The biggest challenge for Mitt Romney isn’t that America hates the rich; it’s that the public hates the undeserving rich, and deeply resents privileged punks and politically connected connivers who never performed constructive service to make their millions.
“If the GOP contender convinces people that he amassed his fortune through hard work, building businesses and creating jobs, they’ll cheerfully forgive his vast wealth (just as they did with FDR and JFK)”
I hope that Medved isn’t contending that FDR and JFK amassed their fortunes “through hard work, building businesses and creating jobs.” JFK was the grandson of a Boston machine politician, and the son of a wealthy bootlegger. He never did an honest day of work in his life. There is some dispute about the particulars of his military service, but one could be charitable and give him credit for a few days of valiant service during WW2. FDR did not even have that history of service to redeem him. His grandfather had made a fortune in the import trade, and the family also had substantial land holdings acquired under the old Dutch, pre-colonial poltroon system. For all but the last two years of his life, he lived off of trust fund payments administered by his mother (when she died, and he became trustee of the family fortune).
Although Romney was certainly not raised as a poor boy, and although his work has obviously netted him higher returns than are garnered by most labor-market participants, the fact is that he has earned his money honestly, and within the confines of the American system of modified capitalism.
If we don’t want the President to be someone who has been successful at business, does that mean that we want the office to be held by someone who is a failure at business? The latter model would be unorthodox, although it has produced results at both ends of the spectrum–Grant and Lincoln both failed in business. The importance of having a business background is that it gives one an acquaintance with concepts such as defined success and failure, and accountability…characteristics conspicuously missing from the biography of the current incumbent.
Well said, Kevin.
[blockquote] but one could be charitable and give him credit for a few days of valiant service during WW2 [/blockquote]
Well, that’s an interesting interpretation of Kennedy’s service. I think he served in in the PTO for a bit more than a few days and one mission, but I have to admit that I’m haven’t read up on him.
From another article – “Bain showed a remarkable knack for turning a profit. A prospectus from the year 2000 obtained by the Los Angeles Times shows that the buyout firm delivered an average annual return on investment of 88 percent between its founding in 1984 and the end of 1999.
Romney headed the firm for that entire period, except for a hiatus in 1990 to 1992, when he returned to Bain Capital’s sister consulting firm, Bain & Co. In 1999 he left the business to run the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.”
Whatever I may think of the business model – that is amazing. The question is – is that the right sort of person for the government.
“…it’s that the public hates the undeserving rich, and deeply resents privileged punks and politically connected connivers who never performed constructive service to make their millions.”
Many senators and representatives have arrived fresh-faced in Congress with modest personal wealth and have left Coingress with a great deal of personal wealth and income generating connnections in business, government and academia.
Why do we keep re-electing politicians who accumulate significant wealth while in government service?
By the way, high level political appointees seem to follow the same path to wealth and connections and mid level political appointees ‘burrow in’ into high level career federal civil service jobs that provide 6 digit incomes. I have seen this close up.
Most people who are wealthy had some degree of opportunity and benefitted from some previous common knowledge or pool of resources. They benefitted from public schools (think how the founder of INTEL had a public college education for free); from the GI bill; Government investment in private universities. If they did not benefit from the government, they had enough money to get high quality educations; or had resources to get wealthy; or benefitted from a a government that offered stability. There are few honest businessmen getting extraordinarily wealthy in Somalia, where there is no government.
The skills for running a business are not the same as running a government. A businessman cares only about the bottom line. That’s the criteria for success. A governor has to attend to all people, poor and rich alike. A governor can’t say “I want to run this government for personal profit, like my business.” We don’t like them taking bribes; but a corporate executive can justify it as incentives. Likewise, in a government, there are lots of different sorts of actors that cannot be ignored. It’s much more complex than a business.
In a business, if you make money by firing lots of people, you make money. If you do that in the government, not only do you create lots of unemployment, you decrease even further tax revenue. And you diminish consumer spending, which means deepening a slump.
Many of the institutions we value are not inherently profit making – not in the short term. A high quality 4th grade teacher may benefit the economy by $400,000, but the school never benefits from that. That benefit goes into the businesses those fortunate students work for.
There’s no single job that prepares you for being a governor or president. Herbert Hoover and GW Bush were both businessmen. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson were not. And they governed when America was growing and the middle class was strong.
gee, and I thought this was a christian blog. i must have hit the wrong button.