The New York Times published a fascinating story yesterday that ought to give plenty of fodder to Mitt Romney’s admirers as well as his detractors. The front-page feature seeks to examine the lessons that can be learned by examining Romney’s time at Harvard University in the 1970s when he simultaneously earned business and law degrees. The result is a portrait of an incredibly able and intelligent man focused on achievement and with keen analytic powers that made him a wild success in the world of finance. This sets him up as an ideal president in an age of economic uncertainty where the ability to understand the economy and how business works should be at a premium.
But what also comes across is that Romney was, and perhaps still is, a person without strong ideological convictions outside the realms of faith and family. The Harvard business program prizes case-by-case analysis and data research and, at least according to this article, rewards pragmatism and problem solving, not ideology. According to his former classmates and friends interviewed in the piece, that approach perfectly suited Romney’s personality. And it is exactly that trait that scares conservative Republicans who see him as a shape-shifting, soulless technocrat who cares nothing for the principles that guide their party.
If, as his critics constantly tell us, Romney is the candidate of his party’s elites, this story is also a reminder that the former Massachusetts governor is the epitome of the notion that the best and brightest deserve the highest rewards. Earning both business and law degrees at a demanding institution like Harvard is not a task for the faint of heart. Already married and a father of two, Romney was obviously more mature than many of his classmates, but he was also more hardworking than most and driven to succeed. The political and social issues that dominated the thinking of most students in that era were of little interest to him. Nor did he spend much time socializing. The story points out that George W. Bush was a year behind him at Harvard Business, but the two had little contact as the fun-loving future 43rd president and Romney clearly did not move in the same circles.
The insights into Romney’s character ring true with everything we have learned about his later business and political careers. Above all, Romney is a problem solver. Though conservative in his personal life and perhaps in his instincts about the world, his guiding philosophy is pure pragmatism: analyze the data and the individual case and come up with a solution.
To note that a man can absorb vast amounts of complex information and synthesize them into a practical plan of action is hardly an insult. It is a rare talent and should be prized. But those looking for a presidential candidate who can, in the style of GOP hero Ronald Reagan, express broad political principles, are always going to be a bit disappointed with Romney. He is at his best when fixing broken things–be it companies, Olympic games or budgets. But as a standard bearer for a movement or as someone who can exercise the vital task of articulating moral leadership, Romney seems out of place.
What his classmates saw at Harvard are the same qualities that both attract and repel voters today. His economic expertise and pragmatism make him the most electable Republican in 2012, while his lack of ideology makes many conservatives long for anyone else to lead their party. Had a more credible conservative appeared to challenge him, Romney wouldn’t have had a chance. But in the absence of such a paragon, Republicans will probably have to make their peace with the man who seems to be very much the same person who excelled at Harvard four decades ago.
Conservatives need to grow up. The person we should be concerned about electing is someone who can fix the economy and the status of this nation world-wide.If we do not fix the economic ills of this nation then we will cease to exist as a nation based on freedom and rights. We will become beholden to tyrants, demagogues and oligarchs who know how to exploit societal weaknesses. History does repeat itself if you allow it.
Tossing more flowers Romney’s way I see…………
Here’s a little tid-bit from history: Bright guys screw up ALL the time!
McClellan? Bright guy, REAL bright guy!
Jimmy Carter? Nuclear engineer, a guy who managed to get himself into Admiral Hyman Rickover’s nuclear program, AND that took some doing for Rickover was raw and old school, and NEVER suffered fools, gladly or otherwise.
Nixon? Another REAL bright guy who let himself get tied up in knots over a third rate break-in over an election that WAS ALWAYS a foregone conclusion.
The point here is that ABSENT A FIRM UNDERSTANDING that our problems ORIGINATE in Washington, are WORSENED by Washington and CANNOT be solved absent a thoroughgoing overhaul of the ways Washington does things, absent that the situation will get WORSE.
Romney will make the situation worse, because he will try to work within the system instead of looking to overhaul and in some instances simply abolish existing programs, existing bureaucracies, existing personnel.
