccotti Park now have raised the question of whether that transition was worth it. What emerged from that long decade of change was a system that is more productive, nimble, and efficient than the one it replaced; it is also less equal, less stable, and more brutal. These evolutions were not inevitable. They were the result, in part, of particular innovations developed by a few businessmen beginning a quarter century ago. Now one of them has a good chance of becoming president.

Among other things, Mr Wallace-Wells lays at Mr Romney's feet a portion of responsibility for the rise of corporate takeovers, the "shareholder-value revolution", the astonishing increase in executive compensation, the acceleration of outsourcing, the rapid rise of economic inequality, as well as a decisive shift in America's corporate culture. Mr Wallace-Wells writes:

By the time Mitt Romney left Bain Capital for good, in 1999, American CEOs looked very different from the predecessors he had met in the seventies—the genial paternalists, spending their careers at a single company. More and more, they were pure meritocrats—well-educated, well-compensated, moving frequently between jobs and industries, trained to look ruthlessly for efficiency everywhere. They look a great deal more, in other words, like Mitt Romney.

It would be quite a scoop indeed had Mitt Romney actually been such a central figure in the transformation of American business. Not to say that Mr Romney was not among those at the forefront of a number of seminal developments in the 1980s and 90s in the way American corporations were bought, sold and managed. But I daresay had Mr Romney really been the one-man force for increased efficiency Mr Wallace-Wells suggests he has been, he'd now be worth a good deal more than $250m. It seems to me Mr Wallace-Wells has rather oversold Mr Romney's influence in a rather audaciously ambitious attempt to establish the unlikely thesis that the man most likely to run against Barack Obama in 2012 was a significant force behind America's economy becoming "less equal, less stable, and more brutal". But in order to make his case, Mr Wallace-Wells also oversells Mr Romney's role in making the economy "more productive, nimble, and efficient", thereby inadvertently reinforcing the key claim of Mr Romney's campaign: that he alone has the economic know-how it takes to get America back on track. As Mr Wallace-Wells says, "Mitt Romney is the real thing". And Mr Romney's proposition is that he can do for a flagging American economy what he did for the flagging companies Bain Capital turned around. He ought to write Mr Wallace-Wells a thank-you note.

What I found oddest about Mr Wallace-Wells interesting article is the strange absence of political forces in his account of America's changing political economy. Mr Wallace-Wells tells a story of economic transformation in which private-sector pioneers such as Mr Romney play the crucial role. The story is that these corporate efficiency-seekers in effect legislated from their posh offices a new model political economy. Thus they bear not only responsibility for displacing the "genial paternalists" once at the helm of America's companies, but also for displacing a model of corporate management that, while certainly less efficient, did a better job of protecting the welfare of all the corporation's many stakeholders. Mr Wallace-Wells mentions neither the role of public policy in facilitating these efficiency-enhancing changes, nor its role in protecting, or failing to protect, workers from the downside of efficiency-enhancing creative destruction. Yet it is a commonplace even on the non-socialist left that markets should be efficient, that corporations should maximise profits, and that democratic government should set "socially responsible" rules of the game and insure people against market volatility. Mr Wallace-Wells gets to politics and policy only at the end of his piece, wherein he discusses the way Mr Romney brings to policymaking the same non-ideological analytical pragmatism he applied in private sector:

Romney did not begin with a philosophical quest to improve American health care. He began with the idea of himself as a problem solver and asked those around him for a problem that he might usefully solve. I remembered, when I was told this story, an anecdote I’d heard from a former political staffer of Romney’s. On even basic philosophical questions like abortion, the staffer said, Romney did not try to resolve the question in the abstract, as a matter of principle, and would consider instead various hypothetical cases—for instance, a late-term abortion—and build from them a politics. The line that Romney is a flip-flopper may vastly understate the depth of the condition.

