Lemann on Romney: Transaction Man
There’s a curious piece on Mitt Romney in The New Yorker, by Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Columbia School of Journalism.
It’s called “Transaction Man,” and the first half of it (approximately) is just about what you’d expect, although with a milder tone than the more fire-breathing writers on the left employ. The usual bases are covered: the bane of Bain, the 47% remark, Romney’s atypically privileged youth, the otherness of Mormons, and his abysmal failure to fire up crowds (the article was written before the debate). But then it abruptly veers into other territory, and that’s when it becomes quite different from anything else I’ve ever read about Romney.
Lemann decided to interview the candidate (this occurs on page 7 of the 11-page article), and most of the rest of the piece merely reports what Romney said in response. Lemann explains:
Because Romney’s answers to the standard political questions are usually scripted and unrevealing, I asked him about business. Why had General Motors, the economic titan of his youth, fallen so low?
It turned out to be an inspired decision on Lemann’s part. Romney is off and running—as Lemann writes:
Romney clearly loved talking about this, and he was showing how he thinks about running things, including the federal government.
The answers are not only interesting and highly intelligent, they’re intelligent in an unusual way, especially for a politician (this is probably because Romney is not primarily a politician). The contrast between Obama and Romney could not be more stark; I would describe it as insubstantial abstraction coupled with emotional appeals versus solution-focused pragmatism grounded in concrete experience.
I also got the impression that Lemann himself had trouble reconciling his own liberalism with his actual experience of Romney when he talked to him one on one. I would go so far as to say he liked and respected him, and was even impressed by him. I’m putting words into Lemann’s mouth, though; he doesn’t really say that, he just backs off from saying much of anything, except that Romney has trouble conveying his ideas to large crowds as effectively as in this more personal venue.
I’ll excerpt a little of what Romney said, just to give you an idea of its flavor:
[Romney] led into a discussion of politics by talking about the strategic myopia of many business executives. “They agree to actions which are good on a short-term basis but may be more hazardous long term. And so, for instance, if you’re the chief executive officer of General Motors back in the nineteen-seventies and a contract comes forward which has onerous legacy costs, why, you know that those costs are not going to be borne on your term, because it’s going to be done for future retirees. And so you might agree to something that is harmful to the company long term but, by the way, beneficial short term, because who wants to take a strike, to prevent a provision that’s going to hurt ten years or twenty years down the road?
“This is particularly true, by the way, in politics,” he went on, “where politicians regularly agree to huge contracts with back-end-loaded benefits, and the day of reckoning finally comes, but they’re long gone.” He allowed a hint of sarcasm to creep into his voice. “While they were there, everything was great. But look at the contracts they entered into!”
I asked whether it was possible to run the vast, diffuse American government the way you would run a business. “The private sector is less forgiving,” he said. “If you make serious mistakes in the private sector, you’ll lose your job, or, if you’re in a position of responsibility, you might lose other people’s jobs. In politics, politicians make mistakes all the time and blame their opposition, or borrow more money, or raise taxes to pay for their mistake. In the business world, the ability to speak fast and convincingly is of very little value. I remember the first time I met Jack Welch. I expected him to be a super-salesman. Instead, he spoke quietly, somewhat haltingly, but brilliantly. Stuff matters a lot more than fluff in the private sector.”
Red the whole thing—or at least read from page seven till the end. You’ll get a much better idea than you had before of the type of mind Romney has.
Is that often among the differences between today’s liberals and conservatives?
Neo,
A good read, esp from p. 7.
Numerous commenters have noted the fact that Romney and Obama represent two different paths for America’s future. They go on to say that perhaps the distinction between the two choices has never been greater.
I was struck by the simple sentence: “Romney wrote a book, ‘No Apology,’ without a ghostwriter.” If one buy’s into Jack Cashill’s argument that Obama’s book (was it Dreams. . . or Audacity . . .) was ghost-written by Bill Ayres, then Romney becomes the anti-Obama in both detail as well as vision.
Im certainly okay with that!
I tend to agree that it is. It appears that “liberals” rate intentions much higher than results. Perhaps much, much, much more.
“I also got the impression that Lemann himself had trouble reconciling his own liberalism with his actual experience of Romney when he talked to him one on one. I would go so far as to say he liked and respected him, and was even impressed by him.”
