Why I'm for Romney

For the past five years or so, I have been a strong supporter of Mitt Romney's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. If he is nominated this election cycle, which I have no doubt he will, I will be a strong supporter of his campaign for the Presidency. But first things first, right?

A colleague of mine, who considers herself a liberal progressive, recently emailed me asking me to explain my support for Romney. Specifically, she wanted to know the following:
Mitt's ability to create personal wealth and his business experience are supposed to be advantages to the problem solving we need to achieve a number of goals. I just don't get how these skills transfer to the policies we need to create living wage jobs for more Americans. In his experience, did he create the jobs we need? Etc.
I think this is a perfectly rational question, and it is one that I have considered a great length over the years. Mitt Romney has consistently maintained that his business experience, especially with Bain Capital, gives him a great advantage over the other Republican candidates, as well as the Democratic candidates. After all, the current crop of candidates' careers are as follows:
  • Barack Obama: community organizer, lawyer, professor, politician
  • New Gingrich: professor, politician
  • Rick Santorum: politician (he has a law degree but, to my knowledge, has never practiced)
  • Ron Paul: private-practice doctor, politician
With the exception of Congressman Paul, none of these candidates have had any experience in the private market. Congressman Paul does not garner my support because he is a hardcore Libertarian who happens to be a member of the Republican party. Also, as I will explain below, there is an aspect of Mitt Romney's business experience that I think makes him more suited for the Presidency than the other candidates.

Incidentally, I consider myself politically unaffiliated although, technically, that is not true because, as an official Judge of the Election for Champaign County, I was required to declare a party and I chose the GOP because I wanted to be able to vote in the Republican Primary. But when it comes to the General Election, I vote across party lines. With all of this as background, what follows is my response to my friend's question about Mitt Romney's claim:

I am first and foremost a fiscal conservative. I believe our nation needs to find a way to cut spending across the board, which is going to require some tough decisions that will probably piss off everyone. Sadly, while it is impossible to please all the people all the time, it is quite easy to do the opposite.

When it comes to the Presidency, I look at our nation's recent history of presidents, especially since Reagan, who was in office when I was born. We have had, in order: an actor-turned-politician, a politician-who-was-the-son-of-a-politician, a lawyer-turned-professor-turned-politician, a politician-who-was-the-son-of-a-politician, and a lawyer-turned-professor-turned politician. It seems like we just keep on electing the same type of person and, not surprisingly, we keep on getting the same type of results.

As I've followed Mitt Romney's career, I've noticed one important difference: he was a businessman for years, going from one successful business to another before retiring and seeking public office. I have especially looked closely at what his businesses did. Did they create jobs in and of themselves? Well, Bain Capital definitely had employees but, more importantly, they provided a way for struggling businesses to recover and STAY in business. Two major businesses come to mind: Staples, which has something in the neighbourhood of 100,000 employees worldwide and Domino's Pizza, which has roughly 150,000 employees. If those companies had gone under, that gives us 250,000 people without jobs. Mitt Romney didn't directly create those jobs, but he reorgnaised the companies' infrastructure so that they could save and create them. And yeah, Romney made a huge pile of money as a result.

When I think of what the President of the United States should do, I think about the role of a CEO. After all, the President is THE Chief Executive. He doesn't need to create the jobs; he needs to create an environment where job creation is possible. The economy is one of the few areas of American life that the President does have a direct influence over. For example, he appoints the members of the Federal Reserve Board and the Chairman. That has HUGE impact on the economy; after all, they govern interest rates and inflation.

I don't have any specific websites or blogs to direct you to, although I think going directly to the source and reading Romney's plan is a good start. But mostly, I think of the adage about what happens when you always do what you've always done. I don't think that what we are getting is what we deserve, and so I am supporting someone who wants to try something different. Romney says we should run our government the way we would run a corporation. Let's give it a shot. I honestly don't think he can make things worse than they are now. But I do think he has a chance to make things better.

Oh, and as far as every other major issues: Romney is campaigning as a right-wing Republican because right-wing Republicans are the ones who vote in the Primaries. But, let's be honest: the man is a moderate and a compromiser. If he is elected, he will let Congress deal with what Congress is supposed to deal with, and he'll focus on the economy and national security.

Comments

Scott said…
What are the pros and cons of running the country like you run a corporation?
My quick and dirty answer is that I don't think anyone has ever attempted to run the country like a corporation, so it would become a Great Experiment that I think is worthy trying.
Tom said…
Pros - a balanced budget that will (hopefully) preserve the value of the dollar and America's credit rating.

Cons - cutting spending and/or raising taxes to balance the budget.

There are others, but those are the 2 I see.
Unknown said…
I think a lot of the critics of Romney's time at Bain are looking at it the completely wrong way. It's completely ludicrous to believe that his goal as president would be to outsource jobs overseas. Every first-term president wants to be a 2-term president, and a loss of jobs is completely at odds with that goal.

What I would like to hear him say is something like this: "Yes, I outsourced a lot of jobs and/or had to liquidate a few companies. I also know what would have convinced me to keep those jobs around. Here are some ideas: ..." and then, well, you know, that's where his CEO-type stuff comes out.

Popular posts from this blog

Crafty Craftiness

Who Are You?

And This Is Life Eternal