I have written previously about how political ideology takes on strange forms in the US as a result of arguments based not in principles, but in reaction to political opponents. The politically schizophrenic Mitt Romney embodies this phenomenon, perhaps no more so than in his recent denial of anything to do with Bain Capital post-1999, when some of Bain's dealings resulted in bankrupted companies and mass employee layoffs.
I believe Romney when he says that he wasn't involved in the day-to-day running of Bain post-1999. Further to this point, Fortune has found conclusive evidence that Romeny was not managing Bain funds after he left to run the Olympics.
But this is really beside the point. It's also a demonstrable fact that Romney remained on the books as CEO, President, Chairman, owner, and sole shareholder of Bain through 2002, the period after Romney "left" to run the Olympics and during which the Bain business practices and decisions that have since come under fire occurred. Romney can state all he wants that he wasn't involved directly in Bain's post-1999 questionable actions--and it's true--but that doesn't mean that as paid CEO, President, Chairman, owner, and sole shareholder of the company, he isn't responsible for the actions of the company.
One of the main reasons that CEOs and corporate board members get paid large salaries is because, in such roles, they bear significant responsibility for the actions of the company. For example, if some employee you've probably never heard of makes a mistake that results in a $7 billion loss, it's the CEO's head on a platter. Maybe it's your opinion that guys like Jamie Dimon nevertheless make too much money for what they do; but when guys like Dimon and their defenders justify such high executive-level pay, it's important to note that part of that justification is the remarkable level of responsibility that CEOs and board members are expected to bear.
The important thing about this deal, if we're going to conduct it fairly, is that you don't get to take the big bucks but refuse the responsibility that comes with them. This is why, despite being removed from the day-to-day dealings of his company, Mitt Romney must ultimately admit to some responsibility for what Bain did between 1999-2002. Romney received a large salary, the prestige and accordant benefits of being owner, CEO, etc. of the company; he received these benefits and continued to travel back to Massachusetts regularly for board meetings and company business because he was very much involved--or expected to be involved--in the strategic running of the company.
Instead, Romney shirks his responsibility and denies anything to do with the company during the time in which the company was in his own damn name. He could have made a quick series of statements about "yes I wasn't directly involved, but we did make a few mistakes back then; this happens in business; you win some, you lose some; etc, etc." He could have explained himself. He could have had some faith in his own damn message: that his business record qualifies him to turn the economy around. But alas he did what he seems to do best: equivocate, disavow, and pretend that everyone watching is so stupid that we won't pick up on these things.
What's especially shameful about Romney's handling of the Bain attacks is that, as a Republican, he purports to be all about personal responsibility. You might say personal responsibility is one of the cornerstones of Romney's presidental campaign. But when it comes to taking responsibility for his own company, and with it his own highly remunerated duties of strategic guidance for that company, Romney is simply not interested in personal responsibility.
Increasingly, when people like Romney--conservatives who defend and romanticize the accumulation of wealth absolutely and at all costs--talk about personal responsibility, they're talking about you, not them. They'd prefer that you take responsibility for the fact that you weren't born the son of a millionaire businessman/politician and his politician wife, and may not be able to borrow money from your parents to attend college and get a good education. You take responsibility for the misleading mortgage form you were sold by a huckster; you take responsibility for the underperforming schools in your neighborhood, the last round of layoffs at the company you used to work for, the inability of your insurance company to offer you coverage with your preexisting condition (or that sudden illness that resulted in your bankruptcy). By the way, you also take responsibility for that trader who lost your entire retirement savings, that company that failed but also had to be bailed out by the taxpayer, and that industrial farm whose cattle feed off your subsidy while you struggle to put food on the table for your own family.
If we were serious about personal responsibility, our presidential candidates would own up to what goes on under their vast and ornate corporate roofs. The risks associated with making large investments or providing student loans would be accountable to individuals, rather than socialized and born by the taxpayers. And we probably wouldn't be in this financial mess to begin with.
Addendum:
What's also especially sad about this affair is how easily I can see someone like Romney being genuinely vexed and perplexed by the fact that some people are trying to hold him accountable for the actions of his own company. In Romney's world, there probably is a certain expectation that one with as much privilege and corporate experience as himself can simply kick back with what they take as a corporate board sinecure, do nothing, and let the benjamines roll in without a second thought. I'm sorry to report for the likes of Mitt that you can't have it both ways. Either these corporate board members are super important strategic visionaries who deserve the high pay, and so must be accountable for their super important strategic visions; or they're lazy fucks collecting a paycheck for doing nothing, and they should be scolded for being the bums they are.
