The topsy-turvy 2012 Republican Presidential primary will be remembered as one in which the two leading contenders were a Catholic candidate with three wives and a Mormon candidate with one.
It may also be remembered as one in which an iron rule of Presidential politics reasserted itself: a candidate’s pre-nomination virtue often becomes his post-nomination vice.
The 2004 experience of Senator J. F. (“Just For”) Kerry is instructive. Arriving at his party’s convention that summer by PT boat from Boston Harbor, JFK Lite completed his apotheosis by announcing in stentorian tones to breathless followers that he was Lt. Kerry, and that he was "reporting for duty.” That flamboyant act by a man accustomed to starring in his own movies (and, moreover, accustomed to carrying around his own 8mm movie camera to record them) was meant to underscore Kerry’s principal virtue: a purportedly impressive Vietnam War record that party leaders believed would distinguish him from his Democrat rivals and contrast favorably with the virtually non-existent one of President W.
The stunt turned out to be not only Kerry’s "Mission Accomplished"but also his "Mission Impossible." Once the "War Hero" had secured the Democrat nomination, the Swift Boat Veteran's For Truth launched an assault that thoroughly and convincingly exposed the counterfeit nature of Kerry’s military service (by the way, we’re still waiting for Senator “Liveshot” to release his Navy personnel file). Too late, nominee Kerry realized that his former comrades-in-arms had the goods on him, and he could do nothing but stand mute in the face of truth. In the general election, voters inferred that if Kerry’s war record were phony, then almost everything else about him must be too (it is), and Bush II won a second term.
The lesson: it is vital that primary opponents subject the front-runner, especially one whose chief claim to the nomination is his "electability", to strict scrutiny. (As a side note, in my lifetime the claim of "electability" has proven to be the Kryptonite of Republican Presidential politics. I was told in 1976, 1996, and 2008 that Gerry Ford, Bob Dole, and John McCain, respectively, were all "electable" by the very same people who told me in 1980 that Ronald Reagan was not.)
Fast-forward to 2012 and Mitt Romney, another Presidential hopeful and son of Massachusetts (how many others have there been in my lifetime? Six? Six hundred? Too many.). As the Democrat Party establishment saw Kerry's Vietnam War experience, so now the Republican Party establishment sees Romney's private sector business experience: the principal virtue that differentiates him from his primary opponents, contrasts favorably with an incumbent President thought to be vulnerable, and makes him "electable".
The problem with this conventional judgment is not merely that it proceeds from flawed Rotary Club Republican logic. One who has done well in business is not necessarily the person needed for a country that has not.
The problem is that in an epoch of impoverishment that has at once given rise to the related phenomena of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, the establishment view of Romney fails to assess what real conservatives should be willing to explore publicly and courageously: that capitalist frontier where the "creative destruction" of economist Joseph Schumpeter rubs up against the selfish exploitation of robber barons like Jay ("Anything-that's-not-nailed-down-is-mine-and-if-I-can-pry-it-up-it's-not-nailed-down") Gould.
Following Romney's New Hampshire primary victory, his Republican opponents at last began to do just that: shine the spotlight on Mitt’s career at Bain Capital (a/k/a, Greed, Inc.). The charge: Mitt, as both creator and exponent of the House of Bain’s culture of money worship, rapacity, and hubris, cared less about job creation for regular Americans than about wealth creation for himself and a few already rich cronies who were members of the 1%.
Predictably, the Republican establishment (and those who wished to be part of it) raced to Mitt’s defense, asking such vapid questions as “Why are Romney’s Republican opponents behaving like Democrats and attacking capitalism?” This witless whine completely misses the point. The questions serious conservatives who really care about defeating President Obama in November should be asking are these: (i) Why did it take us so long to challenge the myth that Romney’s purported business accomplishments at Bain were at all admirable, much less that they uniquely qualify him to lead the country? and (ii) If this self-proclaimed "most electable" of Republican candidates has issues, wouldn't it be better for Republicans to uncover them before Mitt's coronation rather than having Democrats uncover them for us afterwards?
