The Republican Gang, Part Seven

Okay, here goes.

Who's Mitt?

Throughout this series, I have continuously referred to the man as the Whirr/Clack Mechanism. It's not much of a compliment, to be sure, but neither is it much of an analysis.

So, let's delve a little more deeply.

****

On Aug. 31, 1967, Romney's father, then governor of Michigan and candidate for the presidency of the United States, did an interview in Detroit. He tried to explain his early support for the Vietnam war. "Well," he said, "you know, when I came back from Vietnam, I just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get. Not only by the generals, but also by the diplomatic corps over there, and they do a very thorough job.”

Admitting to having been "brainwashed" by the US military into supporting the Vietnam war? That wasn't a very smart thing to say, not when you want to become president of the United States. "Hi everyone. My name is George Romney. I've been brainwashed by the military, and I think I'd be a swell commander in chief!"

Mitt Romney was 20 years old at the time, serving as a Mormon missionary in France. By all accounts, he never quite got over his father's mistake.

And certainly it seems he has tried, and tried very hard, not to make any of his own. Throughout his adult life, he has been cautious, scrupulous and, oftentimes, secretive. Unlike his father, he never shoots from the hip. Instead, he will amass all the information he can, he will crunch all the numbers, and only then he will do what he feels is right. If, that is, it also seems expedient.

****

Romney's stint as missionary lasted 30 months, as is customary in the Mormon Church. Afterwards, he performed many duties on behalf of his church. Some were more or less organisational, but many others were charitable. He came from a long line of eminent Mormons, and has always taken his task as their successor to heart.

In many ways, this is honourable. In some ways, though, it raises questions. Primarily, this isn't because of Romney himself; rather, it is because of his faith, which is frankly suspect.

Mormonism was founded by John Smith. In March 1826, Smith was convicted by a court in New York for being "a disorderly person and an impostor." The conviction wasn't much of a surprise, since during the trial Smith had admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing gold-digging expeditions (he also admitted to possessing "necromantic" powers).

This was the man who, a few years later, claimed to have discovered the Book of Mormon, a series of golden plates upon which was written, in a strange tongue, the history of the indigenous people of America and the truth of the gospels. Of course, no one ever saw these plates; when Smith set about translating them at his home, with a neighbour called in to write everything down (Smith himself couldn't write), a curtain was hung between them.

The Book of Mormon explained, among many other things, that the American Indians were the descendants of Nephi and his family, a man who had left Jerusalem in 600 BC and travelled by boat to "the promised land" (the Americas). It also explained that Jesus Christ himself visited the Americas after his crucifixion (3 Nephi, Ch. 11).

Such notions seem evidently absurd, as does the notion that Joseph Smith was an actual prophet. Add to this other well known Mormon concepts - such as polygamy (abandoned in 1890 after a "revelation"), or the idea that black people cannot become priests (abandoned in 1978 after another "revelation"), and it becomes very difficult to take Mormonism seriously.

Nevertheless, Mitt Romney does seem to take it seriously. The thing is, though, we don't really know to what extent. There are pieces of the puzzle that are missing, and we have no real knowledge of what he believes in. One might well argue that here, again, the shutters have been drawn, but that's about as far as any conclusion can go.

****

After graduation, Romney went to work for the Boston Consulting Group. In 1977, he left to join Bain & Company, a management consulting firm. In 1984, he became CEO of the off-spin company Bain Capital.

The idea behind Bain Capital was to further the techniques already employed by Bain & Company. Unlike Bain & Company, Bain Capital would not just offer consultancy; instead, it would actually buy into companies. It was, in short, a private equity investment firm. And it was a firm that, within a few years, was heavily into so-called leveraged buy-outs. That is: using the money provided to it by its clients, Bain would buy (a controlling interest in) a firm; the clients' money would be protected by means of securing it via the firm's assets.

Although this is by no means set in stone, there are basically two ways Bain's clients could make money from this. The first is simply when the firm acquired prospered. After all, when that happened the shares (the equity) in the firm rose in value; so, generally speaking, would the worth of its assets. The second was when the firm was sold or dismantled, in which case the worth of the assets could well be more than the clients' original investment.

In short, whether or not Bain's activities lead to prosperous and healthy companies - and, therefore, to the creation of jobs - can't be deduced simply by the nature of those activities. Whether Romney was a "job creator" or a "vulture capitalist" can't be concluded from the fact that he was CEO of Bain. In order to reach a conclusion either way, one would have to analyse all the investments Bain made whilst Romney was CEO, and such an assessment is very difficult, given the private (and therefore confidential) nature of the dealings involved.

Having said that, I'd be surprised if Romney didn't come out on top if such an assessment were ever made. I base that on Bain's background as a consulting firm, on its (and Romney's) considerable success, and on some of the well-known examples, such as Staples. He probably can be credited for creating quite a few more jobs than he destroyed, even if that wasn't the business he was in.

****

Romney's career as a politician is, at best, a little shaky. All in all, there's rather less to it than one might at first think.