That reminded me of the 2000 race; liberal reporters assigned to Bush liked him personally, much more than Gore. Sincerity and the unforced genuineness that extends from that attitude is the explanation.
It’s hard to personally dislike someone who “says what they mean and means what they say”.
truman was perhaps the last democrat who embodied that virtue.
I’ll come back later after I’ve read the article, but what struck me was the “atypical privilged youth” bit. Did anyone ever say that about the Kennedy offspring or any of the legacy Ivy grads? Will they say it about the kids of Steve Jobs or Bill Gates? How about Liza Minelli?
I like Mitt as a person. I recognize his intelligence and business knowledge. I think he would be a great CEO. The problem is he is not a great statesman along the lines of our founding fathers. If he is elected and lucky enough to get a Republican controlled congress he will not overturn Obamacare. He will peck around the edges and do a little of this or that but not reverse this legislative disaster. He will not get deficit spending under control. He will raise expectations and make changes but our debt will continue to grow at levels that will one day destroy us. He will not reverse the many regulations put into place by federal departments under Obama that were implemented by ideologues placed in power by Obama. He will not appoint a special prosecutor(s) to investigate the many illegal acts of our government and Obama in the last 4 years. He will pretty much govern to the center, make compromises, fail to make the effort to fix the serious problems and fail to reverse the serious mistakes. He will take the safe route; one which will not incur too much wrath from the left leaning media or attract to much attention form the 47% who live off of the productive workers. In short he is a “place keeper” in a time when we are imploding and really need another Ronald Reagan (on steriods) and another Newt Gingrich (also on steriods). He will preside over the collapse of our economy, our SS system and medicare. He will promise much and deliver little. There is good news though; he will look better then Jimmy Carter or FDR sitting in a chair in the oval office in his sweater in front of the fireplace telling us all to lower the thermomstat and eat a little less.
Off topic but I can’t resist putting it here so we commenters can spread it around. It’s being paid for by the founder of Interactive Brokers, a fabulous online investment/trading firm. If you use Twitter or Facebook, spread it around…if not, spread it around anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UnX7TNFIELg
…btw, I’ve heard he’s funding this ad to the tune of 1-15 million dollars. THAT’S putting your money where your mouth is.
..oops…make that 10 – 15 million.
Pretty sure it was Dreams, which is at least 40% fake or false. Obama’s “composite” girlfriend almost exactly matches Ayer’s real girlfriend (killed making a bomb).
GWTW,
You repeat “He will not . . . , He will not . . . .” How do you know?
Even if you are proven correct, the alternative is . . . Obama?
I don’t recognize “GWTW” as a handle before. I am tired of people who say “I like Romney as a person, but……” All I can think of is concern troll. This IS the choice-Obama or Romney. Me, I’ll crawl over broken glass to vote for Romney.
You have two choices. Choice 1 is terrible. Choice 2 is just OK.
“I don’t like those choices.”
Me: Be an adult and recognize that you have to make one.
Anyway, I like how the author went on to say, “which is why he appears so stiff and so unspecific in talking about his prospective Presidency.” It’s just taken as a given in the article. Do you need to be tendentious to get a Columbia law degree or do you acquire it as part of the process?
Sorry, journalism degree. I have a law degree. 🙂
Gone with the Wind,
IMO, you greatly underestimate Mitt Romney. Nor is that an argument that he measures up to the standard set by our founding fathers, but then, other than Lincoln, who has?
If he has the Congressional majority needed, he will do far more than you are currently crediting him with, if he does not have that majority… he’ll have to compromise to get anything done, as minimal as that might be. In addition, as neo-neocon has pointed out, the future make-up of the Supreme court hangs in the balance. That alone makes Obama’s defeat critical. This time, anyone but Obama isn’t just a slogan.
expat – “what struck me was the “atypical privilged youth” bit. Did anyone ever say that about the Kennedy offspring or any of the legacy Ivy grads.”
More recently, they have said it about Bush; but not about Gore (his father was a senator and his mother one of the first women to graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, and Al himself lived on Embassy Row. More “atypical” than most; but, nary a peep).
The ad by the successful refugee from Hungary is as powerful a defense of the free society as you will ever see in a one minute spot. Please run it in every swing state.
