No, Romney is not a Vulture Capitalist.

Nor does Romney deserve the criticism he has received from Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich that he was a vulture capitalist (Rick Perry’s phrase).  Sure, he deserves other criticisms, especially from conservatives who are right to complain the he pretends to be one of them, but that he is really a moderate.  Social conservatives are also right to be suspicious of his position on abortion.  (By the way, Romney’s moderation is really a good thing, and his position of abortion – well, I preferred his former, and I assume real position).

As far as the value of Mitt Romney’s business experience, it is what it is.  As David Brooks reminds us, such experience may be a better fit for a big city mayor than for a president. But at least Mitt was successful at what he did.  He spent decades making tough decisions that often worked out well (and sometimes didn’t).  That he sometimes failed is really a plus.  It is important for a president to face both wins and losses and move on.  One of George Bush II’s biggest failures was his inability to admit failure.  Iraq might have gone better had he been willing to acknowledge the insurgency in the first months.  This small admission might have allowed us to muster the proper approach early on – but Bush didn’t (couldn’t!).  Maybe a president Romney would have been able to adjust with circumstances.  That is what I take from his business experience, and it is a positive.  (By the way, to those who opposed the Iraq war, please don’t fight me on this one, I opposed it from the start, but, for the purposes of analyzing how a presidency works, it is reasonable to imagine an alternate reality where a different president than Bush II made a quick and effective response when the Iraq war threatened to become a quagmire.) 

My purpose here is to remind us that Bain is not the problem.  Yes, Bain took over companies (usually via leveraged buyouts).  Corporate takeovers are neither good nor bad.  If the takeover is done as it was by Bain, it is done when a business is stagnant or even failing, and the takeover specialist means to do some good (even if doing good never includes the fate of employees).  For employees of firms, the takeovers can be a disaster, especially when that specialist cares not for improving the business but only to make a stock killing.  The Al Dunlap’s and Carl Icahn’s are far worse (and Dunlap worse than Icahn).

 If Gingrich and Perry were genuine (and they are not) they could use Bain Capital as a starting point for suggestions that might make buyouts more worker friendly – or at least prevent the most vulturous practices.  Suggestions could include changes that demand that corporate managers hold their shares for a certain number of years before sale.  Stock shares are part of management compensation, and if shares were restricted, it would dampen the fervor for any buyout that did not promise an attempt to keep a firm in business (so stop pump and dump games).  Another suggestion would be to demand that boards of directors include worker representation – even when workers are otherwise not represented.  There are many ideas out there (and no, I make no claims to the value of either of these).  And if Newt was in earnest, he could easily have mentioned just a few.  But for an idea man, Newt has been curiously mute!  (Forget about Perry, he’s neither serious, nor has he any ideas).