Closet Anti-Capitalists

Is it just me, or have some of our GOP candidates let their closet anti-capitalist out? Specifically, I'm referring to attacks on Mitt Romney in regards to recent statements, claims that a CEO or manager would be a poor president, and his record as a venture capitalist at Bain Capital.

Romney the Terminator

Some of the candidates have taken some of Mitt's comments out of context when speaking about health care companies. This seems like a lame attack done in poor taste.

What Romney actually said was:

“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”

What the other candidates claimed Romney said was: “I like being able to fire people.”

When I first heard the comment, I was reminded of a chick flick that I watched once that starred a guy who's job was to fire people. He was a real-life terminator. Rick Perry's witty, albeit petty attempt to create a ringtone out of the phrase deserves points for merit, but Huntsman telling people that the guy who headed a firm that owns a huge chunk of his daddy's company is unelectable for the comments falls short. Incidentally, could the reason that Huntsman Sr hasn't written kiddo's campaign a giant check be the fact that he's a business partner with a firm closely associated with an opponent?

As you can see, they took less than a sentence out of an entire paragraph spoken specifically about a relationship with an unsatisfactory service provider out of context and applied it in general principle to paint the man as the evil job-cutting equivalent of It's a Wonderful Life's Mr. Potter.

Obviously, the other candidates were hoping to take the image of Romney as a Wall Street fat cat that OWS has painted for him and run with it. If they can make him seem out of touch or ruthless, then they feel they might be able to detract some votes from him.

Unfortunately, I feel that this particular attack is petty and poorly formulated. I'm not surprised that Romney's words were taken out of context. These are politicians that we're working with. They all do it, all the time. Romney did it, too in an attack ad on President Obama. The issue that I take with the comments is not so much that they're out of context, but that they're fruitless. They don't do any real damage. In fact, they might help Romney.

First, a guy who “likes to fire people” in the private sector really isn't a threat to me in public office. The president doesn't own my company. It's not like he'll call on America's job creators and tell them to stop. At worst, he'll fire his own staff repeatedly, which will in the grand scheme of things have little effect on someone detached from the President's Palace.

Second, even if we take the “like to fire people” comments and run with them further, I think that many people would celebrate the possibility that Romney would fire regulators at the EPA or stay-at-home IRS code-writers.

Additionally, someone could take him saying, “I like to be able to fire people” as a union busting comment. After all, it's harder to fire a union worker than a non-union one. I don't think many conservatives would balk at that.

At the weakest, this argument implies that Romney would be a cost-cutter. He'd trim the fat. Doesn't break my heart.

A Manager Doesn't Belong in the White House

At last Saturday night's GOP primary debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum defended remarks he made, claiming that a “manager” would make a poor president. He claims that what America needs is a leader, not a manager. A weak argument, if you ask me. In most cases, the words leader and manager can be used interchangeably. Isn't a good leader a good manager? Isn't a good manager a good leader?

At the debate, Romney seized on the weakness of the argument and promptly threw the comments back in Santorum's face by saying he's out of touch with the leadership qualities that a guy who “managed” the 2002 Olympics back to success must possess and painted Santorum as a government guy who has no idea what the private sector really needs.

Mitt the Job-Cutter

I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around a group of supposed "free-market conservatives" who attack a venture-capital firm. After all, isn't venture-capitalism the charged, bold, high-risk / high-reward essence of the American capitalist idea?

Of course a company that focuses on leveraged buyouts, takeovers, and start-ups will see bankruptcies, restructurings and downsizing over the course of their operations. They invest in at-risk companies - the companies that typical banks and financiers won't touch. Of course guy who ran a company that has invested in over 250 businesses, many of which were considered risky or failing, will have to fire people. Of course some businesses will file for bankruptcy, and of course some pay-cuts will probably occur.

I had a close experience with a buy-out recently. I sell building products. Two of my closest competitors recently received investments from venture-capital firms. One company ended up filing for bankruptcy, but after some restructuring, they came out solvent after shedding losing divisions of their company. The other business eventually failed entirely.

Without the assistance of their financiers, neither company would have had a shot at regaining success. Unfortunately, one company failed outright. That doesn't mean that the idea of venture-capitalism is a failure, but that its risky. It is possible, albeit difficult to turn a troubled asset around.

Romney should get ahead of this topic and tout it as a claim to fame. He helped found the company that directed startup, purchase, restructuring, and profitability of companies like Staples, Dominos, Burger King, Huntsman Corporation, Toys'R'us, and more. He should use this record to help his campaign image as a reformer, organizer, the savior of distressed organizations. The guy who has what it takes to fix Washington's financial problems.

The Real Issues

Romney's record as a venture-capitalist is not his issue. His inconsistent political record is. He's a flip-flopper, he's shaky on abortion, he's shaky on gay marriage, he instituted what was used as a basis for Obama-care. He's got as much baggage as any of the candidates, but his opponents seem to focus on his free-market loving, venture-capitalist record, which makes them seem anti-capitalist. And last time I checked, republicans, especially conservative republicans aren't anti-capitalist.