![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
malasadas.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAmong the Democratic circles within which I travel, it is taken as a given that Governor Mitt Romney, now the all-but-nominated nominee of the Republican party, cannot talk about his wealth without causing himself trouble. Certainly, the issue has provided grist for the mill for both his opponents in the Republican primaries and the Democratic party as it looks ahead to the national campaign. It took significant pressure on the Romneys from his primary rivals to release their tax information, disclosing a net worth of $250 million and annual income in the 10s of millions, over half of which came from investments taxed well below the typical income tax rate. Governor Romney has had several ham fisted moments where his wealth left him vulnerable to charges of "not understanding" the "typical American". When trying to "connect" with NASCAR fans, he casually mentioned how he was friends with some of the owners. Trying to connect with voters in Michigan, the state he was born in and where his father was a popular governor, he talked about his family's American made cars, include a "couple of Cadillacs" his wife drives. There are more from the trail, but made-for-soundbite issue is that when Mitt Romney mentions his money, he leaves himself open for attacks about his alleged insensitivity to "normal" Americans.
There are three arguments regarding Mr. Romney that a smart campaign out to be able to turn to his advantage.
1) The Candidate Does Not "Understand" Normal Americans: I have to say that as a voter, among the reasons that I would not prefer a Romney Presidency, his alleged inability to understand me ranks somewhere below his odd fixation on the height of the trees in Michigan. Truth be told, I am unsure how much ANY American President has EVER "understood" so-called "normal" Americans. Mr. Romney was born into wealth and from that starting point, built a personal fortune that means he never has to really think about money again. That's distorting to be sure, but Presidents seem to come from fairly distorted circles by the time they reach the office. President Obama is currently wealthy although neither he nor his wife started that way. On the other hand, Mr. Obama is clearly possessed of an impressive intellect and his personal biography, while fascinating, can hardly be called "normal". President Bill Clinton was often praised for his "common touch" but he was also clearly an uncommon man, possessed of a vigorous intellect and insatiable appetites -- seriously, what normal man gets this worked up over cake? Was Ronald Reagan's Hollywood past "normal"? JFK's family? Eisenhower's military career? Wilson's college presidency? Anything about Teddy Roosevelt? George Washington's status as a gentleman estate holder?
The fact is that while we often favor presidential candidates who can talk "common" we usually reward the Presidency to very uncommon people. The question really isn't whether or not Governor Romney can understand how much I wince when I see my Con Edison bill every month...it is whether or not a President Romney will pursue policies that make our energy future more or less secure than it is now.
2) The Role of "Creative Destruction" in an Economy: It is an odd Republican primary season when a former private equity CEO like Governor Romney is attacked on his RIGHT by candidates trying to alienate him from voters by highlighting alleged negatives about the work of Bain Capital under Romney's stewardship. It is a given that the Obama campaign will pick up some angles of this populist attack on the role of private equity in our economy and Mitt Romney's specific role in the field.
It will be a shame if the conversation is limited to Mr. Obama accusing Mr. Romney of profiting from the destruction of jobs and Mr. Romney simply countering with accusations that Mr. Obama has simply destroyed jobs. The fact is that the role private equity firms play in our economy is complex, frequently very useful and worthy of examination and understanding. There is little sign of an edifying conversation on that happening any time soon, but the balance of private equity generating efficiencies in the economy versus the loss of jobs at PE managed firms versus the valuable returns to investors...including public sector pension funds...is a conversation worth having. And Mr. Romney is well qualified to help Americans better understand how their economy works -- if he is willing to risk the conversation.
3) Governor Romney's Character: Romney has had many calumnies hurled at him during his political career, some of the worst during this primary season. He has somehow survived them all to become the Republican nominee but with his character and credentials fairly battered.
A thought that ocurred to me when the Romney tax return was finally released in January was that his investment income said something very interesting about him. His tax records showed about 21 million in long term capital gains paid to the Romneys over two years, about 12 million of that in carried interest as part of his retirement package as a partner in Bain.
I can see the attacks that can come from that disclosure, but I can also see the praise worthy side of it. Namely, Governor Romney IS conservative -- in the best meanings of the word. A fortune of $250 million is able to generate a LOT of revenue, especially if the fortune holder is putting it into high risk, high yield ventures. If more than half of the Romney investment income is coming from carried interest at Bain, it means that other portions of his investment portfolio are likely parked in fairly conservative, income bearing accounts. In other words, Mr. Romney is prudent and cautious, characteristics that could be spun very positively for a candidate looking to steward an economy that can be charitably called "nervous". While candiate Romney has endorsed the Ryan budget, looking at what I can intuit of his character, I have trouble picturing him looking at the balance sheets and doubling down on numbers that don't add up unless I become convinced that he could inflict upon the country what he would never consider for himself.
None of this convinces me to vote for the man because the totality of his political agenda is far outside of what I want in the White House, but I think Governor Romney should learn how to talk about his money -- there are some instructive moments there waiting for the electorate.
There are three arguments regarding Mr. Romney that a smart campaign out to be able to turn to his advantage.