What has been laid bare since New Hampshire, and what accounts for Mitt’s poor performance in South Carolina, is not merely Romney's well-deserved reputation as a content-less, flip-flopper on every issue from abortion, to Reagan, to Romneycare. Worse (if that's possible), there is the growing perception among Republicans who desperately wish to see Obama defeated that Mitt, even more than his auto-executive father, personifies the Democrat stereotype of the rich, out of touch, Republican defender of the status quo. It is a perception that Romney seems singularly determined to perpetuate. From his opulent life-style, to his too perfect GQ male model persona, to his squirrelly refusal to release his tax returns, to his politically tone-deaf proposal on national TV to bet Rick Perry $10,000, to his Marie Antoinette reference to his $300,000+ in annual speaking fees as “not a lot of money”, to his offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands, to his forced and maladroit efforts to descend to the level of Everyman, Mitt too often gives the impression that he is a Republican John Kerry.
Where Kerry has his relationship with Theresa, Mitt has his with the House of Bain. In both instances, it’s not about the money, it is the money.
The subject of Greed, Inc. will be treated in a later post. For now I commend for your delectation the following thoughtful post that recently crossed my cyberspace:
The subject of Greed, Inc. will be treated in a later post. For now I commend for your delectation the following thoughtful post that recently crossed my cyberspace:
"Capitalism, dynamic or otherwise, is not a virtue. It is an amoral economic system. A virtue is, according Webster, conformity to a standard of right or a particular moral excellence. Free market capitalism makes no moral judgment. Free market capitalism allows for prostitution, drug dealing, and pornography. Socialism, communism, and fascism also allow for these things to occur. In whatever economic system is adopted, these actions are permitted or outlawed because of moral judgments that have nothing to do with the underlying system. If one opposes prostitution it is no more an attack on capitalism than it is an attack on socialism.
Newt Gingrich's attack on Romney's record at Bain capital is not an attack on free market capitalism. It is not an attack from the left and quickly resorting to these shibboleths prevents the GOP from developing the ideas that can lead, not only to a victory in the presidential election, but the popular support that can lead to real change.
When conservatives think of free market capitalism they envision a Steve Jobs working in his garage to build one of the first personal computers. An entrepreneur investing his time, money and energy into building a business that brings something new and better to the market, something that makes an improvement. The creative destruction that Schumpeter wrote about was the car replacing the horse and buggy, the computer replacing the typewriter. This is the value of the free market that conservatives support. There is not necessarily anything in common with that vision and Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital.
Mitt Romney may have a positive story to tell but if he is going to sell it he needs to stop making claims about his job creation record that pass muster only so long as you don't look too close. The financial success of Staples is touted as perhaps Romney's biggest success that resulted in the creation of 90,000 jobs. There may be that many people working at Staples but it is dishonest to claim those as net new jobs. Staples is just a classic roll up of a fragmented industry sector. A group of people with access to huge amounts of capital rapidly expand to dominate the category. Along the way, while hiring their 90,000 employees, Staples destroyed thousands of jobs in the small, independent office supply companies they put out of business. There may not have been any net new jobs created. There certainly was a transfer of wealth from the thousands of business owners who closed up shop to the few founders of Staples.
It is worth discussing whether the story of Staples, and the other Bain Capital investments, are a net plus for the country. Newt did the GOP, and the country, a favor by kicking off the discussion. While we are at it, we might discuss whether the many laws affecting the formation and access to capital which made Bain Capital and Staples possible, produce the results we want. Such laws have nothing to do with free market capitalism. Rather, they have to do with cronyism and influence peddling that outrage both the Tea Party and the Occupy crowd. The laws that created IRA and 401(k) accounts effectively force you to place your retirement savings with northeast financiers, who make it available to companies like Bain Capital who use it to make billions. The laws don't allow you to pay off your mortgage with your retirement money.
If the GOP and conservative establishments shut down honest discussion of these issues they will wake up in November wondering how they lost to Obama. Or, if by some miracle Romney defeats Obama, they will be wondering why nothing really changed. Or maybe that is the real goal."
