Bain and the capitalism question
Ever since this Bain thing has been dominating the news, a lot of people—both pundits and commenters—have been saying that all Romney has to do is explain what he did at Bain and what Bain’s activities are all about, as though that were a simple thing to accomplish.
I’ve now spent an enormous number of hours (really can’t say how many, but I can safely say it’s more than most American voters are going to be willing to spend) trying to bone up on the subject as best I can, and it’s a daunting endeavor, to say the least.
The difficulty doesn’t just lie in the fact that the general topic is pretty technical and presupposes a fairly high level of intelligence, although both things are true. It’s also that it’s not easy to find an unbiased source. All the writers on the subject seem to have a dog in this race, and we’re not just talking about Romney as that dog.
The situation reminds me a bit of AGW, although the AGW controversy is even more convoluted and requires even more technical knowledge that most people lack. But the issues are similarly large, and in the case of the Bain brouhaha they involve nothing less than that old debate that has led to such turmoil around the world (just ask the residents of the former Soviet Union): is capitalism and/or the free market system inherently good or bad or neutral, and what limits should be placed on it?
You may be relieved to hear that I’m not going to tackle that question today. But don’t think I haven’t been thinking about it. I believe it would certainly be a good “dialogue” to have in public life—in fact, I think it’s one we’ve been having in some form or other for quite some time, maybe the entire history of the Western world since feudalism met its demise some centuries ago.
But a presidential campaign is not going to lend itself to a dispassionate discussion of the sort, even if such a thing were possible anyway. My guess is that Romney’s “explanation,” when offered, will be just as self-serving and fall just as short of the goal of an objective analysis of the situation as Newt’s feigned concern about the possible rapaciousness of Bain (or maybe I missed his previous crusade against leveraged buyouts) has been. Meanwhile, one could do worse than read this WSJ article by Holman W. Jenkins, and its accompanying comments section.
Heh. That’s pretty much the conclusion I came to after reading the Fortune article. Too many people with too many dogs in the race …I don’t think we’re going to get a straight answer (or even a rational one, or even an answer that will satisfy most everyone).
Crap. So – for me, at least – I give him a pass on it (internally). Which means that I’m not going to make this move Rom’ into the McCain column.
But. My original comment on this was whether a charge like this would resonate with Joe Sixpack (and not whether it was true or false, especially).
Because resonance is ALL the Obama campaign is going to focus on in the fall (i.e., as to whether they continue this line of attack).
And sad fact is “the truth” simply doesn’t matter in going-negative campaign strategery (given the lie is not something so ludicrous that even the brain-dead can see through it).
So. Fair or not, and true or not, intended or not …I think that this coming up now could be a end up a net positive for Romney …IF he can come up with a response that innoculates him from the voter RESONANCE of the issue.
It gives him time to do this, and time for his response to filter out to Joe Sixpack, and become the non-issue that I’m sure the Obama campaign strategists hope it does not become (i.e., I think they were surprised by this coming out so early too, and it is a strategic disadvantage to them).
…still don’t trust Romney. Still don’t support Romney. But still, even after this, voting the ticket next fall if he’s the primary pick (because I don’t place him in the same category as McCain, whom I truly despised politically).
So this brouhaha ended up not a deal breaker for me, at least.
…and I think a resonating response NOW from Romney goes a good way toward me no longer thinking that he is simply not going to win the general in the fall.
Sheesh. I really need to preview this before I post: I’m consistently forgetting to close a tag of some sort or other (didn’t mean to have a few paragraphs of emphasis there). Sorry.
[from neo-neocon: fixed!]
Well, I can’t leave this one alone.
For an outstanding and obvious example of this, I would give you what the media and the DNS (an oxymoron, that), did to Gov. Palin.
I’d like to add that the $800M (last I checked, and “as I recall”) in the Obama campaign coffers means that blanketing critical “markets” with negative ad-buys next fall is going to make the same qualitative difference to the O’bots, as it has made to Newt’ in the primaries against Romney.
Without a ton of money, Romney loses (though I think the Bain issue being adequately addressed NOW, makes it somewhat less uneven).
(For some other candidate – and no, I don’t have one in mind from those remaining – I don’t think the difference in available budget would necessarily be true.
I think the calls for him to “explain” what he did with Bain are largely disingenuous. Explaining entails keeping the story alive. Whatever time Mitt spends going back over the Bain history is time spent “off-message.” It’s also a bit of a fool’s errand, because regardless of how thorough and accurate your explanation is, it’s virtually inevitable some people are going to write stories saying how your account “raises more questions than it answers.” Understand, the people who are using Bain against Mitt aren’t doing so as part of a sincere search for the truth, they are doing it for calculated strategic reasons. It’s a mistake to approach it as if you are going to convince them you are on the level. Mitt needs to view this issue mainly through the prism of polling: If his numbers indicate he is largely weathering this attack — and I think they will, because a lot of conservatives seem to be rallying to his defense — then he should just keep on keeping on. Eventually, his opponents are going to wear people out on this and they’ll come off looking like Capt. Queeg with the strawberries for not letting go of it.