1) The Candidate Does Not "Understand" Normal Americans: I have to say that as a voter, among the reasons that I would not prefer a Romney Presidency, his alleged inability to understand me ranks somewhere below his odd fixation on the height of the trees in Michigan. Truth be told, I am unsure how much ANY American President has EVER "understood" so-called "normal" Americans. Mr. Romney was born into wealth and from that starting point, built a personal fortune that means he never has to really think about money again. That's distorting to be sure, but Presidents seem to come from fairly distorted circles by the time they reach the office. President Obama is currently wealthy although neither he nor his wife started that way. On the other hand, Mr. Obama is clearly possessed of an impressive intellect and his personal biography, while fascinating, can hardly be called "normal". President Bill Clinton was often praised for his "common touch" but he was also clearly an uncommon man, possessed of a vigorous intellect and insatiable appetites -- seriously, what normal man gets this worked up over cake? Was Ronald Reagan's Hollywood past "normal"? JFK's family? Eisenhower's military career? Wilson's college presidency? Anything about Teddy Roosevelt? George Washington's status as a gentleman estate holder?
The fact is that while we often favor presidential candidates who can talk "common" we usually reward the Presidency to very uncommon people. The question really isn't whether or not Governor Romney can understand how much I wince when I see my Con Edison bill every month...it is whether or not a President Romney will pursue policies that make our energy future more or less secure than it is now.
2) The Role of "Creative Destruction" in an Economy: It is an odd Republican primary season when a former private equity CEO like Governor Romney is attacked on his RIGHT by candidates trying to alienate him from voters by highlighting alleged negatives about the work of Bain Capital under Romney's stewardship. It is a given that the Obama campaign will pick up some angles of this populist attack on the role of private equity in our economy and Mitt Romney's specific role in the field.
It will be a shame if the conversation is limited to Mr. Obama accusing Mr. Romney of profiting from the destruction of jobs and Mr. Romney simply countering with accusations that Mr. Obama has simply destroyed jobs. The fact is that the role private equity firms play in our economy is complex, frequently very useful and worthy of examination and understanding. There is little sign of an edifying conversation on that happening any time soon, but the balance of private equity generating efficiencies in the economy versus the loss of jobs at PE managed firms versus the valuable returns to investors...including public sector pension funds...is a conversation worth having. And Mr. Romney is well qualified to help Americans better understand how their economy works -- if he is willing to risk the conversation.
3) Governor Romney's Character: Romney has had many calumnies hurled at him during his political career, some of the worst during this primary season. He has somehow survived them all to become the Republican nominee but with his character and credentials fairly battered.
A thought that ocurred to me when the Romney tax return was finally released in January was that his investment income said something very interesting about him. His tax records showed about 21 million in long term capital gains paid to the Romneys over two years, about 12 million of that in carried interest as part of his retirement package as a partner in Bain.
I can see the attacks that can come from that disclosure, but I can also see the praise worthy side of it. Namely, Governor Romney IS conservative -- in the best meanings of the word. A fortune of $250 million is able to generate a LOT of revenue, especially if the fortune holder is putting it into high risk, high yield ventures. If more than half of the Romney investment income is coming from carried interest at Bain, it means that other portions of his investment portfolio are likely parked in fairly conservative, income bearing accounts. In other words, Mr. Romney is prudent and cautious, characteristics that could be spun very positively for a candidate looking to steward an economy that can be charitably called "nervous". While candiate Romney has endorsed the Ryan budget, looking at what I can intuit of his character, I have trouble picturing him looking at the balance sheets and doubling down on numbers that don't add up unless I become convinced that he could inflict upon the country what he would never consider for himself.
None of this convinces me to vote for the man because the totality of his political agenda is far outside of what I want in the White House, but I think Governor Romney should learn how to talk about his money -- there are some instructive moments there waiting for the electorate.
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 19:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 19:46 (UTC):-P
(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 19:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 17:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 20:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 17:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 17:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 19:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 20:00 (UTC)How on earth was that called for I was just making a joke here, geesh
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 20:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/6/12 23:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 20:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 20:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 20:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/12 20:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 02:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 03:03 (UTC)Clinton was also fairly middle class until he was a public figure.
Does someone who is middle class most of their life suddenly become 'out of touch' once they achieve fame? Especially if said fame was very recently, contextually? If a poor person wins the lotto, are they suddenly unable to relate with the hardships of fellow poor people?
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 10:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 11:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 12:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 13:13 (UTC)But like I said, I don't care how much money Romney has, but if the Republicans try to frame Obama as a rich elitist then it's simply falsehoods.
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 21:49 (UTC)That said though, I don't think it necessarily has much bearing on Romney's suitability as a candidate. He was lucky in life, but being lucky's not a crime. And realistically, by the time any candidate (even one who actually did make their own way in the world) reaches the level of being a serious contender for the presidency - they're not thinking about as the same concerns as the "common man" anyway.
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 03:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 17:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 21:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 10:16 (UTC)On top of uncommon wealth, you need uncommon character...
I remember a few months back, stories surfaced of high school Romney and friends holding someone down and cutting their hair - and it hit me - this is the craziest story, from the wildest years of his life - and it's still boring as shit. If that's the dirtiest dirt that can be gathered from then, do you a) not vote for him because that makes him seem more out of touch than his wealth, or b) vote for him almost out of pity, for making a great attempt at living a life that lives up to the ridiculous expectations we have for a leader?
(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 11:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 17:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 17:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 17:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/6/12 17:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/6/12 01:02 (UTC)