Apparently you don't understand how Romney made his fortune. He took failing businesses and reengineered them to be efficient, lean, mean, and profitable. In order to be effective, reengineering questions everything…no sacred cows. He would be anything but a status quo politician. Believe me…I did this type of work in a big company and it is amazing. Romney has pledged to not spend more than we take in…HE KNOWS how to fix the woes…he did it for Domino’s, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply, Sports Authority and many others. n nHe saved the Salt Lake City Olympics (it was in danger when he took over); Harvard Business School wrote case studies about his leadership.
Maybe he should have spent more time studying rhetoric because he's coming off like star struck debutante. His recent comment about students getting a job when he's elected but not if Obama stays in just made me cringe. I little qualifier here and there would have made that a powerful, rather than ridiculous statement. n nMy concern is that when he gets up to face Obama in debates he'll likewise express himself as an intellectual informed by pollsters … he'll get creamed. n nRomney may well be the right man for the job, but the electorate will need some real inspiration from him to dump the Poser in Chief.
I'm reminded of the saying "It's easy to raise kids … if they're someone else's." We seem to be dealing with the same situation here: It's easy to solve difficult problems … as long as they're not your own."
Even after Ron Paul bots deface Commentary blogs with black is white defenses for Ron Paul's New World Order predictions and swamp-fever Jew-baiting trawling, Commentary remains slow on the uptake. If the GOP base remains more excited by a Ron Paul candidacy than Romney's this is not telling us something negative about Romney but something about a party faithful drifting into brutish know-nothing populism. And no, they may *not* make peace with a pragmatist with a background of educational excellence any more than the absence of either put them off Palin or, for many Paul. We just don't know where their collective heads are at, any more than we can be certain where the OWS, Counterpunch, distaff conspiracy buffs of the Dems "left" kookasphere are going to end up.
Stop insulting the republican base. They are as true to the basic principals on which this country was founded as they have ever been. The pack of raciest traitors that make up the democrat party are not fit to lick the boots of someone like Ron Paul or even Herman Cain. You will never win against such people.
It's time to move past ideology and onto the pragmatism needed to reform the functions of government. Ideology usually results in endless bickering and little in the way of outcomes. We need a strong, pragmatic leader to win over the lukewarm and the independents. Let's all shift gears and give up the needless bickering that comes from our nostalgia for the greatness of Ronald Reagan, a once in a generation type politician.
That many on the far right don't like Romney says much about their ignorance and intransigence and nothing about Romney's qualifications. What we need is someone exactly like Romney – someone who will dispassionately analyze the problem and come up with the most practical solution. What we don't need is a conservative idealogue or an Obama who thinks only in terms of his personal image and a fixed left-wing agenda.
Harvard business may be non-ideological, but Harvard law may as well be a liberal think-tank. I have no doubts that Romney is able to synthesize vast amounts of data. It's too bad he's only using that ability to look at polls and tell people what they want to hear. n nI'm not an ideological Republican, but I would like to have some idea why my candidate will do if I vote for him, and with Mitt I have no idea. Based on his record in Mass., I'm fairly certain he will do whatever is politically expedient to advance his career, and we've already had about 20 years of that driving up debt.
When are you going to learn something about Obama from Harvard. Never, because his records are sealed…why is that? You want to snare in the GOP candidate (I'm not a Mitt fan) but you leave all of Obama's records out from the public.