Conrad: there’s a reason Romney might want to do some answering of the charges now, no matter what he’s polling in the primaries. It could help make the public tire of the whole thing by the time it’s raised in the general (which I believe it will be). By then, hopefully, it will be old old news.
Okay, seriously: why not? Didn’t Reagan’s campaigns amount to extended dialogues about capitalism/free markets? Reagan won, what? 44 states? and then 49 states? If my premise is correct, then, out of the last 11 Presidential campaigns (going back to 1968: 2 of the Republican campaigns have amounted to extended dialogues about capitalism/free markets, and those 2 campaigns resulted in the 2 largest Republican margins of victory.
Granted: Reagan, in front of an audience, was brilliant. But, if a less talented Repub candidate wins, say, 36 states instead of 44 states: is that so bad?
If Romney explains via
1) addressing a few specifics, then
2) expending the majority of his time explaining the link between Bain’s principles and classic American principles, then
Romney’s “explaining” will amount to the exact type of campaigning which conservative voters have longed to see Romney doing. Romney’s “explaining” would amount to Romney creating bonds of affection between himself and conservative voters.
re “dispassionate discussion” of free markets/capitalism
On the campaign trail, a passionate discussion of the subject is preferred.
I am not recommending an extended discussion in which any one speech covers a huge amount of material.
Rather, each speech covers a section of material. The entire campaign, i.e. the accumulation of campaign speeches, amount, in toto, to an extended discussion.
IMO, the overarching issue of the attacks on Romney and Bain is to put capitalism on trial. It is the perfect avenue for populist, anti-capital propaganda. No matter how Romney answers the attacks, unless Joe Sixpak understands how and why venture capital is an overall good thing for the economy, the the thirty second sound bites initiated by “Winning Our Future” will resonate. One thing we have to understand is that only a few people are paying attention right now. No matter what Romney says, it will not be widely reported by the MSM and will be even less understood by the majority of voters. As a result, whoever the Republican nominee is he has a steep slope to climb in the fall.
There were many good comments with the WSJ article. But WSJ readers are more business friendly and knowledgeable than the average voter. I like the suggestion that Romney quit claiming to be a job creator and instead emphasize his analytic abilities and success as an administrator/negotiator in turning around Bain & Co. and the Salt Lake Olympics. Surely most people can see that our government needs to be turned around fiscally and reformed in such a way as to get government out of the way of business. That may be his best avenue going forward.
J.J.,
Someone could also point out that private investors do recognize when a company is failing and draw the sensible conclusions. In contrast, big government solutions to problems are resistant to new information, hard to change because of bureaucracy, and rarely admit failure. BHO prefers the latter.
I look forward to Romney replacing Obama…. But there is no need to defend EVERY action by these groups who buy companies to change them. Overall it works out better than a centrally planned and/or politically run economic system… regulators and politicians are no less prone to human failings than bankers and venture capitalists (ok; I think politicians and regulators are more prone…) AND they are more dangerous as they have fewer factions to divide their power… but still; I’d take the time to investigate a random transaction before defending it.
…and thanks for closing that tag properly neo.
Me = embarrassed.
“is capitalism and/or the free market system inherently good or bad or neutral, and what limits should be placed on it?”
That’s one of the most important issues to discuss anytime.
I call myself a pragmatic libertarian. To me, that means I yearn for maximum freedom for everyone to do what’s best for them within a free market system…with SOME practical limits.
Here’s one example. It isn’t right and there should be a law against child labor. We had that in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. In a totally free market, that would be allowed.
Here’s a more subtle example. Back in the 60’s I worked for IBM. We totally dominated the computer market and we had earned that position by delivering the best overall solution to computer users even though we rarely had the fastest, cheapest computers. We dominated because of our machines’ and operating systems’ reliability and customer service.
In the small town of Victoria, Texas, we had 2-3 customer engineers living there to maintain computers in that area. We could justify that because of our level of business there. Our competitors couldn’t because they had almost NO computers installed there.
That situation discouraged the development and marketing of newer, better computers which was bad for society as a whole. Thus anti-trust laws were a good thing and IBM eventually had to give in and separate our service operations (and pricing) from the rest of the company. More competition from other computer makers followed and eventually IBM’s domination of the computer market was broken.
Capitalism is GOOD. Unfettered capitalism is not.
I dislike big companies as much as I dislike big government. Often, they have as much or more impact on our lives.
Romney should ignore the entire episode. It’s over, it’s all out there, it’s on record and he has nothing to hide.
Noot is being a total ass and acting like a crybaby.
The sight of his grouchy sneer and his freaky-looking wife turn my stomach. Is it just me or does she appear to be wearing a Notre Dame football helmet at all times?
We’re now into the “its not the crime, its the cover-up” phase of Bain-Romney. Why can’t mitt explain and defend capitalism? Or is what Bain did not quite the capitalism that affords an easy defense?
It is complexified by the several different kinds of deals Bain did. They started as VC, which is straight-ahead capitalism. Then they moved into private equity, which is still pretty much capitalism, but the ugly side of it, where ordinary people are forced to recognize they’re not worth anything anymore.
