One of my other jobs is writing the theater column for The New Criterion, but I rarely get to write about movies. But, wow, lucky me, I finally get to share some cinematic observations. Having watched every minute of When Mitt Romney Came to Town, the Gingrich-affiliated super-PAC hit film about Mitt Romney’s career at Bain Capital — the things I do for you! — I have concluded that it promises to be a career-ender, and that the career it will end is Newt Gingrich’s. It is the most embarrassing, vulgar, illiterate outburst you are likely to find.
What should worry Mitt Romney is this: When it comes to filmmaking, the Democrats have a much deeper bench, better skills, and more effective distribution channels. When it comes time for Hope and Change Features to proudly present a Barack Obama production along the same lines, the Democrats will not make the same mistakes. If he wants to be president, Mitt Romney had better get a lot more persuasive than he is today when it comes to explaining his business career.
When Mitt Romney Came to Town employs every anti-capitalism cliché in the book: You want a guy blowing cigar smoke nefariously? You got it. Ominous fades to black-and-white? It’s in there. An attaché case full of $100 bills? Aplenty. (Because, as everybody knows, Wall Street tycoons do their business in old-fashioned paper Benjamins, and in fact derive all their professional practices from Wesley Snipes in New Jack City.) You want cheap xenophobia? Get a load of “He took foreign seed money from rich Latin Americans.” (Translation: “Eek! A Mexican!”) You want a sad-faced toddler watching the news (really, a four-year-old watching CNBC) while the talking heads go on sadly about the closure of KB Toys outlets? Yeah, they did that, and they superimposed a Red Chinese flag on one scene, too. Et cetera ad literal nauseam.
The sort of people who are going to be influenced by this illiterate little film weren’t going to be voting for Romney, anyway, since they’re busy occupying Portland or occupying Austin or occupying anything but an honest job. They’re Democrats or Ron Paul voters, if they are voters at all.
Spare a moment of sympathy — but not too much — for the laid-off workers exploited by the makers of When Mitt Romney Came to Town. They are hurt, angry people who are not terribly articulate, but who can be riled up to say banal and ignorant things for the purposes of cheap political theater. One woman, whom the filmmakers like so well they have her repeat the line three times, protests: “It hurt so bad to leave my home because of one man that’s got 15 homes.” But of course there are limits to sympathy (and this, among other things, is why I’ll never be president), and one is tempted to retort: “If you really think that the value of your labor is that high, how do you explain the fact that nobody else wants to hire you at the wage you were earning before your firm went out of business, and doesn’t that disparity suggest that the company was not especially well-run?”
I know, it’s hard to give that speech to Grandma. But the fact is that output is the production of an interaction between labor and capital and, as it turns out, those executives who are always saying “Our people are our most important asset!” often are not telling the truth. When capital gets put to more productive uses, the labor left behind discovers that its value without the capital that had been at its disposal is relatively low. That’s a hard fact to live with, but a fact nonetheless. If you want to improve the value of labor, you get it more capital to work with — and where might you go for that? The answer is: investors, including private-equity investors such as Mitt Romney. If you want to improve American employment and American wages, your main tools are going to be improving the American education system and improving the American investment climate.
On the other hand, if you view jobs as entitlements and believe that workers should be permanently protected from changes in the marketplace, you believe that profits from investing are nefarious, believe that less-productive enterprises should be somehow sustained indefinitely in order to preserve the less-productive jobs associated with them, then — wait, why are you voting in the Republican primary again?
Great article, Mr. Williamson. I watched the first four minutes and went to a different site because...
One, it was stupid; as in, I felt myself getting more stupid as I watched it.
Two, it was dishonest, as has been pointed out by multiple commentators now.
And three, it was despicable, especially coming from a "Georgia Reagan conservative," which I guess we can interpret as an "Angry Bitter Politician."
Ultimately, I was struck by just how correct the NRO Editors and the many other folks that just about blew up when Newt ascended to the top of the polls. Do we (Republicans/conservatives) want a man as our candidate that is vindictive to the point of idiocy? I for one do not.