This might make conservative die-hards blanch. But many of us, left and right, would like markets to be as efficient as possible so that the people may enjoy the many blessings of innovation and abundance, including a government with abundant means at its disposal to provide its people the best possible public goods and volatility-smoothing social insurance. On these terms, Mr Romney—an efficiency-enhancing, public-policy problem-solver—sounds almost too good to be true.

He is so far the frontrunner for the republican primaries, well... the consistent one anyway. I thought this was an interesting pair of views on him as a candidate as well as a potential president-- what's your opinions on the article and the man it talks about?

**sebster**

It was kind of funny to hear the claim that the man revolutionising business could amass a fortune... and then hear that fortune was $250 million. I mean, that's a whole lot of money to you or I, but when you're talking about the kind of people who revolutionised whole industries, $250 million is more like the tip for a slowly above average lunch.

That said, Romney stands out as the sane option amongst a sea of deeply crazy Republican nominees. I mean, sure, the guy is a habitual liar, but he does seem driven by pragmatism above all else and that makes him a lot more desirable than they rest of them.

**Asherian Command**

sebster wrote:It was kind of funny to hear the claim that the man revolutionising business could amass a fortune... and then hear that fortune was $250 million. I mean, that's a whole lot of money to you or I, but when you're talking about the kind of people who revolutionised whole industries, $250 million is more like the tip for a slowly above average lunch.

That said, Romney stands out as the sane option amongst a sea of deeply crazy Republican nominees. I mean, sure, the guy is a habitual liar, but he does seem driven by pragmatism above all else and that makes him a lot more desirable than they rest of them.

I can already tell you, I like him more than all the other republican candidates,

**chaos0xomega**

Romney is choice number 2 for me atm. Choice number 1 is, interestingly enough, the other Mormon candidate: Jon Huntsman.

**ShumaGorath**

I would like Romney as the conservative candidate, but I have no idea where he actually stands. He's a snake, his policies change fluidly based on the current political climate and he's taken more 360s then this planet.

**sebster**

chaos0xomega wrote:Romney is choice number 2 for me atm. Choice number 1 is, interestingly enough, the other Mormon candidate: Jon Huntsman.

Yeah, Huntsman the guy with the measured, considered policy positions on everything, who doesn't play to populist rhetoric. Poor fella never stood a chance...

**chaos0xomega**

Y'know, I'm really getting sick of the 'flip-flop' accusations that keep getting flung around in political circles these days. Do you really have the same exact beliefs now that you had 5, 10, 20 years ago? I'm sure you don't, if you do then you either stick to your guns hardcore or you're entirely unwilling to seek compromise and lack the capacity to self evaluate and self moderate that are important in any leader, let alone one at the highest level of gov't.

Yeah, Huntsman the guy with the measured, considered policy positions on everything, who doesn't play to populist rhetoric. Poor fella never stood a chance...

He got the Colbert bump last night, hopefully it works.

**Radiation**

So he is Captain of the Republican ship of fools. That's scary. I see them all dressing up as pirates for Halloween. Undead pirates sailing in on their carnival ghost ship to drain politics of any shred of civility, decency and truth. Romney is the most boring of them. And there is the whole Romney is a liar thing. Boring zombie-pirate Captain of a ship of fools liar. No thanks. Happy Halloween.

**Karon**

Currently, none of these Republican candidates can win against Obama.

Romney has nothing..special about him, and that's what candidates need.

Mcain - I'M A fething MAVERICK, I WAS TORTURED, VOTE FOR ME OR YOU'RE A TERRORIST. OH, AND BUILD THE DANG FENCE.

Obama - I'M BLACK, WHITE, AND A LORD OF CHANGE IN DISGUISE.

**Cheesecat**

Karon wrote:Currently, none of these Republican candidates can win against Obama.

Romney has nothing..special about him, and that's what candidates need.

Mcain - I'M A fething MAVERICK, I WAS TORTURED, VOTE FOR ME OR YOU'RE A TERRORIST. OH, AND BUILD THE DANG FENCE.

Obama - I'M BLACK, WHITE, AND A LORD OF CHANGE IN DISGUISE.