And alongside private equity, Bain was doing LBOs, which are not free-market capitalism. The entire operation depends on gov’t manipulations in the debt and credit markets. Bain inflated its profits with air from a credit bubble.
I suggest the explanation/justification is not so complex. But it shows very badly on Romney and a faction of people who control huge sums of money. To explain the truth would jeopardize the golden goose cash cow. So we only get circular and confusing responses.
The financial sector is hoping to convince us we are stupid and that we will tire of looking behind their veils.
I’m with you Neo, except my dog in the race were 3 others and then Romney was the forth.
I understand that Gingrich and Perry say they are not indicting capitalism.
But they must BELIEVE that Romney actually sought to fire people as if he were the Grinch himself.
I do not believe Romney sought to fire people in callous disregard for their lives.
I do believe that in making good and quick executive decisions he is quick and decisive and that is often a good quality in business.
Did he have the luxury of treating people like they have a right to a job? no.
This is not the 1800’s where if you lose your job there is no unemployment, health benefits, guaranteed sickness and then death.
This is the time and age when PEOPLE have the ultimate authority and yet people act like employers have the ultimate authority. (in comparison to history).
You are NOT destitute today. You can squat in your house for months. You have plenty of time and benefits and if you play your cards right and downsize and/or move to an area with a job for you and your family where you can earn a living wage ( that would not be in NY City people) and actually OPEN doors where one closed.
By the way, Romney does not connect with people on a personal level. He has not connected in any personal and intimate way to explain anything on any topic like Santorum has.
I do believe Romney is the most capable of the group however I put him at forth for reasons that I thought he was the forth likeliest of beating Obama.
But what is my opinion??? 🙂
I thought Cain and Bachman were more likely to beat Obama.
Now the only one left for me is Santorum ahead of Romney.
I believe Gingrich and Perry have just about made themselves unelectable and I wish they would step out and endorse Santorum.
If only Santorum would change his name 🙂 The inner sanctum… could be “cool” with “The Rickster” HA!
foxmarks Says:
“We’re now into the “its not the crime, its the cover-up” phase of Bain-Romney”
What phase is Obama on for his scandels? ‘Rev’ Wright, Ayers, et cetera?
I watched Mike Huckabee’s show last night. He did another candidate forum with a format where each candidate appeared alone and was asked questions by South Carolina voters. Each was give four minutes for answering questions and a one minute summary at the end. One ground rule was that they could not mention another candidate by name. They were forced to stay on their message of what policies they advocated. Ron Paul was the onlly candidate that wasn’t there. Amazing to me was the fact that when you remove the forced back and forth between candidates, how much more policy information is forthcoming. By and large they all want to downsize government, drill for oil and gas, reform our tax system, reduce regulation, and transform our government into a more business friendly organization. There are some differences in the detaills and they differ some on their foreign/military stances, but none of them said anything that I would object to in a major way. IOW, I could support any of them in the general.
It seems to me that it boils down to this:
1. Who do we think can beat Obama. This comes down to debating ability, personal positives/negatives that can be exploited by the dems, ability to project his ideas to the voters, and the always intangible -charisma/gravitas.
2. Who do we think can actually accomplish some of the conservative policy changes in D.C. This comes down to managerial abilities, organizational abilities, and the ability to win doubters over to his side. This is particularly important if the Senate remains a closely divided body. Being able to talk with a few of the moderate dem Senators and win them over may be highly important.
Right now I’m leaning Romney, Santorum, Newt, and Perry in that order.
I don’t know why Paul wasn’t there last night. There was no explanation. There were a number of Paul supporters among those who asked questions of the candidates. He will do well in SC. I think Paul is running mainly to collect enough delegates to have some influence on the Republican platform. I’m almost certain that he won’t run as a third party candidate because he doesn’t want to be a spoiler who allows another Obama term. He dislikes Obama much more than he disagrees with the other Republican candidates.
The more I think about it, talking about Bain isn’t off message. Bain took over companies that were drowning in debt, spiraling towards bankruptcy, failing at their core mission and turned them around. That exactly describes the United States Federal Government. Drowning in debt, spiraling towards bankruptcy and failing at the core mission of the Constitution. Why not bring in someone who is an expert at addressing those sorts of problems? Why is Bain a liability to Mitt Romney? What Gingrich is doing is making conservatives more comfortable at both defending the work of companies like Bain, and also, as I said, turning all of these issues into “old news” during the primary to prevent Obama from effectively using them in the general. Whether he means to or not, Gingrich is shaping the battlefield right now, and the way it’s going it looks like he is shaping it to Romney’s advantage. Yes, we need to be talking about what a private equity company does, what Romney did at Bain, and get Romney talking about how he will put that experience to work as President.
Plus, at this rate, when Obama starts launching the same attacks on Mitt Romney, people are going to think that he sounds like a second-rate Gingrich. Gingrich is putting the ugly stink all over Barack Obama’s general election playbook. He’s a smart man. Maybe he’s doing it on purpose.
thomass: Barry started with the cover-up phase.
jms: Bain loaded companies with debt…but usually cashed out before the reckoning.
All the money Bain took out of Ampad was debt, later defaulted. This isn’t capitalism, it’s a pyramid scheme.