HOME / moneybox: Commentary about business and finance.
The CEO CandidateHow Mitt Romney's corporate success explains his campaign—and his flip-flops.
By Daniel GrossPosted Monday, Feb. 26, 2007, at 6:29 PM ET
For Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the transition from moderate, gay-friendly, abortion-tolerating Massachusetts governor to a certified social conservative isn't going smoothly. YouTube and Google have exposed Romney's shifting policy positions and relatively recent history of liberal behavior. In 1992, he voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas in the presidential primary. In a 1994 debate, he promised to be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy and spoke movingly about why abortion should be safe and legal. Today? He's hyperpartisan, pro-life, and hostile to gay marriage. Last year, he worked with Democrats to enact universal health care in Massachusetts. Today, his campaign Web site's health-care page doesn't even mention it.
Romney's flip-flops have been aggravated by his clumsy responses. Disavowing his remarks in the 1994 Kennedy debate, he said: "Of course, I was wrong on some issues back then. I think most of us learn with experience." Yes, as an unformed man of 47, this CEO, father, and multimillionaire was in the thrall of foolish, immature ideas.
It's easy to conclude that Romney lacks core principles and will say or do anything to get elected. But I think there's something deeper at work. Romney's behavior—and the fact that he doesn't think his obvious flip-flopping should arouse suspicions—suggests that he may be the first real CEO/MBA candidate. Sure, President George W. Bush is the first president to have an MBA, and he made noises about running the country like a company. (Insert Enron joke here.) But in contrast to Bush, Romney was a real businessman before getting into politics. The Harvard MBA started at Bain & Company as a management consultant in 1978, founded BainCapital, a wildly successful venture-capital firm, and restructured the Salt Lake City Olympics effort. Romney would easily win a private poll among Republican-leaning executives—he's their kind of guy, socially and financially. Ebay CEO Meg Whitman is a big supporter. And smart establishment economists such as Greg Mankiw of Harvard, Columbia Business School Dean Glenn Hubbard, and John Cogan of Stanford, all of whom provided critical intellectual support for President Bush, have signed on.
So, how are Romney's flip-flops and business success connected? People suspect, perhaps correctly, that Romney really doesn't believe all the things he's saying. His wife, Anne, has multiple sclerosis, yet he's opposed to embryonic stem-cell research. If an MS treatment derived from embryonic stem cells were to be developed overseas, it's a pretty sure bet that Romney would use his influence and funds to get that treatment for his spouse.
But such hypocrisy, which turns off voters, is something like a job requirement for CEOs. In the executive suite, abandoning deeply held attitudes and reversing positions are job requirements. How often have you seen a CEO proclaim that a struggling unit is not for sale, only to put it on the block a few months later? A CEO will praise a product to the skies one day and then cancel it the next. He'll boast, sincerely, that his company is No. 1 in the industry and then, when he quits the next day to run a rival, claim that the new firm is tops. CEOs take their cues from Mike Damone of Fast Times at Ridgemont High: "Act like wherever you are, that's the place to be."
These business flips are fine, because in the corporate world, people don't confuse advocacy of a company's strategy or products and services with personal honor or integrity. Nobody expects Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott to wear suits made at Wal-Mart, or Sears Chairman Eddie Lampert to furnish his homes with appliances from Sears, or for the gazillionaires behind Triarc to eat lunch at Arby's.
Good CEOs don't simply stake out public positions and stick to them for 20 years. They devise new business strategies and business plans to cope with changing market conditions. Energy-company executives who are suddenly eager to do something about global warming aren't seen as hypocrites, they're seen as shrewd operators. If the world changes, you don't simply do and say the same thing. You bring in Bain & Company, commission a study, announce a restructuring, start manufacturing in China.
Photograph of Mitt Romney by Darren McCollester/Getty Images.
COMMENTS
Remarks from the Fray:
I think the story behind the efforts of Republican candidates to shift to the right is simpler.
The driving force is the lack of a credible candidate of the social-conservative, religious right. In fact, when it comes to considering this wing of the party, "credible candidate" is not the first thought that comes to mind. It is too intellectually challenged and often simply too outrageous to generate a candidate that would be attractive to the American mainstream. Nobody would vote for Ann Coulter -- or for another Dubyah.
The natural Republican candidates, therefore, emerge from the center of the party, where the intellectual buzz is, and where candidates can be found that appeal to the median American voter.
But if nature abhors a vacuum, so does politics. If there are no credible candidates on the right, there are only more valuable voters to be won there. Motivated voters, who can be expected to turn out for the primaries. Therefore all Republican candidates will have to pander to the right, event the extreme right, during the primaries. And after the primaries, when the winner has been selected, he or she will do its utmost to disavow any contact with these people and appear as moderate as anyone could ever be.
