Tag: bain capital
Mitt Vs. The Modern Prometheus

Mitt Vs. The Modern Prometheus

This article was originally published on The Washington Spectator.

Somewhere in the annals of the world’s folklore—perhaps somewhere in the collected Brothers Grimm—there must exist some allegorical tale that lays bare the folly of what happened yesterday in Salt Lake City. There, Mitt Romney inhabited the voice of probity, caution, trustworthiness, and integrity in order to warn the unwashed Republican masses away from Donald J. Trump. “Haven’t we seen before what happens,” he pleaded, “when people in prominent positions fail the basic responsibility of honorable conduct? We have, and it always injures our families and our country.”

Kind of like in 2012, when the last man standing in the Republican freak show was this same Mr. Romney, and when a New York Times editorial noted that his “entire campaign” rested “on a foundation of short, utterly false sound bites” repeated “so often that millions of Americans believe them to be the truth.”

Romney’s campaign was also built on eviscerating a little law the incumbent president had passed that mandated individuals purchase health insurance on government exchanges. “Obamacare” was based, of course, on a Massachusetts law that mandated individuals purchase health insurance on government exchanges, which, until Romney started running for the 2012 Republican nomination, was known as “Romneycare.”

“Dishonesty is Trump’s hallmark,” he says. As, once upon a time, it was Willard Mitt Romney’s: refer to blogger and former MSNBC producer Steve Benen’s epic 41-part series “Chronicling Mitt’s Mendacity,” which documented 917 separate falsehoods during 11 months of Romney’s campaign in 2012.

“There are a number of people who claim that Mr. Trump is a con man, a fake.” ¡Quelle courage! Governor Romney. Can’t you muster the backbone to call Trump a con man yourself? Maybe because Romney knows a little bit about con men. He cites Trump University, Trump Steaks, Trump Mortgage, all veritable frauds—but then, so are “multilevel marketing” companies like Nu Skin and Melaleuca, whose executives bundled millions for Romney’s presidential campaigns and which he has praised effusively.

“He inherited his business, he didn’t create it.” In that respect, Trump is nothing like the bootstrapping Mitt Romney, whose dad was merely an automotive tycoon.

He says, “Mr. Trump has changed his position not just over the years, but over the course of the campaign.” Speaking of changing over the course of a campaign, I’m so old I remember how Mitt Romney launched his campaign for the 2008 nomination in front of a state-of-the-art electric car, in tribute to his father’s prophetic insistence in the 1950s that to prepare for a time when petroleum might be scarce, Detroit should stop stamping out “gas guzzlers.” But Mitt would soon choose right-wing orthodoxy instead, denying the existence of man-made climate change.

“His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses, and the men and women who worked for them.” We’re supposed to forget that Romney’s job at Bain Capital was advising the companies that pioneered outsourcing, and buying companies then shutting down their factories to make them more attractive to investors.

“He calls for the use of torture.” In case the Internet is down in all eight of Romney’s homes, here’s the memo from his foreign policy advisers, the one he echoed on the campaign trail, recommending he go full bore on same.

“Mr. Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are more worthless than a degree from Trump University.”

Just like yours, Mr. Romney. Just like yours.

Romney’s flaccid speech, too little, too late, too lame, won’t amount to anything, except as a useful historical document. For one thing it renders perspicuous, given the similarities between the campaign he ran and the one he criticizes, how he and his fellow sachems of the Republican establishment understand their underlying contradictions with Donald Trump.

One crux: capitalism. How it must work to ensure the establishment remain the establishment. It is surely no accident that the speech’s first major point concerns Trump’s heresies on international trade: they “would instigate a trade war” that would “kill our export jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses of all stripes to flee America.” (Since Romney in his business practices had no compunctions about abetting the same practices, that’s how you know the problem is not the depredations of capitalism itself, but the wrong kind of capitalism.)

Then, “his refusal to reform entitlements and honestly address spending [that] would balloon the deficit and the national debt.” (Since every Republican candidate’s proposed tax cuts for the rich would balloon the deficit and national debt, too, you know the solution is not austerity as such, but merely austerity for Everyone But Us.)

These two points are the speech’s emotional core. The line, “You can’t punish business into doing what you want,” is its quintessence. The rest of it—the nonsense about Trump being some sort of new-vintage liar, con man, and all around meanie—is just politics.

But the politics are important. Listen to Mitt Romney summon John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln: “I understand the anger Americans feel today. In the past, our presidents have channeled that anger, and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose, and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. Our anger was transformed into energy directed for good. Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants.”

But didn’t Mitt Romney joke during the 2012 campaign in Michigan, “Nobody ever has to see my birth certificate. They know this is the place where I was born and raised”? Indeed he did. And then spent days dialing it back and apologizing. Just the kind of apology that’s inconceivable from Mr. Trump.