It is, of course, well known that he was governor of Massachusetts. However, he only served a single term, from 2003 to 2007. Halfway through it, in 2005, he had already decided to run for president, which was one of the reasons why he did not seek a second term. Another one may well have been the fact that times were tough for Republicans; if he had run for governor again, he may well have lost.

Besides this, there is not all too much to tell. Back in 1994, Romney ran for the US Senate, rather bravely taking on Ted Kennedy. He lost, though. And of course, in 2008 he ran for president, again losing.

It has been said that, in effect, Romney's political career is less that of a politician, and more that of someone trying to become a politician. It is certainly true that he has effectively been running for president since 2006. It's been six years now; six long and no doubt expensive years. That shows some determination, if nothing else.

****

By all accounts, Romney did extremely well at Bain Capitol. He has another accomplishment he can be proud of, however, and it may well be more important: the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. When Romney was brought in, there were severe money problems, not to mention bribery allegations; there was actually talk of moving the games elsewhere. Romney changed all that, and there is no doubt that his efforts were highly successful. He's known by some as Mr Fix-It; if the name is appropriate, it is largely because of the 2002 games.

****

So, what does all this tell us? Well, great deal, and not very much at all.

It shows us a man driven by his sense of duty, a determined man capable of many things. But it also shows us someone who is, in many ways, the opposite of what a president has to be.

A president has to be, as much as possible, an avatar. He must be, as much as possible, a composite of his people. He can - and indeed, should - be smarter than most, better educated, more astute. But even if he is better than the mold, he still has be "one of us". He has to be a role model; he has to be the guy you look at and say, "hey, me too", even when you know that's just wishful thinking on your part.

Romney isn't that man. He's got a great business record, but ran a business where it didn't really matter whether jobs were created or destroyed. He's a devoted father, but his faith - which so strongly influences his approach to family issues - is difficult to comprehend, let alone respect. He's running a long, determined campaign, but at least some of his drive seems to derive from his father's failure. And taken on its own, his political record is patchy; in many ways, the four years he was governor are the very years he's now shying away from.

In Utah, he's shown that he can actually get things done, but that was a distinctly Fix-It approach. It doesn't change the fact that, overall, Romney can best be described by what he lacks. What he lacks is vision, and vision is another one of those essential components for a good president.

There's another thread running through all this, or perhaps it's just another way of describing the same thing. It's that Romney has a curious inability to actually be someone, or at the least to appear to be somebody. That is, to be more than a persona, more than a mask. There's a conundrum involved here: the people you respect most are, as often as not, quite similar to yourself, but the reason you respect them is because they are also distinct - different - from you. It's a conundrum Romney hasn't quite been able to figure out. The more he wants to be liked, the less he is; his very desire to be accepted seems to alienate him.

All in all, it must be very difficult to be a Whirr/Clack Mechanism. It must be very difficult to be so cautious, to have shielded yourself to such an extent you've locked yourself up in your own cocoon, and yet nevertheless to feel this need to become president of the United States. To try and break out, only to suddenly hear yourself uttering something terribly alien like "I'm not concerned about the very poor".

In some ways, Romney comes close to being his father's son. In others, he seems more like a flawed simulacrum.

The Republican Gang, Part Six

Well, it's been a day since my last post, so just about everything must have changed, right?

Sort of.

Yesterday was the day of the Santorum Sweepstakes. There's really no other way to put it. Santorum won not just the totally insignificant (and superfluous) Missouri primary, but also the not-so-insignificant caucuses of Minnesota and Colorado.

Who'd have thought it? I wouldn't, for one. Missouri wasn't really a surprise, to be honest. Romney had skipped the primary and Gingrich wasn't on the ballet; it was a contest lacking any and all importance and it just doesn't count. Santorum nevertheless campaigned in the state in what seemed to me a rather risky gamble: if he had lost the primary to Romney, he ran the very real risk of making himself a laughing stock.

He didn't lose, though; he won quite handsomely. And then he went on to win Minnesota, a victory that does count, and that was a bit of a surprise. And then, to just about everyone's astonishment, he took Colorado, too. And that, frankly, was a real upset.

In yesterday's post, I pointed out that Romney had won Colorado in 2008 with some 60% of the vote. I predicted he wouldn't do so well this time round. Boy, was that ever a case of unintentional understatement! In the end, Romney managed a relatively paltry 35%, whilst Santorum walked away with 40%.

In Colorado, by the way, some 65.000 voters turned up. That was some 5.000 less than in 2008. If you add and subtract and divide a few things, you'll realise the scale of Romney's defeat. Effectively, he got about half the votes he did in 2008. And it's not for want of campaigning (although, to be fair, Romney did perhaps not fully commit to the state).

In Minnesota, things were, perhaps, even worse, with Romney ending up with just 17%. Ron Paul easily surpassed him with 27%, whilst Santorum jauntily strolled to the finish with 45%.

So, has everything changed? Well, not really. Yes, there is certainly a buzz going around. Yes, the race has experienced another shake-up, after the Gingrich mutiny in South Carolina. But has the situation truly altered? Is Santorum suddenly going to become The Nominee?