This has to be some of the best critical analysis on US politics that I've ever seen.

**jblackheart13**

Obama won't see a second term. I was overseas with my unit and didn't vote last election, but this election I wont vote for hope. What was the hope? I guess a second term is what he meant after Americans dog pile into depression. I might just move to England.

**Ouze**

jblackheart13 wrote:Obama won't see a second term. I was overseas with my unit and didn't vote last election, but this election I wont vote for hope. What was the hope? I guess a second term is what he meant after Americans dog pile into depression. I might just move to England.

Because if ever there were a people who have a smaller government footprint than the US, it would be England.

**Ahtman**

jblackheart13 wrote:Obama won't see a second term.

Just like Bush wasn't going to see a second term, right?

jblackheart13 wrote:I might just move to England.

Why do you hate America?

Or

When you go through Canada say "hi" to Alec Baldwin.

**Cheesecat**

Ahtman wrote:
jblackheart13 wrote:Obama won't see a second term.

Just like Bush wasn't going to see a second term, right?

jblackheart13 wrote:I might just move to England.

Why do you hate America?

Or

When you go through Canada say "hi" to Alec Baldwin.

Isn't he American?

**Ahtman**

Cheesecat wrote:Isn't he American?

During the 2004 election Baldwin also did the "if the person I like doesn't get elected I'll move" thing. I thought he said he would move to Canada, but it may have been somewhere else.

**Cheesecat**

Ahtman wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:Isn't he American?

During the 2004 election Baldwin also did the "if the person I like doesn't get elected I'll move" thing. I thought he said he would move to Canada, but it may have been somewhere else.

He sounds unnecessarily bitter at least it makes your earlier quote a lot funnier.

**sebster**

jblackheart13 wrote:Obama won't see a second term. I was overseas with my unit and didn't vote last election, but this election I wont vote for hope. What was the hope? I guess a second term is what he meant after Americans dog pile into depression. I might just move to England.

Uh huh, because Obama caused the financial crisis that began before he won the election...

Meanwhile, I agree that poor economic times mean people are likely to blame the president regardless of the reality on the ground (hence your post) and that means Obama has to be vulnerable. And yet, Obama isn't running against Not Obama. He's running against a person, and the person might be able to rely on fairly poor enthusiasm among his own base, but he still needs to be able to build his own support. So far we've seen the Republicans cycle through a whole range of favourites, as they desperately search for whoever isn't Romney. Right now they're in love with Cain, who has the business success the right adores and an engaging speaking style, but ultimately he's crazy and incapable of properly describing his own position on some fundamental elements of politics, so I think it's likely he'll fall over soon enough.

In the end, it looks like the Republicans are going to end up with Romney, because they couldn't find anyone who wasn't Romney. Leaving Obama to run against 'hold your nose and vote for me' Romney.

**d-usa**

At this point, I think Romney has the best shot at beating Obama, but not the best shot at winning the primary. The Republicans in my neck of the woods don't like him because he is not conservative enough, and the talking heads are always talking about "the candidate needs to be able to secure the conservative base".

But face it, no matter who will win the GOP primary, they will get the vote. Even if Romney is not "conservative enough", he is still more conservative than Obama.

I think that has been the Republican problem in the last few elections. They focus on "the base" which would vote for the "Not Democrat" candidate every time. And disregard the moderate voters.

**dogma**

jblackheart13 wrote:Obama won't see a second term.

His approval rating is certainly well within the margin of error for incumbent success, and he's polling above Romney at the moment; who is his most likely challenger. Of course, this may change once the GOP primaries are over, at least the Obama v. Romney (or at least the GOP victor).

jblackheart13 wrote:
I might just move to England.

If you're concerned about economic performance, I wouldn't.

**d-usa**

I am always amazed by the "Obama is a socialist, if this continues I am moving to Canada/Europe" comments I hear at work.

You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...