Cynical? Yes. But it is the natural consequence of the workings of the US political system, such as it is. All candidates first have to shepherd their party's faithful to the polling booth, and then renounce them to seduce the average voter.
Everyone will be doing it. So why blame Mitt Romney?
Why is Romney bothering to make such a hard right turn?
Conventional wisdom has it he's trying to woo the all-important right wing to secure the nomination. Religious conservatives, neocons, immigration backlashers, NRA faithful, etc. act as gatekeepers in the nomination process. A candidate has to make nice with enough of these interest groups to accumulate conservative credentials and win some primaries, then move on to the general election and convince middle ground voters he's not really a shrill, partisan nut job who owes his soul to fringe interests.
If Romney buys this, he's kissing the babies he needs to kiss to gain the approval of fringe interests in the early going. Later on, he'll have to convince average voters he kissed those babies because they seemed cute and harmless at the time and, hey... everybody kisses babies. It didn't mean he wanted to adopt them and send them to preschool with your kids or anything dangerous like that.
A better strategy for Romney, considering his business and religious affiliations, might be to start on a moderate campaign right now and put all his eggs in that basket. Most voters are suspicious of the Mormon thing and are edgy about some wacko alliance between the LDS church, which they regard as something of a cult, and the weirder elements of religious conservatism. Sure, that's unlikely, and nobody could describe in detail any such hypothetical alliance, but it's an exploitable fear Democrats could use if Romney doesn't use some restraint in associating with the anti-abortion and anti-gay interest groups.
Of course, Romney is informed by what happened to John McCain when he tried to chart an independent course in the primaries against GW Bush. Now that McCain has fallen in line and is experiencing some success, Romney probably figures that's the safest way to get the nomination. Generous application of money and spin can then be applied to craft a softer, more moderate image for the general election.
It looks like Romney is gambling that liberal Republicans (all 813 of them) and moderates will stick with him during his foray into the fringes, Sure, they'll get nervous, but he can win them back once he gets the nomination, if he can send them the right coded messages to reassure them he hasn't gone nuts. He can probably count on people like Chris Shays and Susan Collins to speak up for him when he campaigns in the north. He might even get some help from people like Joe Lieberman, depending on whom the Democrats nominate.
Besides, running as a level-headed, pragmatic moderate is very difficult when faced with the clustered super primaries in the South. Some fire-breathing bible toter could easily steal his thunder and make conservatives in general go wobbly on him from North Carolina to Texas.
Romney's real challenge is convincing southern voters he's with them. As much as they might like the social conservatism represented by his Mormonism, they don't see real common ground there, and look at the LDS church as a western phenomenon. Fundamentalists of various persuasions have even labeled the Mormons non-christian, idol worshippers, anti-Jesus, necromancers, etc. Some of them maintain the anti-Christ will rise from within the Mormon church. This is powerful stuff in the South, not as easily dismissed ss it would be elsewhere.
If Romney is only doing what is necessary to gain the nomination, what does that say about his principles? Probably not much. I doubt very much he has any principles, and not just because he's a CEO turned politician, a combination some people would regard as the ultimate amoral actor.
The last president we had who stuck firmly to his principles was Jimmy Carter, and we hated him. The most unprincipled president we had in modern times was Richard Nixon and he was wildly successful until his venal personal behavior cooked his goose. (I would say GW Bush sticks to his principles, but he can't articulate what they are, so we can't be sure he has any.) Getting to be president and succeeding at the job requires a certain "moral flexibility" that we love and hate at the same time, Bill Clinton providing a recent example. Our current president is failing because he sticks to his decisions, whether or not they are informed by principles.
I think Romney would be a successful president because he has that situational adaptability exemplified by Bill Clinton. Romney would not be bothered by "selling out" when necessary, which is why I think fears about his religion are baseless. He wouldn't be an inspirational leader, but we're a nation no longer much interested in being inspired anyway. We prefer to be managed and Romney would be a competent manager.
For Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the transition from moderate, gay-friendly, abortion-tolerating Massachusetts governor to a certified social conservative isn't going smoothly. YouTube and Google have exposed Romney's shifting policy positions and relatively recent history of liberal behavior. In 1992, he voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas in the presidential primary. In a 1994 debate, he promised to be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy and spoke movingly about why abortion should be safe and legal. Today? He's hyperpartisan, pro-life, and hostile to gay marriage. Last year, he worked with Democrats to enact universal health care in Massachusetts. Today, his campaign Web site's health-care page doesn't even mention it. 
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
Adam Lambert's Refreshing Non-Apology on the CBS Early Show
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
Remarks from the Fray:
I think the story behind the efforts of Republican candidates to shift to the right is simpler.