No, I don't think so. What yesterday's results seem to indicate is two things. First, the vagaries of the caucus system. Second, the Whirr/Clack Mechanism Syndrome.

I will address the first issue here (the second will have to wait, just a bit).

I, like many others, tend to view caucuses with some affection. It's a weird sentiment, to be sure, but caucuses bring out an "aw, shucks" reaction in me. They're quaint, for want of a better word. They're even cute.

They're also notoriously unreliable and quite undemocratic, for a great many reasons. Perhaps the major reason is simply one of numbers. In Colorado, for example, some 1.100.000 voters voted for McCain in 2008. That's over a million people. In the caucus that year, 70.000 people voted (and of those, only some 13.000 voted for McCain). Even assuming all Republicans had reconciled themselves to McCain retrospectively at the time of the caucus (i.e.: all caucus voters had voted for McCain) that still means a ratio of 0,06. In other words: just 6% of the people voting Republican in the general election would, even in this very unreal scenario, have bothered to vote for McCain in the caucus. And in reality, it was just over 1%.

That's not democracy by any stretch of the imagination. And no, it doesn't really help to point out that the caucus-goers are die-hards, that they're the real backbone of the political movement. It doesn't really help, because, quite simply, those caucus-goers don't represent real voters. Their views are simply not the views of the people who ultimately go out and select their president.

The second reason - akin to the first, but different - is that caucus results don't accurately reflect the ideas of voters at the time they're held. Given the time difference and given the very different scale and scope, it's always difficult to compare general election results with caucus or even primary results. But the specific problem with a caucus is that it doesn't represent the views of the voters even at the time the caucus is held. That can't be right, surely?

Consider, again, Colorado. Romney won with 60% in 2008. He lost with 35% in 2012. Now, there are some reasons why Romney lost this time round, but the numbers just don't add up. Or subtract, or whatever. Romney got half the votes he got four years ago. Why? I have no idea. A 5% difference would be fine. A 10% difference would be understandable. But a difference of 25%? In Colorado?

Caucuses, simply by virtue of the fact that they squeeze their results out of very small and very restricted platforms, are just not very meaningful. I wish that were different - I like 'em, as I said - but it just ain't.

And, as a result, I must admit that I'd be in favour of abolishing the caucus system entirely.

The Republican Gang, Part Five

So Florida has come and gone, and so has Nevada. And Mitt Romney is riding high, with a slew of favourable (Mid-)Western states set to follow.

Has he won?

In all likelihood, yes. He won when he wrapped up Florida with 46% of the vote, leaving Gingrich (32%) and poor old Santorum (13%) trailing in his wake.

I would imagine that, when we look back at the 2012 primary season, it will be Florida that is mentioned time and time again. This is were the race was decided.

Decided, perhaps, but not wrapped up. After all, look at Nevada.

It's true, the Nevada results were touted as a huge success for Romney by just about all the pundits. He got a whopping 50% of the vote, what more could you possibly want?

Except that it wasn't all that impressive, really. Back in 2008, Romney didn't get 50%. He got 51%. A marginal difference, perhaps, but still: it's Iowa all over again. What seems a victory at first glance isn't anything to get excited about; not when you look a little more closely. Besides, the turnout in Nevada was down by a not inconsiderable 25% compared to 2008.

As such, Nevada was assuredly a solid victory for Romney, but it also underscored the man's basic weakness. He was and still is the Whirr/Clack Mechanism, and let's face it, he's just not loved. There is a surprising, perhaps even rather confusing, emptiness to the man: you can't help but feel that, if you take away the robust exterior, you'll find that there's nothing inside.

Later today, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri will all have their say. For various reasons, none of these states will make a huge impact in the long run. For one thing, the caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota will be non-binding, whilst the primary in Missouri will be even less significant, since the delegates there will actually be allocated on the basis of a caucus to be held on March 17th. And Newt Gingrich isn't even on the ballot in Missouri (which is why Rick Santorum has been campaigning there quite rigorously).

Saying that the caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota are non-binding does not, however, mean that they are unimportant. The situation in these two states is roughly comparable to that of Iowa: further elections will be held down the road and the delegates who'll ultimately go to the Republican Convention (and vote for the presidential candidate of their choice) will be decided then and there. However, this is the first step in the selection process. (A difference between Colorado and Minnesota is, as I understand it, that in Colorado the caucus is the first step in actually selecting the delegates, whilst in Minnesota, there is no formal link between the caucus and that selection. The Minnesotan vote is actually a sort of straw poll.)

Of the three states, it's surely Colorado that is most relevant to the delegate selection process. It will be interesting to see how well Romney does there, taking the 2008 results into account. In that year, he got no less than 60% of the vote. For what it's worth, my prediction is that he'll do less well this time round. Why? Well, all sorts of reasons, but the primary one is what I've been talking about all along. It's that Romney is, well, Romney.

It'll also be interesting to see what happens in Missouri, precisely because of the skewered nature of the contest. If Santorum wins, he'll live to fight another day; if he loses significantly, he may well drop out.