**dogma**

d-usa wrote:I am always amazed by the "Obama is a socialist, if this continues I am moving to Canada/Europe" comments I hear at work.

You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...

Or at least countries that weren't more socialist than the United States.

**Cheesecat**

d-usa wrote:I am always amazed by the "Obama is a socialist, if this continues I am moving to Canada/Europe" comments I hear at work.

You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...

What's wrong with socialism?

While my ideals lean towards Liberalism, I wouldn't mind voting for a Conservative or a Socialist candidate if I feel they would be a good at running the country.

**Ahtman**

Cheesecat wrote:
d-usa wrote:I am always amazed by the "Obama is a socialist, if this continues I am moving to Canada/Europe" comments I hear at work.

You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...

What's wrong with socialism? While my ideals lean towards Liberalism, I wouldn't mind voting for a Conservative or a Socialist candidate if I feel they would be a good at running the country.

Generally the problem is that often times in the US socialism is used as a synonym for communism. Many think they are the same thing.

**sebster**

d-usa wrote:At this point, I think Romney has the best shot at beating Obama, but not the best shot at winning the primary. The Republicans in my neck of the woods don't like him because he is not conservative enough, and the talking heads are always talking about "the candidate needs to be able to secure the conservative base".

True. Having to appeal to the base also requires the candidates to make all kinds of insane announcements about what they'd do if they won, which they then have to backtrack on when they look to appeal to the mainstream.

But face it, no matter who will win the GOP primary, they will get the vote. Even if Romney is not "conservative enough", he is still more conservative than Obama.

I think that has been the Republican problem in the last few elections. They focus on "the base" which would vote for the "Not Democrat" candidate every time. And disregard the moderate voters.

It's a problem with both parties, to be honest. The only reason the Democrats are dodging a bullet this time is Obama is the incumbent, and doesn't have to fight to win his party's nomination.

That said, it's a mistake to assume the base will all dutifully line to vote for the Republican candidate. For one thing, those voters aren't just needed for their votes, but for getting out and canvassing the population and all those kind of things - it isn't enough to just vote, it really helps when the base is enthusiastic about it as well.

**Cheesecat**

Ahtman wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
d-usa wrote:I am always amazed by the "Obama is a socialist, if this continues I am moving to Canada/Europe" comments I hear at work.

You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...

What's wrong with socialism? While my ideals lean towards Liberalism, I wouldn't mind voting for a Conservative or a Socialist candidate if I feel they would be a good at running the country.

Generally the problem is that often times in the US socialism is used as a synonym for communism. Many think they are the same thing.

Yeah, I've seen many people incorrectly use Socialism as a synonym for things they disagree with or something bad just as often as some equate it to communism.

**d-usa**

Cheesecat wrote:
d-usa wrote:I am always amazed by the "Obama is a socialist, if this continues I am moving to Canada/Europe" comments I hear at work.

You would think they would move to Somalia if they want less government...

What's wrong with socialism? While my ideals lean towards Liberalism, I wouldn't mind voting for a Conservative or a Socialist candidate if I feel they would be a good at running the country.

I don't have any problems with socialism, but it has become the new red scare in US politics. "I think he is a commie" has become "I think he is a socialist", even though the vast majority of people probably could not define what makes the people they call socialists a socialist.

Which probably is the reason why the people who hate how "socialist" this country is becoming under our "socialist" president always pick countries like Canada/Britain/France/Germany to move to in order to get relief from this evil "socialism".

Edited: Somehow my connection froze and posted this after quite a delay.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
My uncle was visiting from Germany for the last few weeks, and he was just dumbfounded by the use of socialism as a dirty word over here.

**Monster Rain**

You know who else hated communists?

Hitler.

**d-usa**

Monster Rain wrote:You know who else hated communists?

Hitler.

He also ruined an awesome style of beard for everyone.

**schadenfreude**

sebster wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:Romney is choice number 2 for me atm. Choice number 1 is, interestingly enough, the other Mormon candidate: Jon Huntsman.

