Mitt Romney and David Cameron: Conservatives Who Won’t Defend Conservatism

“Firing is fun. But in a good way, you understand…”

Is any of the GOP presidential candidates actually capable of standing up for small government, liberty and free market capitalism? You’d have thought that celebrating these values would be an essential part of their job. But not, apparently, if you’re so desperate to beat Mitt Romney you’d sell your every last ideological principle down the river.

As Troy Senik notes at Ricochet:

Rick Perry has called Romney and his ilk at Bain Capital “vultures”; Newt Gingrich has essentially accused of him of pillaging the companies that Bain took over; and Jon Huntsman has said that Romney “enjoys firing people.”

Sure this is very much the line of attack you’d expect from a Leftist opportunist like Joe Biden, as Tim Stanley noticed in his excellent appraisal this morning:

Already the Democratic National Committee is running ads quoting the “I like to fire” line. Only the day after Romney let it slip, Vice President Joe Biden told a rally in New Hampshire: “Romney thinks it’s more important for the stockholders, shareholders and the investors, the venture capital guys, to do well than for employees to be part of the bargain.” The prospect of a Romney nomination seems to be helping the Democrats rediscover their inner populist.

Well here’s the thing: capitalism isn’t nice. As Schumpeter noted, it involves a process called “creative destruction” which is why, in Britain, for example, we no longer have a hand-loom weaving or shipbuilding industry.  Times change; industries die; economies develop. And in the process it cannot but be otherwise people lose their job.

But while free-market capitalism isn’t nice it happens to be the least worst of all the available options. Which is why the speech Mitt Romney should be making in defence of his behaviour at Bain is this one, kindly written for him by the abovementioned Troy Senik at Ricochet.

Over the past few days, you’ve been hearing my opponents say not only that I was responsible for people losing their jobs, but that I actually enjoyed the process. That ought to tell you that these individuals aren’t ready to manage something as complex as the largest economy on the planet. We’ve already had three years of a president who believes that jobs are created or lost based on what kind of mood employers wake up in in the morning.  But that’s just not true. Unlike politicians, employers have to face the harsh reality of balance sheets.  Unlike politicians, employers often have to sacrifice today to ensure that they can keep the doors open tomorrow. A bad day for a politician is flubbing an interview. A bad day for an employer is not knowing how you’re going to meet the next payroll period.

I would remind my opponents – as I would remind President Obama – that work is a form of public service. Our ability to make money is directly tied to our ability to provide something of value to our fellow man. But sometimes when the customer’s needs change or when we lose ground to our competitors, we have to make changes. We don’t choose these circumstances. As a matter of fact, we hate these circumstances. But, like many Americans that are struggling today, we accept the things that we cannot change, we make the hard choices, and we persevere. That is never an easy task. And unfortunately, sometimes people lose their jobs as a result. But what, I wonder, do my opponents think the alternative is?  If a company on the brink of failure has no choice but to let a few employees go now or to see all of their jobs disappear eventually, what should they do?

Those are the kind of painful choices that people face in the real economy. And I find it telling that that concept is foreign to my opponents. They’re not foreign to the American people – because they’re living through them every day. You can talk to anyone who’s ever sat behind a manager’s desk – whether it’s in a corner office or a corner store – and they’ll tell you that there’s nothing that they hate more than having to fire someone. Americans take pride in their work. Losing a paycheck hurts. But losing your sense of dignity hurts more. My experiences in business didn’t make me enjoy firing people. It made me loathe the politicians in Washington for whom those people are nothing more than statistics on a spreadsheet.

So let me tell you something that my opponents don’t understand. In businesses like the one I was in, you do well when the company you’ve invested in does well. And when they do well, it creates a virtuous cycle. Employees are better off because a thriving company can create jobs or increase pay and benefits. Consumers are better off because they can meet their needs within their budgets. And yes, management profits too when things are going well. And if my opponents have a problem with that, they’re running in the wrong primary.

Will Mitt Romney ever say such a thing? Of course he won’t. Why won’t he? Because, like David Cameron, he’s one of those “conservatives” who believes the best way for a conservative to “win” an election is to pretend conservatism doesn’t exist. This policy hasn’t done much for the cause of conservatism in Britain. I doubt it will do much for the cause of conservatism in the US either. Roll on 2016

Related posts:

  1. Does Mitt Romney prefer dog-poop yogurt?
  2. Romney’s Bad Judgement
  3. Rick Santorum is a big government conservative. He’d be a disaster in the White House
  4. David Cameron’s worst nightmare

One thought on “Mitt Romney and David Cameron: conservatives who won’t defend conservatism”

  1. John George Matthews says:18th January 2012 at 12:03 pmRon Paul is the only candidate worth a damn, even then I don’t agree with him on everything, but at least he has a brain.

Comments are closed.

Does Mitt Romney prefer dog-poop yogurt? | James Delingpole

June 27, 2011

Talking dog poop

Whoever eventually wins the US Republican presidential nomination one thing is as sure as eggs: it won’t be a candidate who takes the wrong side on “Climate Change.” (H/T Climate Depot)

Mitt Romney didn’t understand this. He was under the unfortunate impression that it is one of those safe, bi-partisan issues where you can demonstrate how reasonable and electable you are by adopting an accommodating centrist position. And this is why, as Rush has correctly noted, his presidential aspirations are toast.