The one thing I dislike about this process is the need of some people to make politicians look worse than they are. It seems to me that we need to vet these people without trying to destroy them. If there is evidence of something terrible out there about Ron Paul we should review it. The media should scrutinize it, but there is no reason for the constant baseless accusations. I don't think Paul will win on merit, but I see no reason for the personal destruction. Everyone has a problem with a newsletter published in Ron Paul's name, but not by him. On the other hand Sen. Byrd from West Virginia was a former KKK member of the Dem. party, and no we did not see boo about it. ____MITT is a genius of the sorts we probably have not seen since FDR or JFK. I hope he wins because it would be great for our country.__
I am neither looking for a pope or a poet in my presidental candidate. Romney seems to be just what this country needs in 2012 or ASAP. As a Republican I am disappointed in the lack of grownup behavior in republicans that are looking for Mr Right in a candidate. I am a pro life, conservative and a life long Republican. I say to my fellow Republican take the accountant take the helicopter.Support Romney
It is hard to support a candidate who violates Reagan's Eleventh Commandment – "Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican." n nIt is hard to support a candidate who spoke AGAINST the Republican "Contract with America" in 1994. n nIt is hard to support a candidate who has favored INDIVIDUAL MANDATES on health care, and then pretends that is not the case, and then makes $10,000 bets that he didn't say what is easily proven to the contrary on youtube. n nAnd assuming he can beat Obama in 2012 (and God help us that Obama IS defeated), Romney will then want REAL Republicans to support him for the next four years while he is in office. I don't think so. The solution for the GOP is to pick a candidate who is most similar to Ronald Reagan. I don't know who that would be, but I do know that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are NOT Reagan conservatives.
The GOP base is fragmented, to be sure. But for every "Paulbot" there's someone else who rejects him unequivocally, even among libertarians. The Paul forces are essentially interlopers and opportunists. And let's face it, the real problem for Republicans is the lackluster field. Like Democrats of a bygone era that dreamed election cycle after election cycle of a new John Kennedy, they are experiencing the frustrations inherent in wishful thinking. Were Romney battling with the likes of a Kennedyesque Paul Ryan, or even the quiet but certifiably brilliant Mitch Daniels, he'd probably be flailing. Absent such a quality opponent he's the cream of the crop and, given the alternatives (including the President), that's lucky for us–he might actually get elected.
I am neither looking for a pope or a poet in my presidental candidate just give us accountant. Romney seems to be just what this country needs in 2012 or ASAP. As a Republican I am disappointed in the lack of grownup behavior in republicans that are looking for Mr Right in a candidate. I am a pro life, conservative and a life long Republican. I say to my fellow Republican take the helicopter._Support Romney
Besht, your comments are off topic and incoherent. The article is about Romney. Why not focus on what the article is discussing?
Lack of ideology? Oh my. If his work isn't proof of his ideals, we are in trouble. What is it going to take? The man has the work ethic, education, and the experience… things that are sorely lacking in the current occupier of the White House and his administration! n nGranted all of the GOP candidates are formidable. But one has been preparing and working on this for four years. Reagan did the same. Also, Reagan wasn't the all-conservative everyone makes him out to be. On the issue of immigration, Reagan was a moderate to liberal, even encouraging open borders ( see the debate clip when he was up against GHWB). His amnesty in 1986 was the culmination of that issue, then. Reagan was a uniter and one who inspired others. The United States needs someone who is to do that kind of work for the U.S. n nIf the "conservative" base wants to cut their nose off to spite their face and not vote for Romney, or stand and pout and vote for the independent, because Romney is not the "perfect and flawless" conservative candidate, they will see the demise of the U.S. very quickly, with another four of the impostor-in-chief. n nThe other votes equally important to this one, will be the votes for GOP Senators and congressmen and women all over the nation to rid the halls of congress of the riff-raff now there. The Iowans have a week to figure it out. And the sooner they turn off the tv and do their own vetting, the better. n
It is clear who the establishment has chosen. But sadly the media has lost control of influencing public opinion. Ron Paul is the biggest threat to the main stream media since the internet, and his revolution cannot be stopped or curtailed.
Too hard on Romney, this is. Watch the recent interview of him by Charlie Rose and you will be hard put to find major differences between Romney's expressed values and principles and Reagan's. He passionately wants the best for America as he sees it through a fiscally conservative, American exceptionalist perspective. And that he's a non ideological, pragmatic problem solver, who actually solves problems, omg, what a nightmare that is.
I'm good with a President who is going to fix problems and not grandstand on ideology.