The driving force is the lack of a credible candidate of the social-conservative, religious right. In fact, when it comes to considering this wing of the party, "credible candidate" is not the first thought that comes to mind. It is too intellectually challenged and often simply too outrageous to generate a candidate that would be attractive to the American mainstream. Nobody would vote for Ann Coulter -- or for another Dubyah.
The natural Republican candidates, therefore, emerge from the center of the party, where the intellectual buzz is, and where candidates can be found that appeal to the median American voter.
But if nature abhors a vacuum, so does politics. If there are no credible candidates on the right, there are only more valuable voters to be won there. Motivated voters, who can be expected to turn out for the primaries. Therefore all Republican candidates will have to pander to the right, event the extreme right, during the primaries. And after the primaries, when the winner has been selected, he or she will do its utmost to disavow any contact with these people and appear as moderate as anyone could ever be.
Cynical? Yes. But it is the natural consequence of the workings of the US political system, such as it is. All candidates first have to shepherd their party's faithful to the polling booth, and then renounce them to seduce the average voter.
Everyone will be doing it. So why blame Mitt Romney?
--MutatisMutandis
(To reply, click here.)
Why is Romney bothering to make such a hard right turn?
Conventional wisdom has it he's trying to woo the all-important right wing to secure the nomination. Religious conservatives, neocons, immigration backlashers, NRA faithful, etc. act as gatekeepers in the nomination process. A candidate has to make nice with enough of these interest groups to accumulate conservative credentials and win some primaries, then move on to the general election and convince middle ground voters he's not really a shrill, partisan nut job who owes his soul to fringe interests.
If Romney buys this, he's kissing the babies he needs to kiss to gain the approval of fringe interests in the early going. Later on, he'll have to convince average voters he kissed those babies because they seemed cute and harmless at the time and, hey... everybody kisses babies. It didn't mean he wanted to adopt them and send them to preschool with your kids or anything dangerous like that.
A better strategy for Romney, considering his business and religious affiliations, might be to start on a moderate campaign right now and put all his eggs in that basket. Most voters are suspicious of the Mormon thing and are edgy about some wacko alliance between the LDS church, which they regard as something of a cult, and the weirder elements of religious conservatism. Sure, that's unlikely, and nobody could describe in detail any such hypothetical alliance, but it's an exploitable fear Democrats could use if Romney doesn't use some restraint in associating with the anti-abortion and anti-gay interest groups.
Of course, Romney is informed by what happened to John McCain when he tried to chart an independent course in the primaries against GW Bush. Now that McCain has fallen in line and is experiencing some success, Romney probably figures that's the safest way to get the nomination. Generous application of money and spin can then be applied to craft a softer, more moderate image for the general election.
It looks like Romney is gambling that liberal Republicans (all 813 of them) and moderates will stick with him during his foray into the fringes, Sure, they'll get nervous, but he can win them back once he gets the nomination, if he can send them the right coded messages to reassure them he hasn't gone nuts. He can probably count on people like Chris Shays and Susan Collins to speak up for him when he campaigns in the north. He might even get some help from people like Joe Lieberman, depending on whom the Democrats nominate.
Besides, running as a level-headed, pragmatic moderate is very difficult when faced with the clustered super primaries in the South. Some fire-breathing bible toter could easily steal his thunder and make conservatives in general go wobbly on him from North Carolina to Texas.
Romney's real challenge is convincing southern voters he's with them. As much as they might like the social conservatism represented by his Mormonism, they don't see real common ground there, and look at the LDS church as a western phenomenon. Fundamentalists of various persuasions have even labeled the Mormons non-christian, idol worshippers, anti-Jesus, necromancers, etc. Some of them maintain the anti-Christ will rise from within the Mormon church. This is powerful stuff in the South, not as easily dismissed ss it would be elsewhere.
If Romney is only doing what is necessary to gain the nomination, what does that say about his principles? Probably not much. I doubt very much he has any principles, and not just because he's a CEO turned politician, a combination some people would regard as the ultimate amoral actor.
The last president we had who stuck firmly to his principles was Jimmy Carter, and we hated him. The most unprincipled president we had in modern times was Richard Nixon and he was wildly successful until his venal personal behavior cooked his goose. (I would say GW Bush sticks to his principles, but he can't articulate what they are, so we can't be sure he has any.) Getting to be president and succeeding at the job requires a certain "moral flexibility" that we love and hate at the same time, Bill Clinton providing a recent example. Our current president is failing because he sticks to his decisions, whether or not they are informed by principles.
I think Romney would be a successful president because he has that situational adaptability exemplified by Bill Clinton. Romney would not be bothered by "selling out" when necessary, which is why I think fears about his religion are baseless. He wouldn't be an inspirational leader, but we're a nation no longer much interested in being inspired anyway. We prefer to be managed and Romney would be a competent manager.
--Arlington2
(To reply, click here.)
(2/28)