Previously, the men who’ve scaled the commanding heights of Republican politics have understood that in order to institutionalize the right kind of capitalism, and the right kind of austerity, you have to win the political loyalties of precisely those people harmed most by the right kind of capitalism and the right kind of austerity, and that the way to do it is to scare the bejeeususes out of them about—well, whatever: invading terrorist hordes will do; and also the dusky hordes here at home.

But, as I’ve noted here before, these men were also “sufficiently frightened by the daemonic anger that energized their constituencies that they avoided surrendering to it completely, even for political advantage.” They wanted the proper measure of demagoguery, but no more; and also a brand of demagoguery that lets decent folk sign onto the coalition from a position of self-respect—some of whom, truth be told, are not really racist at all, but do sincerely believe the nostrums that the minimal state delivers the greatest good to the greatest number. Lots of people voted for Reagan not because they heard in his cry that “government is the problem” an invitation to kick “the minorities” off food stamps, but because they just believed government was the problem. Dog whistles are not only pitched at a frequency that the media or liberals can’t hear.

Trump’s post-dog-whistle politics queers that second sale—the part of the conservative Republican appeal that keeps it from falling off the cliff of ill repute. You can read all about that in a fascinating new article from the conservative economics writer Megan McArdle. She collected the impassioned testimonies of the most loyal Republicans imaginable expressing a revulsion at Trump’s racism as authentic as yours or mine.

Romney’s right: because of Trump’s sheer grossness, he’s disassembling a very hard-won political accomplishment. The Republican Party is a coalition. Trump is hiving off part of the base. The political question is whether he can replace what is missing with the addition of authoritarians in his own image.

Which, even if he can, is no comfort to these establishmentarians, for the reasons I describe above.

So Trump has to go. But how?

In the speech, Romney stumbled through an oblique expression of strategy: “I’d vote for Marco Rubio in Florida and for John Kasich in Ohio and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.” This was a nearly verbatim transcription of what TheWeekly Standard’s Bill Kristol said Wednesday on Morning Joe: that by denying Trump victories in two huge states with “winner take all” primaries—where the candidate who gets the most votes gets all the state’s delegates—Trump can be denied 50 percent of the votes on the first ballot at the party convention, and “it remains very much an open race.”

Then, apparently, just like in the days of Boss Tweed, the power brokers can assemble in back rooms and find a suitable “conservative” who knows that multinational corporations’ trading prerogatives are sacrosanct, that, yes, you deal with dictators, but only the right dictators (Romney: “Donald Trump says he admires Vladimir Putin, at the same time he has called George W. Bush a liar. That is a twisted example of evil trumping good.”); and that entitlements and top marginal tax rates were born to be cut.

William Kristol? Yes, you’re remembering it right. William Kristol was the genius who, after meeting her on a National Review cruise to Alaska, decided that a governor named Sarah Palin was the perfect figurehead to lead the Republican Party into the future as John McCain’s running mate—under, of course, the tutelage of people like Bill Kristol. Soon, of course, she was revealed as an uncontrollable maniac. Now, in her endorsement of Donald Trump, she’s one of the people wrenching the Republican Party apart.

No wonder you hear a certain character invented by Mary Shelley referred to a lot in discussions of the Republican Party these days, when it comes to this challenge of controlling the beast of right-wing populist rage they’ve been stoking lo these many years.

It is, in fact, a venerable metaphor. The first time I’ve located its use in the current partisan context was by the columnist Mike Royko way back in the 1980s, describing Ronald Reagan as the progeny of Goldwater—“who is generally credited with being the father of present-day conservatism, an honor that can be compared with the medical achievements of old Doc Frankenstein.”

Just so: Reagan conservatism was a Frankenstein’s monster. (Come to think of it, doesn’t that rectilinear thing Mitt Romney calls his head look a little like Frankenstein as played by Boris Karloff, only cleaned up after a few decades in the forest?) And Trump is the product of their politics. That makes him Dr. Frankenstein’s monster’s monster—exponentially more dangerous and frightening. Now, naturally, they’re trying to kill him off. Good luck with that.

Rick Perlstein is the Washington Spectator’s national correspondent.

Who Gave Romney $1 Million?

Update: The group that received the donation has identified the mystery donor as a former Bain employee. The AP reports:

Former Bain Capital executive Edward Conrad gave the donation to the Romney-leaning Restore Our Future PAC, the group said Saturday. Romney co-founded Bain in 1984.

In a move one campaign-finance expert described as a way to make a political donation “so it’s harder to trace where the money comes from,” a mysterious corporation created earlier this year in New York donated $1 million to a pro-Romney political group before quickly dissolving itself.