Yeah, Huntsman the guy with the measured, considered policy positions on everything, who doesn't play to populist rhetoric. Poor fella never stood a chance...

The really funny part is Huntsman would actually do better in the general election than any other republican candidate.

Romney has to carry a lot more baggage than Huntsman. They are both pragmatic, but Romney is really stained by a record of spineless flip flopping and giving into populist rhetoric which makes him seem a lot like Obama. Huntsman has no real baggage, and there is little mud Obama or liberal 527s can throw at him.

Huntsman seems to be the only guy in the campaign that seems to understand the simple concept that the GOP doesn't need to run a dirty campaign in the general election. The economy is in the dump, that alone means the GOP should win the election in 2012. Should is the operative word because the election is still their's to lose, and the GOP is working hard at losing the election. When dealing with those that already hate Obama than throwing mud at Obama is a useless waste of time and money, nothing you say can possible make them hate Obama more. When dealing with those that love Obama than throwing mud at Obama is a useless waste of time and money because they are not going to listen to a word you say. When dealing with swing voters they already know Obama spends too much money, and they have already heard every nasty thing that can possibly be said about Obama. Continuing to fling mud will have no effect. The average swing voter would be happy to throw Obama out of office, provided of course it doesn't require electing a far right lunatic, Bush 2.0, or spineless flip flopper. Of those 3 options the spineless flip flopper is more electable than a Bush2.0 or far right lunatic, but choosing between a republican spineless flip flopp and Obama is a difficult choice for moderates/independents to make despite the fact that they don't like Obama. Seeing as how Perry=Bush.20, Romney=spineless flip flopper, Bachman & Cain=far right lunatics, and Huntsman=3% give or take 3% I'm thinking we're going to have another 4 years of Obama.

**d-usa**

schadenfreude wrote:
sebster wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:Romney is choice number 2 for me atm. Choice number 1 is, interestingly enough, the other Mormon candidate: Jon Huntsman.

Yeah, Huntsman the guy with the measured, considered policy positions on everything, who doesn't play to populist rhetoric. Poor fella never stood a chance...

The really funny part is Huntsman would actually do better in the general election than any other republican candidate.

Romney has to carry a lot more baggage than Huntsman. They are both pragmatic, but Romney is really stained by a record of spineless flip flopping and giving into populist rhetoric which makes him seem a lot like Obama. Huntsman has no real baggage, and there is little mud Obama or liberal 527s can throw at him.

Huntsman seems to be the only guy in the campaign that seems to understand the simple concept that the GOP doesn't need to run a dirty campaign in the general election. The economy is in the dump, that alone means the GOP should win the election in 2012. Should is the operative word because the election is still their's to lose, and the GOP is working hard at losing the election. When dealing with those that already hate Obama than throwing mud at Obama is a useless waste of time and money, nothing you say can possible make them hate Obama more. When dealing with those that love Obama than throwing mud at Obama is a useless waste of time and money because they are not going to listen to a word you say. When dealing with swing voters they already know Obama spends too much money, and they have already heard every nasty thing that can possibly be said about Obama. Continuing to fling mud will have no effect. The average swing voter would be happy to throw Obama out of office, provided of course it doesn't require electing a far right lunatic, Bush 2.0, or spineless flip flopper. Of those 3 options the spineless flip flopper is more electable than a Bush2.0 or far right lunatic, but choosing between a republican spineless flip flopp and Obama is a difficult choice for moderates/independents to make despite the fact that they don't like Obama. Seeing as how Perry=Bush.20, Romney=spineless flip flopper, Bachman & Cain=far right lunatics, and Huntsman=3% give or take 3% I'm thinking we're going to have another 4 years of Obama.

Where does Ron Paul fit into this?

And I also agree that both political sides have pretty much already decided on who they will vote for during the general election. The deciding factor will be the swing voters IMHO, and the GOP will need a candidate that can make a clear case about why you should vote for him/her, and not "this is why you shouldn't vote for Obama".