The other, final truth that shadows Romney's wobbly bid is that autocratic bosses make lousy elected officials, out of sync with the messy work of governing, public policy, stakeholders, and what House zealots malign as "compromise." There are crystal clear reasons no top executive since Herbert Hoover has gained the presidency (W.'s baseball dilettantism aside). Tycoons either lose at the polls (George Romney, Steve Forbes or Ross Perot) or dive bomb after election (item: Florida's disgraced governor was once a disgraced health care CEO).
Of course, Romney was never a genuine CEO, neither creating, nor managing long-term, value-added products that benefited workers, community and customers. Imagine the potential damage were this bullying technocrat, estranged from common folk who depend on government, to boss a roughshod White House. As one awful CEO can destroy an established, highly regarded concern years in the making, consider how Romney, after Bush, would further cripple the power and efficacy of federalism for decades.
More Reactionary Than W.
Further, President Romney is already more beholden to reactionary billionaires than Bush in office. Plus, why wouldn't an "unzipped" Romney practice what he knows best, vulture capitalism, to show off his ruthless "ruling prowess"? Expect anti-Robin Hood ideologues set to prey on the 47%, with workers already depicted as the enemy, and refuse millions desperate for job training, education, and basic life assistance.
Congenitally-compromised rightwingers refuse to understand that the needy, ill-educated from families shattered by stress can't pull themselves (or the country) up by their bootstraps. Overcoming the Great Recession takes genuine opportunity -- with aspiration, education, and a few bucks, whether small-business or family loans -- and that mandates a community willing to help neighbors through hard times. Alas, that New Deal mindset, were Romney elected, would remain the arch-enemy of his entrenched vulture culture.
1 | 2