Charles Edison

"Economics, politics, and personalities are often inseparable." - Charles Edison

Wednesday, January 18, 2012


Mitt Romney, the GOP candidate that has essentially locked himself as the front-runner for the Republican party has many potential voters and international markets cocking their heads in anticipation of the alleged flip-flopper seizing the presidency.

He is remarkably non-charismatic for a Republican candidate, yet manages to run one of the most impressive campaigns in recent elections. An Economist article claims Romney is not as much of a buzzer-beater candidate as his party believes. One of its primary arguments is that Romney possesses true business experience, something lacking not only in President Obama, but in the remaining GOP primary candidates as well. This is virtually meaningless. The United States does not need a CEO at the moment: it needs a unifying leader. Unity can lead to legislative progress, and eventually, accomplishment... of anything really. Nevertheless, why are the Republicans continually searching for a replacement for Romney when he presents himself as the professional, the businessman, the job-maker, the no-scandal straight-edge? Could it be because he would claim that the sky was green and the grass was blue if it would help him win an election? His speech is arguably lacking in comparison to President Obama, and his own party has witnessed Romney's lack of "core" beliefs. Strangely, some are in favor of the non-ideological candidate, and voters remain hopeful that his changing stance of an array of issues shows an intelligent man whose ideas and dogmas change and adapt to new policies and social evolution. You can decide if this is true.

While the majority of the party outside his opposition brings his "flip-flop" history to light (X Republican will always be more welcome in the GOP than A Democrat), they should really appreciate his business aptitude more. It could hold the key to a potential win. Still the 2012 election is one of social issues, not economic policy.

With Bain, Romney accomplished a great deal for the company. He generated profits for their shareholders, allegedly created 100,000 jobs, and cut spending. What the American people need to understand is that the Presidency is not a company. In a company, one business succeeds, and the other struggles. One wins, the other loses. A country cannot run in similar fashion. While this may satisfy the "win, win, win" mentality that the GOP seems to idolize and epitomize within the legislative branch, it has no place in a position of leadership that should primarily be supporting compromise and unity.


Smith said...

What are your thoughts about the argument that he created jobs with Bain, couldn’t he create jobs for the US? What are you basing your voting decision on?

D.McKee said...

While I see the merit in your argument, I humbly disagree. No presidential candidate is perfect and that applies to Barack Obama. Where Barack had no experience in Washington, Romney has a long standing reputation as a strong republcian candidate for the presidency. But politics is not the discussion here. The one thing I principally disagree with is the idea that the presidency does not need a business leader to function properly. As the president, it is your responsibility to unite the American people, not only ideologically, but economically as well. Maybe if you looked at America as a large business, you could see the viability of Romney's campaign. In the end, value based judgment comes into play. Where you see Obama as a great leader, I see economic downfall. This economic suffering indicates the need for a more realistic, financially sound economic policy, something Mitt Romney has proved he is capable of doing in the business world.

Alex D. said...

Mr. Smith, and to an extent, Derek: The US government is not a zero-sum system. I mentioned in the post that I do not consider the United States as a company/business. While it’s comparable to an extent, a government that operates like a large business would be tragic. The common goals of most businesses are to grow, to prosper, but the country that operates in this manner an irresponsible one. When a business succeeds, it usually means its competitors must fight to compete, or fail. Now, if the US was an economic powerhouse that based its decisions on economic means only, the business model would work. But that’s a tad radical. The government should, ideally, run based on a combination of economic, social, and political interests and inputs. While this is not always true, it’s how a president should plan his agenda.

Derek, I fully agree with many of the points you raise. “No presidential candidate is perfect” and voters support the candidates that fulfill the moral guidelines they set themselves. Values make compromise difficult, as people devoutly stay by their ethics, considering opposing forces to be “invalid” or “incorrect.” I don’t necessarily agree Romney had such ethics in the first place, and that is why I do not support him. People say that he has changed his mind on various topics because he continues to grow and develop his dogmas. I do not agree with this: he’s merely a candidate, nothing more. I’m not discarding his previous business experience as invaluable, but rather stating that he changes his ideas to fit the public’s wants, to be popular. I find this ridiculous and unacceptable, and cannot sympathize with a power-hungry, overly wealthy, and immoral president. Still, some of my arguments are unfounded. The first presidents were the wealthiest men in the land, and perhaps the US does need a power-driven ego to guide us through the economic struggle. Nothing can salvage the economy until the debt issue is solved. That being said, I’d like to question his actual business prowess. The media/public continue to press Romney about releasing his tax returns, like his father before him… and his response to us is a maybe? He had to be pressed to follow through, but that we would have to wait a few more months… For what? For his accountants to erase discrepancies within his bank accounts? He is taxed 15%, a mere tip to the IRS. I think we’re all curious to discover what he has to worry about. My question to you, Derek, is that if you claim Romney to be such a strong Republican candidate, then why does his own party resist him so much? Is he merely unlikeable? Or do they see him lacking something. Thanks for bringing such fair and balanced arguments to the table.

My comments on Romney’s self and strategies may immediately lead one to believe I am a devout Obama supporter, but this is not true. I too was swept up by childish “hopes” he instilled when he campaigned in 2008, and, like many of his past voters, am not too thrilled with his achievements… or lack thereof. (I was always a Clinton fan) Nevertheless, I see (as of 1/20/2012) him as the lesser of two potential evils, but my decision is not resolute. Both candidates do not offer much, and I am rationally pessimistic about either man being elected. So to answer your question Mr. Smith, my decision is yet to be made, and I’m currently only judging on character. Obama’s future plans are uncertain, and Romney is a gamble. Once all the cards are on the table, I’ll most likely bet on the candidate that promotes cooperation between the parties, (as of now, not Obama) rational economic growth through a logical plan for reducing our debt crisis, and the desire to pull troops and focus on more domestic issues.