Jon Huntsman, slightly more canny, has been frantically trying to dissociate himself from his previous position as an ardent supporter of Cap N Trade. “It wasn’t me. The big boys made me do it,” he has been saying. Or words to that effect. But this probably the equivalent of a bourgeois intellectual in 70s Cambodia trying to rough up his hands before Pol Pot’s security police come round: too little, too late.

Best showing so far has been from Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann, both of whom have made an assault on the Environmental Protection Agency one of their first priorities.

Here’s Bachmann:

“Every time liberals get into office they pass an omnibus bill of big spending projects,” Bachmann said. “What we need to do is pass the mother of all repeal bills, but it’s the repeal bill that will get rid of job killing regulations; and I would begin with the EPA because there is no other agency like the EPA, it should really be renamed the ‘Job Killing Organization of America.'”

She is right, of course. And to all those other prospective Republican presidential candidates who have yet to understand why she’s right – among them Texas Governor Rick Perry, I hope – let me explain it using my favourite revolting analogy to do with the suicidal idiocy of misguided centrism: the Dog-Poop Yogurt analogy. (Apologies to readers already familiar with this one: I used it first about David Cameron’s dismal “Conservatives” in a piece for the Spectator). (And again with reference to the noisome Chris Huhne)

OK, so imagine there are two types of people in the world. There are kind like me – and you, I would hope – who like to eat their yogurt plain or with bits of fruit in it. But there is also out there, another kind of person. Lets call them the Greens because that is who I mean. They want to change the world; they want to shake the status quo to its very foundations. They believe that if we carry on as we did before, cleaving to our decadent traditions and selfish, pleasure-seeking lifestyles, then the world will end. And that’s why, as part of the radical, hair-shirt lifestyle shifts we need to adopt if we are to save the planet, they believe the time has come to end our bourgeois, running-dog lackey addiction to unsustainable fruit-flavoured or plain yogurt. What we need to do instead is flavour our yogurt with something more bracing, more radical, more alternative, more organic; something besides which has the virtue of being as cheap and abundant as the wind and the sun: dog poop.

“But hang on”, say all we fruit- and plain-yogurt lovers. “There’s a reason why we eat our yogurt either plain or with fruit. And the reason is, it tastes nice. Whereas if you put dog poop in it, it will taste like ****.”

“Typical,” say the Greens. “We hear this from your side all the time. You’re too selfish to change your ways. You’re addicted to fruit. You want to stick your heads in the sand and ignore all the evidence that fruit and plain yogurt are unsustainable.”

“What evidence?”

“Well for a start look at the supermarkets. Every day they sell tubs and tubs of the stuff, feeding the public’s insatiable greed, encouraging reckless consumption of dairy produce which comes from cows which not only take up precious land which could otherwise be set aside for biofuels but which also produce methane – an even more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Whereas, we have strong evidence to suggest that if yogurt were flavoured with dog poop instead, consumption might fall dramatically, leading people to enjoy much more healthy lifestyles and reduce their addiction to dairy products.”

“Doesn’t sound very enjoyable to me.”

“Well it’s not about your enjoyment. It’s about the children.”

“I don’t think my kids want dog poop yogurt either.”

“Generations unborn then. And the polar bears. And the California Delta Smelt. You’re going to be telling me next you don’t care about the California Delta Smelt.”

“Well now you mention it…”

Which brings us to Mitt Romney. And all those other RINO type quasi-ecotards of his ilk who imagine, somehow, that by positioning themselves in the middle they’re going to achieve the kind of consensus that will keep everyone happy.

“Suppose,” Romney is saying, “We just put a tiny bit of dog poop in the yogurt and mix it up with the fruit and the plain. That would work, wouldn’t it?”

No it wouldn’t. And even if half our political class don’t yet understand why it wouldn’t, an increasing number of the people who vote for them very much can.

The public understand that if there is no remotely convincing, proven link between Anthropogenic CO2 emissions and catastrophic climate change then there is absolutely no point in politicians formulating major, economy-destroying, landscape-blighting, liberty-crushing, tax-raising policy decisions on the basis that there is. Period.

More than that, as I argue in my new book Watermelons – yes, also available on Amazon – environmentalism is not some side issue which politicians can heed or ignore at their leisure: it is, in fact, probably THE most strategically vital political battleground of our age, the Helm’s Deep of Western Civilisation.

Why? Because it has become the liberal-left’s great proxy issue. Under the cloak of ecological righteousness, the liberal-left is seeking to advance its controlling agenda of income redistribution, property theft, taxation, regulation, government by democratically unaccountable activists and bureaucrats, state rationing and economic destruction, only couched in such a way as to make it seem caring and sensible and good. But the green movement represents precisely the kind of Big Government bullying which inspired the Tea Party. Any conservative who cannot understand this does not deserve the Republican nomination: not least because it means he’s not a real conservative.

Related posts:

  1. Mitt Romney and David Cameron: conservatives who won’t defend conservatism
  2. Romney’s Bad Judgement
  3. What the left would prefer you didn’t know about multiculturalism…
  4. Alfred S: Australian schoolboy; climate hero

One thought on “Does Mitt Romney prefer dog-poop yogurt?”

  1. Jim of FL says:4th July 2011 at 6:12 amRomney is doing OK because its early, and he is staying in northern liberal areas of US. I expect TX gov Perry to enter on 7-4-11, which will not be good for Mitt. Also, Mitt will get a beat-down from Tea Party people as soon as he heads south. He will not be president.