Newt should do himself and the Party a favor and step aside. He is a disgrace.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood point! Lots of comments after the Gingrich editorial about how dare the editors criticize a conservative like Newt. I haven't seen any this week apologizing and saying the editors were correct in their assessment of him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGingrich is "vindictive to the point of idiocy." Exactly.
Romney is the right man to bring sanity to our government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy on earth does Williamson feel a need to take a gratuitous shot at "Ron Paul voters" -- especially considering that Paul is the one candidate who actually DEFENDED Romney's tenure at Bain?
Why did Paul do this, rather than try to use Bain to score cheap political points? Because unlike Newt, Ron Paul has integrity AND knows a little something about economics. As for we "Ron Paul voters," I'll bet dollar to donuts that, overall, we are much better versed in basic economics than supporters of any other candidate.
I don't understand the need for conservatives to repeatedly take cheap shots at Paul and his supporters. How about engaging us on the issues instead? Or is that too hard?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are wrong about Ron Paul voters. People are libertarian because they understand economics, not because they are ignorant. I suspect they are the voters who are most offended by the Bain attacks. In fact, I suspect they are the only voters who understand and routinely recite your penultimate paragraph.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Williamson: Nice analysis. You mentioned needing to expain how the world works to Grandma. The fact that these people were all Mature struck me as odd in the film. I was trying to figure out why people who would normally be retired were complaining about losing their jobs. I wondered: What this another cinematic trick to garner more sympathy? Well it all came to me the next day when I saw the 1994 ads that Kennedy ran against Romney. I recognized those Kennedy people as the less gray and but no less sad versions of the Newt people. I mean the SAME people. (This is where I completey wrote Newt off). I'm imagining the Newt production team's cinematic direction was: "We really like the work you did for Kennedy. We'd like that same level of sadness and dispare in our film --- aaaaand-Action!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI read Williamson's shameful, idiotic cover piece for NR on Ron Paul. He wears suits that are too big for him! Oh no! What an extremist!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor someone who claims to be the most libertarian leaning person at NR, Williamson really hates libertarians.
I read Williamson's NR cover piece on the shameful, idiotic Ron Paul as well. Far too legitimizing of that dirty little toad. Back under your rocks, Paulinistas!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt may not understand how capital works in a democratic and capitalist society, but at least he has a viable healthcare plan. Here's Newt's professorial and efficient healthcare proposal, based on his extensive experience in the field: "If elected, I will declare a divorce on cancer." (Paid for by Gingrich/Pelosi 2012 - Putting the "social" back in "socialism", one lie-filled attack-movie at a time).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNewt may not understand how capital works in a democratic and capitalist society, but at least he has a viable healthcare plan. Here's Newt's professorial and efficient healthcare proposal, based on his extensive experience in the field: "If elected, I will declare a divorce on cancer." (Paid for by Gingrich/Pelosi 2012 - Putting the "social" back in "socialism", one lie-filled attack-movie at a time).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo matter what, Ron Paulers act like they've just been hit in the face by a cream pie in a Three Stooges movie.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseColonel, if you were crazy and people always picked on you for believing things like the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderburgers ran the world, you might be a little touchy yourself. Just saying. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNormally one would need to head on over to the marriage corruptions sites to see this much hypocrisy on a single blog. Did any of you folks look at the bitter Romney ads against Gingrich; did any of you see the blatant lies and falsehoods an unprovoked team Mitt showered upon a "fellow" conservative?
Looks like you folks are just fine with assault when your dog is the agressor, but you have nothing but disdain for those that defend themselves against said assault.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat was a weird little stab against Paul. Whatever else you can say about Ron Paul and his followers, they are more economically literate than the median voter. Paul himself went out of his way to defend Romney from these ignorant attacks.
