Question
Does Mitt Romney's skills from Bain Capital make him the perfect person to fix a broken economy?
Answer
It actually makes him a far worse candidate I think. This is not a general comment on corporate executives. I am sure many senior roles in large companies might be good training. But not Bain.
Why not? Read the history of the strategy consulting industry Lords of Strategy by Walter Kiechel, learn how Bain arose from its parent BCG, and how it differentiated itself from the rest by focusing on execution support rather than just advice. This led the company down a slippery slope of getting in bed with customers (in particular a big scandal involving Guinness), helping start the modern boutique firm model specializing in share price management and ultimately, through Bain Capital, the then-nascent LBO industry.
These aren't bad or good things. They just are. It's a business model. But seen in the context of politics, Bain is perfect as a training ground for insider dealings, regulatory capture, secrecy, rent-seeking, conflicts of interest...
I wouldn't trust a Bainie in politics as far as I could throw an elephant. It's decidedly the wrong mindset for President. It is a decidedly partisan, secretive and narrow mindset that is trained to look at reality from a fixed, single perspective, to maximize a single value. It might be a good mindset for Chief of Staff. If I had to choose among the Big Three, I'd prefer both a McKinsey or BCG Prez more.
I don't have truly strong opinions about Republicans vs. Democrats and am mostly a centrist or just left of center, but I have to say the idea of Romney as President (and this an impressionistic take based on the Bain history, the Olympics thing, the wealth/lifestyle revelations and just his persona as it comes across on TV) scares me in a way no other candidate (Red or Blue) has in the last 15 years. He is scarier than the nutjobs on both sides because he won't self-destruct through obviously dumb moves. He is scarier than the ideologues because he stands for absolutely nothing and appears to have no deeply held beliefs. He is scarier than the 'smart' ones like Clinton because he appears to have an insider 'game mind' and ability to work institutions without a comparable ability to think about actual issues and hard questions. A possible 'how' genius, but 'why' zombie. And finally he is scarier than the puppet types because he appears to be too smart to be influenced by anything other than stakes offered/traded in insider dealings. Bush Jr. by contrast appeared to be suggestible in other ways, which might have made him a better President if he'd had better advisors around him.
Romney reminds of the Rufus Scrimegeour character in the Harry Potter books. A pure fixer-operator type focused on preserving an illusion of normalcy in very abnormal times, perpetuating toxic status quo balances of power, and pursuing some narrow back room agenda negotiated with a few.
Yeah, those are fairly detailed expectations based on slim, impressionistic evidence. If he wins, I truly hope the responsibilities of office make him grow in some fundamental ways.
Curiously, Obama struck me as a similar type early on, in some ways. The difference was that he a) genuinely appeared to stand for at least a couple of things b) displayed signs of a capacity for real growth, which have since been validated.
Why not? Read the history of the strategy consulting industry Lords of Strategy by Walter Kiechel, learn how Bain arose from its parent BCG, and how it differentiated itself from the rest by focusing on execution support rather than just advice. This led the company down a slippery slope of getting in bed with customers (in particular a big scandal involving Guinness), helping start the modern boutique firm model specializing in share price management and ultimately, through Bain Capital, the then-nascent LBO industry.
These aren't bad or good things. They just are. It's a business model. But seen in the context of politics, Bain is perfect as a training ground for insider dealings, regulatory capture, secrecy, rent-seeking, conflicts of interest...
I wouldn't trust a Bainie in politics as far as I could throw an elephant. It's decidedly the wrong mindset for President. It is a decidedly partisan, secretive and narrow mindset that is trained to look at reality from a fixed, single perspective, to maximize a single value. It might be a good mindset for Chief of Staff. If I had to choose among the Big Three, I'd prefer both a McKinsey or BCG Prez more.
I don't have truly strong opinions about Republicans vs. Democrats and am mostly a centrist or just left of center, but I have to say the idea of Romney as President (and this an impressionistic take based on the Bain history, the Olympics thing, the wealth/lifestyle revelations and just his persona as it comes across on TV) scares me in a way no other candidate (Red or Blue) has in the last 15 years. He is scarier than the nutjobs on both sides because he won't self-destruct through obviously dumb moves. He is scarier than the ideologues because he stands for absolutely nothing and appears to have no deeply held beliefs. He is scarier than the 'smart' ones like Clinton because he appears to have an insider 'game mind' and ability to work institutions without a comparable ability to think about actual issues and hard questions. A possible 'how' genius, but 'why' zombie. And finally he is scarier than the puppet types because he appears to be too smart to be influenced by anything other than stakes offered/traded in insider dealings. Bush Jr. by contrast appeared to be suggestible in other ways, which might have made him a better President if he'd had better advisors around him.
Romney reminds of the Rufus Scrimegeour character in the Harry Potter books. A pure fixer-operator type focused on preserving an illusion of normalcy in very abnormal times, perpetuating toxic status quo balances of power, and pursuing some narrow back room agenda negotiated with a few.
Yeah, those are fairly detailed expectations based on slim, impressionistic evidence. If he wins, I truly hope the responsibilities of office make him grow in some fundamental ways.
Curiously, Obama struck me as a similar type early on, in some ways. The difference was that he a) genuinely appeared to stand for at least a couple of things b) displayed signs of a capacity for real growth, which have since been validated.