As it becomes clear that Mitt Romney will be the GOP presidential candidate for 2012, it is worth asking the question whether he really is suited for the White House. Romney is intelligent, polished and moderate. But on the campaign trail, he has made a point of highlighting his private sector experience as his main qualification for becoming commander-in-chief. Romney, of course, ran Bain Capital for many years but it is my belief that private sector experience has little to do with how a country is run.
The allure of Romney as president is based on the mythology of the "CEO" in our culture. Americans vest considerable faith in corporate leaders, mainly because they drive our capitalist system and prosperity. That is valid but in electing a president we should make the crucial distinction between a capitalist system and a nation. A country is a much more complex enterprise than a business. While Bain Capital does not need to worry about poverty, disease, hunger, terrorism, education, culture or science unless they can profit from doing so, America definitely does. The takeaway is that the rules and priorities which create success in business may not be appropriate for the more challenging task of running a country.
By the market's benchmarks, a CEO who can meet quarterly earnings targets and boost a company's market value is considered a success. Nowhere in those benchmarks are any that gauge a CEO's ability to meet the needs of stakeholders other than investors; such as employee welfare or social impact and certainly not the environment or America's reputation in the global community.
Those things may not be a CEO's problem, but are the responsibility of the president. A president cannot just crunch numbers and make policy on the back of a short-term gain -- the leader of the free world must consider the effects of any decision that he makes not just on the present generation but on future generations; not just on business but on society; not just on the rich and the middle class but on the poor as well. That is a daunting task that requires not only exceptional intelligence but empathy for all Americans, and also the courage to make unpopular decisions.
Alas, it is these last two requirements for the presidency that Romney cannot meet.
As many of Romney's statements in the press indicate, he is out of touch with the average American. The Republican mantras of deregulation and competition may create fertile ground for wealth-creation but will do little to help those who are struggling just to survive. It will certainly do nothing to protect the environment or prevent the abuse of workers by corporations. Coming from Wall Street, Romney sees every problem through a financial prism, whether the problem has its roots in money or not. For social issues like women's rights or strategic issues like foreign policy that type of thinking can be disastrous.
And even in the business arena, his beliefs could be damaging. Can you imagine what would happen if Bain Capital's model of buying companies by loading them with debt and then siphoning off cash were to be applied to critical sectors like health care or education? I don't mean this literally but in terms of the philosophy behind Wall Street, namely "profit at any cost."
As for Romney's inability to make decisions that are unpopular, you only have to consider his flip-flop on health care to guess what might happen in the White House. Romney may be moderate, but the reality of Washington is that a president must appease his core voter base to survive. Romney's base, unfortunately, is ultra-conservative and uncompromising. The powerful super PAC donors who fund the Republican Party machine also support this agenda, which will leave him with little room to maneuver.
Finally, the CEO model is based on reward for performance, which is a good thing but can backfire in the political arena. In the business world, compensation is based mostly on short term profits (options and clawbacks do tie a CEO's future to the company but that system has more holes than well-aged Swiss cheese). What this means is that a president who comes from a pay-for-play mindset is more likely to make policy decisions for short term political gain rather than those that are in the genuine interests of the country.
The mercenary culture of Wall Street may be appropriate for the business sector but not for government. Our biggest priorities, like education for our children, health care for senior citizens, scientific progress, socio-economic equality -- cannot always be measured in dollars and cents. As the MasterCard ad says -- those things are priceless. America is a nation of 300 million people with varying needs and interests, not to mention a complex, evolving role in history. As such it needs a broad-minded statesman for a leader, not a single-minded CEO with only one mandate. Romney may not be the worst candidate but neither does he have the correct resume for the job of president. The United States of America is not a company and should not be run as one.
Follow Sanjay Sanghoee on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sanghoee
Mark Cassello: Mitt Romney and the Wealth Answer
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Both are the privileged sons of father with wealth, power and political connections.
The sons hardly ever measure up to the fathers, in part because they were born on 3rd base. It doesn't require as much effort, ability, heart, talent and dedication for them to achieve something.
I'm sick of giving power to sons who are a pale shadow of their fathers. Mike and Chris Wallace come to mind.
Romney and Obama are both pretty awful anyway, just going off of their elected records and public statements alone. I don't need to dig through old tax returns or college transcripts to know that they're both terrible.
The conservatives want everyone to start out unequal, which is the wrong stance to take, but they also want people to have to succeed and fight for it if they want to become successful and wealthy which is the right stance.
The liberals want everyone to start out equal, which is great and should be what we strive for as a society. Where liberals go wrong is to lower the difference between success and failure so that the successful subsidize the failures and the failure still live at close to the same standard as the successful people because the successful people did so much better and have so much more to give.
Managing people, defining responsibility and accountability, promoting high achievers demoting low achievers and terminating non-achievers are also valuable on a resume for a candidate for the presidency. Because of how governemnt is run, these things are difficult to get in a government job.
The rest of the private industry experience is only of limited value.
We often seem to forget that the CEO’s greatest power is dictatorship.
We like the confidence that CEOs bring to political office. It presents the illusory ability to “get the job done” in politics, as in business.
___________________
I don’t mean to insult anyone by restating that dictatorship is what we fought our Revolution to escape.
Instead of dictatorship, America voted for governance by compromise. Our congressional current refusal to compromise constitutes a dictatorship by an unyielding, ideological minority.
No wonder we present-day Americans are politically so unhappy.
Regards,
(($; -)}
Gozo!
Along with stopping subsidies to private companies the federal government has to also stop redistributing wealth among the states. I realize that this will lead to states competing and it will mean population exoduses from some of the poorly run states that are insulated by the federal government but that's what we need, we need states competing to become the best state and the most attractive state for people, just like states already do when trying to attract business.
Better Romney's resume than Obama's lack of one.
You can't vote "present" in the White House. Obama was unprepared.
Vote republican this November and you still will not be getting a job.
The greater problem may be the new business model of the last several decades which looks only to the short term meting of market expectations, rather than the longer term well-being of the company overall.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/28/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-dumbest-idea-in-the-world/
Will there be any limits for applying the business model? Won't cost considerations limit the amount of time that can be allocated to a search for three men clinging to a sinking fishing boat to an hour or two? Will cost be a factor when determining whether to evacuate or lock down a coastal barrier island before a hurricane if such action would save only a handful of lives? What is the life of a kitten stuck in the tree really worth when compared to the overtime expense of the fire engine crew who retrieve her?
Running a business and running a government are two different operations entirely. Each utilizes a very different set of considerations. A CEO can terminate redundant employees whom he deems unproductive because they are not profitable. Americans will never permit our government to undertake a Nazi style program that terminates redundant citizens made up from the old, sick, young, weak, disabled. handicapped, unemployed, or impoverished members of our citizenry.
The run-government-like-a-business philosophy poses a threat to our humanity and will make Americans hard and callous toward the fates of our fellow citizens. It must never be adopted.
Romney is fairly moderate on a lot of issues which makes a lot of republicans cringe, but has the potential of actually getting something done.