That Williamson would go Gingrich on Paul while criticizing Gingrich for doing it to Romney is textbook irony.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDear Newt, you know you have a problem when the Washington Post fact checks IN DEFENSE of a fellow Republican. External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo if these Bain attacks were OK four years ago,why not now? MoveOn.org has produced a couple of commercials about Bain and its effect on the workers in Kansas City. I wonder if their is a Bain horror story in every state in the union? I no for a fact that there is one in South Carolina. Romney's record at Bain makes him unable to beat Obama. Hope you enjoy four more years of zerObama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are plenty of better lines of attacks to make against Mitt Romney, and these probably are badly misleading. But to describe them as "an attack on capitalism" isn't really accurate either. While capitalism is an excellent system, not everything done by capitalists is good. But we tolerate the bad to avoid harming the much greater good that results - much like free speech tolerates the Klan or freedom of religion tolerates Jim Jones. If a company figures out a way to take over other companies, raid their pension funds, temporarily profit by cutting wages, and then dump the companies on other unsuspecting investors before they go bankrupt due to the raiders' mismanagement, that is not a positive thing. At least it should rebut a claim by it's CEO to have been a great job creator.
I don't know that Romney and Bain actually did those things, but the accusations against them are not attacks on capitalism itself, but against Romney and Bain for taking wrongful advantage of a good system. Note that no Republican is saying that such actions should be illegal, just that they are reasons to vote against Mitt Romney. Describing such criticism as "attacks on capitalism" is like saying that attacks on Obamacare or Romneycare are attacks on electoral democracy, or that criticism of Gingrich's ad with Pelosi is an assault on free speech.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a Reagan loving conservative I strongly agree with this comment.. It is one thing to start a company and grow it into something.. It is another thing to pool rich people's money and go scavenger hunting to make a profit for your investors.. Call it capitalism and i guess it is, but it more resembles the robber-barrons of the late 1800s who killed coolies who got in their way and built all those fine mansions in Newport.. What kind of people would live in a museum like that? They give capitalism a bad name... I gave Romney 2000 dollars years ago because he had the gonads to run against Kennedy here in the People's Republic of Mass but I am not happy with this nominee for president.. We could do alot better.. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am no Romney supporter but the reason so many non-Romney supporters have come out defending him here is because these attacks arestrongly leftwing in nature. The fact that you use the term Robber Baron means you probably do not understand free-markets as well as you think. I would suggest you become familiar with the writings of Milton Friedman, FA Hayek and today Thomas Sowell. Venture Capitalist firms exist for the same reason as any other company: to make a profit. If you think one way of making a profit is acceptable but another is wrong then you believe that someone needs to "be in charge" of the market. Either that or you don't like the fact that free people can make their own decisions without coercion and acheive results you don't agree with. You probably don't think of yourself as having that attitude but that is what you are doing. When Newt says he is not attacking capitalism but just attacking Romney's record, I wonder if he thinks it is okay for everyone else to be involved in venture capitalism but just not Romney. If it is just about Romney then his attacks are disingenuous and can be written off. If it is that he dislikes venture capitalism in general and is only focusing on Romney because he is his opponent then he better come right out and say he opposes venture capitalism and thus a large area of free-markets in general.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1.) Going after Romney/Bain is an assault on capitalism (or a portion of it) and not just Romney. Just look at your words: "taking wrongful advantage of a good system." Really? How come a lot of people don't see it that way - including a big (D) like Steven Rattner? Your theoretical critique of Bain in your first paragraph isn't supposition to some. There are too many morons who view business as doing exactly what you described, and sometimes these morons think they're the only reasons businesses are in business.
Either what Bain did was fine in a free market or it wasn't. When you start tossing out parts of capitalism you don't like, you're not purifying it. You're watering it down. Who's the best to decide what's good and bad in a free market - the marketplace or the state? How much state control over the marketplace is enough? Should they really be able to buy and company and then fire everyone? There are an infinite number of questions you could ask, relative to Bain, which don't have anything to do with Bain in and of itself or the person in charge - they're aimed squarely at the behavior. One man's liquidation is another man's reason to poop on a cop car. Which side are you on?
2.) You can definitely criticize Obamacare as an attack on electoral democracy because of the way it was passed. (R)s were shut out of debate, literally locked out of committee rooms, a majority of the citizenry never wanted it, still doesn't want it, etc. This critique wouldn't be as effective as others, but it's still valid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse