-
Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.
May 25, 2013 | 1 comment
-
BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity
May 24, 2013 | 14 comments
-
Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden
May 24, 2013 | 10 comments
-
Good Luck Quin
May 24, 2013 | 6 comments
-
One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born
May 23, 2013 | 9 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Ross Kaminsky characterizes Newt Gingrich and others who have criticized Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital as an attack on free enterprise itself. I was struck in particular by these two paragraphs:
On Monday, Mitt Romney said when discussing purchasing health insurance that he “likes being able to fire people who provide services to me.” While the context was being able to change insurers if they’re not providing good service — and the incentive that that possibility instills in providers of services — Romney’s opponents wasted no time taking his remarks out of context, making it sound as if Romney was making a blanket statement about relishing firing people.
Jon Huntsman knew he was wildly misconstruing Romney’s words when the former said that “Gov. Romney enjoys firing people” which, even out of context, Romney didn’t say. But putting aside that such an interpretation was clearly not what Romney meant, even if he had said “I like being able to fire people” as a more general statement, one has to wonder what his critics would propose as alternative. Should a businessman not be able to fire people? Once again, Mussolini’s heart warms at the words of Romney’s critics.
I am certainly aware of the context in which Romney made his remarks and said as much yesterday. But didn’t the employees of the companies Romney ran provide services for him? So is it really a stretch of the imagination to argue that he dismissed employees with the same relish he might dismiss a health care provider? I don’t think it is.
Ross, of course, disagrees with this interpretation as is his prerogative. But then he makes the argument that if Romney does, in fact, like firing people then what is the alternative? I think Ross is missing the point here. It isn’t a question of whether should a businessman be able to fire people. After all, it comes with the territory. Firing people is often a necessary evil. But I’ve never come across an employer who actually enjoyed firing an employee even if that employee was deserving of termination. Many of the employers I have dealt with over the years have told me that firing or laying off people is the most difficult part of their job. Indeed, a little over a year ago, I found myself out of a job. After the company vice-president who gave us the news broke down in tears as he left the room.
Admittedly, breaking down in tears is an unusual reaction. Nevertheless, in many workplaces employers develop bonds with their familial like bonds with their employees. But it is a business and sometimes business doesn’t prosper and something has to give. Yet when companies have to reduce their staffs they try do so through attrition and provide personnel close to retirement age a golden parachute. Their aim to soften the blow and minimize the pain.
Now I realize Romney was in a different role. Bain was in the business of taking over distressed companies and try to restore them to profitability. In the case of venture capitalism, perhaps you need to have the sort of personality that wouldn’t give a second thought to casually fire someone who has worked for the same company for twenty years. I guess you could call it creative destruction. So Romney didn’t have a personal connection to the people who worked for him and in that sense made it easier for him to fire people at Worldwide Grinding Systems, deny them severance pay, health insurance while slashing their meager pensions. But these actions have consequences. Of course, in this case, the people who provided services for Romney bore the brunt of those consequences.
The fact is that Mitt Romney wants us to elect him President in part because of his work at Bain. Fair enough. But then let’s have the unabridged version. Sure, Mitt Romney helped make the lives of some people better while at Bain. But other people and their families were hurt by his actions and it’s going to be very difficult to get 8.6% of the country that’s unemployed not to mention those who fear losing their jobs to vote for Romney if they think he’s somebody who derives pleasure from giving people pink slips. As long as this perception exists, Romney will never take up residence in the White House. He will have to be content with his mansions in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Utah and California.
Look I have few illusions about life. It isn’t fair and the world doesn’t owe you a living. As for capitalism, to paraphrase Winston Churchill on democracy, “Capitalism is a terrible economic system except for all the others that have been tried.” Capitalism might be the best economic system we have but that doesn’t mean the system and its practitioners are above criticism. Ross can surely do better than to label those who point out capitalism’s shortcomings as admirers of Il Duce. What ever happened to Two Cheers for Capitalism?
View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/10/romneys-firing-line
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Public Nuisances
- A President Loses His Power
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
J.P. | 1.10.12 @ 6:23PM
Not meaning any disrespect, Mr. G., but if I were Gov. Romney and you, hypothetically on my staff, served up such drivel as this, I'd fire you and believe me, I'd laugh all the way to the signing of the pink slip.
And before you start crying, please, do some homework. Any good book on political economy, including a child's book such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism (I think, really, you, Mr. G., will not find it too difficult), will help, and if you look at the bibliography (that's the section in the back that lists other books the author used in his own research), you will find further reading suggestions.
Pete| 1.10.12 @ 6:38PM
I have been fired. I have been hired. I have fired and I have hired. It is life.
I am curious why some people see it as a bad thing. No company owes you a living for the rest of your life. Business expands and business contracts. As conservatives we can not run from the idea that firing workers and managers is often very necessary. Our next president better be prepared to fire a lot of people. There services are no longer needed.
Dan| 1.10.12 @ 11:00PM
Don't you understand?
The fraud that has been rampant in Romney's political career has its equal in his business career.
Statements, promises, such as promises made to repay loans for instance, are valid only to the extent that they serve HIS need.
This isn't anti-Capitalism.
This is anti-Capitalism without a human face.
There are reasons that many have discerned something not quite right about Romney, something that they're unable to quite quantify, quite articulate, but is nonetheless present, tangible and real.
Mike W| 1.10.12 @ 6:47PM
It's always amazing to me when "conservatives" such as this blogger, who obviously should be capitalists, fail to understand Economics 101.
Perhaps the blogger prefers the fat creep's (Gingrich) economic policies and beliefs, such as his taking of 1.6 million dollars of Fannie Mae money.
Dan| 1.10.12 @ 10:53PM
So you imply that you "understand Economics 101."
Well, what of ETHICS 101?
Or are you one of those who somehow believe that economic activity is the one sphere of human activity freed and exempt from any and all ethical constraint?
Moreover, how can you defend Romney's business activities while blasting those of Gingrich? Romney defends himself by saying he met a business need. Gingrich can say likewise, he met a consultative need, where his services or advice fit the bill.
Passion can warp analytical faculties.
kf451| 1.10.12 @ 6:49PM
I don't have a problem with the need to fire people when necessary. Businesses are not welfare programs. But having said that, I don't want to have a former "vulture" capitalist as my president, or a former lobbyist. Just because I see those as legitimate occupations doesn't mean I see them as noble.
Dan| 1.10.12 @ 10:48PM
Exactly.
Occam's Tool| 1.10.12 @ 6:55PM
The secret to keeping my job is to be very efficient and live in a very poorly served area.
But, I gotta tell you---I want the laughing slasher in charge of the Federal Government. Being happy to destroy Federal jobs would be a pleasant change of pace.
Clint| 1.10.12 @ 8:23PM
Romney Had The Third Lowest Job Growth As Governor Of Massachusetts.
Mitten Is A Job Gravedigger.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.
Dan| 1.10.12 @ 11:03PM
I concur.
We need a butcher.
But the problem is that Romney is also one that avoids political showdowns. When the media howls about him taking on entrenched bureaucracy, he'll fold.
This country needs drastic change.
This country needs the guy who has been crying out for years that "REAL change requires REAL change." And he was saying that long before that idiot Obama crawled out his leftist hole.
Gadfly| 1.10.12 @ 7:34PM
Romney never said he enjoys firing employees (or even that he enjoys firing "people who provided services to me"). He said he enjoys being able to do so. Big difference. I have no particular desire to travel to East St. Louis, but I enjoy living in a country where I'm able to travel there freely. I don't enjoy listening to the Westboro Baptist church, but I enjoy being able to hear them express their free speech.
There's plenty to criticize Romney about, but the attacks, mischaracterizations, and misquotes about this statement are just ridiculous.
Dan| 1.10.12 @ 11:04PM
Why should Romney be exempt from the smears, the mischaracterizations, the innuendo that he dished out.
He has no problem launching one vicious attack ad after another. But let anyone question the Romney narrative and "Oh the humanity........"
No.
Romney needs to be vetted.
Which means we need to go over Bain with a fine-toothed comb.
Dan| 1.10.12 @ 10:43PM
Aaron,
You're forgetting that Capitalism requires outside audit lest values of sheer profit predominate. Those that defend Romney privileging his profits over and above all others don't understand that they are serving to unmoor Capitalism from the only constraint that serves to make Capitalism human, instead of anti-human.
Dan| 1.10.12 @ 10:47PM
Capitalism run amok can become utterly Godless, which means anti-human.
Romney's defense of him "meeting the demands of the market" have been offered by pimps and prostitutes, dealers and distributors, long before him.
There's nothing new or novel in Romney's carnivorous Capitalistism. But what is new is the effort of many who supposedly value religious, or higher values, who are now rushing off to the defense of what might be technically legal, but is still hardly laudable.
kf451| 1.11.12 @ 12:39AM
When Linda McMahon ran for the senate in New Hampshire as a Republican, her association with the WWE hurt her. Noone accused her critics of being anti-capitalist. It's just that some legal businesses are less admirable than others. And being a vulture capitalist is one of those.
Ross Kaminsky | 1.11.12 @ 5:52PM
Aaron, I don't think I said Romney should like firing people. I think I said he should like -- and we should all like -- BEING ABLE to fire people. After all, what is the alternative?
Aaron Goldstein| 1.11.12 @ 9:01PM
Firing someone isn't supposed to be something one enjoys. If one is in a position where one has to fire someone it means there's a problem within the organization and problems are headaches. This is especially if you were the one who hired the employees in the first place. You deal with them and then try to move forward.