I’m tired of ‘liberals’ and their convoluted narrative of what should be obvious. In Mr. Lemann’s case he obviously needs a flashlight and a mirror to find the place where the sun does not shine. Isn’t it painfully clear that choosing between Obama and Romney is like choosing sickness or health?
(Before foxmarks gets too excited, ‘health’ is a relative thing.)
GoneWithTheWind,
On what do you base your assessment of Romney: He will take the safe route…In short he is a “place keeper”… He will preside over the collapse of our economy, our SS system and medicare. He will promise much and deliver little.
From what I’ve read and seen since Romney began running for president, he has no intention of being a “place keeper,” nor does he have the lack of depth and absence of relevant experience that you seem to perceive in him.
I believe Romney has depth and relevant experience. If that is what you got from what I said I hope your job and future don’t depend on reading comprehension. The problem is that our country is going into the tank. Perhaps we will be lucky and simply experience another 11 year long great depression. But probably it will be worse. What we need is someone who would be willing to take the radical steps that might save us. Romney can’t save us. Everything in his experience and belief system will cause him to stay the course with minor corrections. Romney is a smart and likeable man. That’s good I look forward to the fireside chats he will give us as our economy goes down the tubes. I would certainly rather hear him then the arrogant ignorant prick who holds that office today.
It took me a while to get to the passage Neo was talking about because I was transfixed by the anecdote related on the first page or so where a Romney acquaintance was randomly stopped by a stranger, decades ago, who said, “Mitt Romney is the finest person I have ever known.”
“This IS the choice-Obama or Romney. Me, I’ll crawl over broken glass to vote for Romney.”
This.
GWTW, RE: I believe Romney has depth and relevant experience. If that is what you got from what I said I hope your job and future don’t depend on reading comprehension.
You dismissed Romney as a shallow placeholder incapable of making tough decisions in tough times. Sorry if my response wasn’t eruditely worded enough for your superior intellect. Obviously your future doesn’t depend upon civility nor an understanding of the people with whom you attempt to dialog…or perhaps to whom you pontificate would be more apt.
Fortunately you aren’t the typical caliber of participant on this blog.
parker: Isn’t it painfully clear that choosing between Obama and Romney is like choosing sickness or health?
Yes. Let’s hope that enough of the voting public grasps that difference.
Not a “shallow place holder” Just a place holder.
Yes my response was rude, sorry. It appeared to me that you intentionally put words or meaning into what I said that misrepresented my point. I too will vote for Romney, but I will also prepare for another great depression and perhaps worse. Romney will be genuinely suprised with each downturn and crash of the economy. One day he will come on TV to tell us all that he has worked as hard as he ever has to find some way to balance the budget without a tax increase but sadly taxes must go up (except for the 47% who pay nothing and suck up most of the welfare). Romney will within two years make agreements that will essentially give illegals the dream act and other forms of amnesty. He will continue to bend over backwards to allow minority groups to get race based advantages to anything government has any control of. Two years after he is elected we will still have millions and millions of highly paid and grossly underworked federal government employees. Our federal budget will continue to climb while SS and Medicare will be reduced and welfare will continue to grow out of control. It is likely that in each of the first four years of his presidency the deficit will exceed $1 trillion with no hope of ever being balanced. And, worst of all, he will continue to fight expensive and futile wars in the middle East while at the same time shrinking the military budget effectively reducing our ability to protect ourselves in the event Russia or China decides to take advantage of our vulnerability. Every economic and social pointer is aimed the wrong direction and Romney will be unable to reverse any of this. Why? Not because he isn’t intelligent, not because he isn’t a nice guy, but simply because he is accustomed to compromising to get things done and those who are arrayed against him are accustomed to using compromise to get everything they want. We are screwed. In addition to all these rosey predictions I will add that today I think it is being propped up simply to get us past the election and once this is over regardless of who wins that a number of dominoes will fall. Before the next president gets sworn in I expect things to get far worse. Who ever is sworn in they will be forced to take steps to raise taxes, borrow more money and pay off more unions just to keep the wolves from the door. We need a Thomas Jefferson, we have a George Jefferson, What will Romney be?
Pingback:Maggie's Farm