The Associated Press reports that a corporation known only as W Spann, LLC. was created on March 15th by Cameron Casey, a lawyer at the Boston law firm Ropes & Gray. According to the firm’s website, Casey “counsels private clients regarding the creation and administration of tax-exempt charitable giving vehicles” and “develops wealth transfer strategies for private clients.” On April 28th, W Spann transferred the $1 million to a pro-Romney group, Restore Our PAC, and on July 12th it dissolved itself.

As part of federal campaign finance regulations, W Spann was required to disclose their corporate address when they donated to the political committee. They claimed they were headquartered at 590 Madison Avenue, in midtown Manhattan. But the manager of that building has no record of W Spann LLC. The building is home to many other wealthy and influential corporations, though, including industrial conglomerates IBM and Cemex, and financial firms UBS, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, and Bank of America.

590 Madison is also the New York headquarters of Bain Capital, the powerful consulting firm once headed by Mitt Romney. Attempting to defuse speculation that Bain or one of its employees was involved in the mysterious million-dollar donation, Bain released a statement claiming that “the firm takes no position on any candidate, and the entity in question is not affiliated with Bain Capital or any of our employees.” It added that the firm “has many employees who actively participate in civic affairs, and they individually support candidates from both parties.”

Restore Our Future is a so-called “independent-expenditure only political action committee,” or “Super PAC,” that has raised $12 million. A super PAC, according to Michael Beckel, who tracks the money used in politics at the Center for Responsive Politics, is a new kind of committee that can accept unlimited donations from individuals and corporations as long as it follows two rules. First, says, Beckel, “it has to disclose where the money comes from.” Also, “it can’t donate money directly to candidates.” Instead it has to make “independent expenditures,” usually television advertisements in favor or opposed to candidates. Legally, these independent expenditures must be “uncoordinated” with the candidate’s campaign, meaning they can’t cooperate with the campaign on any advertisements or campaign expenses.

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in a case known as Citizens United v FEC that corporations should be free to donate to political campaigns. In another case known as SpeechNOW.org v FEC, the Court ruled that as long as political action committees were independent of political campaigns, they should not be subject to campaign finance restrictions. Federal law limits how much individuals can give to campaigns, but the Court reasoned that political action committees were just groups of citizens interested in politics, not political campaigns, so they should be able to accept unlimited amounts of money from people. When you combine the two decisions, you get a world in which corporations are allowed to make unlimited donations to Super PACs, the committees that promise not to work directly with campaigns.

In reality, the lack of coordination between campaigns and Super PACs is mostly a legal fiction. Last month, the treasurer of Restore Our Future PAC, Carl Forti, admitted to the Washington Post that “this is an independent effort focused on getting Romney elected president.” Forti also serves as political director of American Crossroads, a Super PAC founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove.

Even so, corporations and individuals are legally allowed to make unlimited donations to Super PACs as long as they don’t technically “coordinate” with campaigns. So why go through all the trouble of setting up a shell corporation like W Spann to make a legal donation? Beckel thinks it’s all about disclosure. Thanks to Citizens United and SpeechNow.org, donors are allowed to give as much money as they want to Super PACs, but they are not allowed to hide their identities. At least for now, the Supreme Court insists that they disclose who they are whenever they make political donations. The creation of W Spann seems to Beckel to be “a way to make a donation so it’s harder to make trace where the money comes from.” Whoever donated the million dollars in support of Romney wanted to make sure the public never found out their true identity, despite the fact the law requires otherwise.

Millionaire Mitt Romney: I’m Unemployed, Too

Mitt Romney, who is worth hundreds of millions of dollars after a career spent “trimming” businesses (he would say he turned them around) and laying off workers with Bain Capital, showed off his populist side during a campaign swing through Tampa today:

Mitt Romney sat at the head of the table at a coffee shop here on Thursday, listening to a group of unemployed Floridians explain the challenges of looking for work. When they finished, he weighed in with a predicament of his own.

“I should tell my story,” Mr. Romney said. “I’m also unemployed.”

He chuckled. The eight people gathered around him, who had just finished talking about strategies of finding employment in a slow-to-recover economy, joined him in laughter.

The national media will not be as generous with its laughter, and we can be sure this is not the last time an awkward attempt to connect with middle-class voters will dog the Republican presidential frontrunner. [NYT]

 

Meet Mitt Romney’s Millionaire Moneymen

Mitt Romney has ramped up his fundraising in recent months in an effort to solidify his status at the top of the Republican primary field and scare off new competitors. Many of the new members of the former Massachusetts governor’s “finance team” are veterans of John McCain’s failed 2008 presidential bid. He’s also locked down the support of GOP fat-cats who were previously supporting the abortive campaigns of Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.

Also, Romney–who made his millions at the finance giant Bain Capital–has had little trouble attracting checks from the Wall Street crowd, including a 2008 Obama supporter who later complained that he didn’t like how the president was treating bankers. [Washington Post]