by Alex Porter ’13

A background in business is the new vogue accessory for American candidates running for elected office. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has largely based his campaign on his experience in private industry, asserting that it is “essential to his task” of being President of the United States. While Romney and many other politicians have had illustrious business careers, their conflation of it with political ability and good governance is misguided. Focusing on reducing yearly costs instead of running the best government for the people harms the common good of the American citizenry.

Modern politicians from Herbert Hoover to Romney have possessed outstanding business records and resulting fortunes. They have also shown that it is not an indicator of equal ability in political leadership, not even in economic policy. President Hoover presided over the Great Depression, the worst economic downturn in American history. He was financially successful and became rich through his investments in the mining industry. Similarly, Romney governed Massachusetts for four years, and his term ended with the state ranking forty-seventh in job creation. He was also head of the massively successful Bain Capital, an asset management firm. While they are not entirely to blame for economic hardships, they do reveal that profit-making skill does not automatically translate into beneficial policy.

Support for the comparison of a corporation to a government comes from a misunderstanding of the purposes of each. The government exists to provide services to its constituents that are unavailable through the private sector alone, and a corporation exists to maximize profits. That does not make it some evil mechanism to further enrich the wealthy and punish those below them as some would say, but it does mean that a corporation does not have to care about improving anyone’s life or opportunities. When a candidate brags about his ability to turn profit for his company, it should not be forgotten that this success has a cost. Romney’s success in maximizing the value of companies often meant cutting them down the line, losing jobs instead of creating them. In the realm of business, all is fair, but fighting to avoid societal responsibilities like taxes is dishonorable. And even though taking any opportunity for self-advancement is part of American culture, a government by and for the people should not throw them aside to fix its finances.

Perhaps the most harmful part of this metaphor is that in practice it often equates tax-paying citizens to employees, when they should be the shareholders. If the federal government is a business seeking profit, it expects the people to give up their benefits to make it through the storm. A company might have to do this, but the American nation does not. It must continue to act toward the further advancement of America and its citizens, and not trade these dreams for the metric of profit, which is not a measurement of the quality of a government. Efficiency is not the government’s game, encouraging a great society is. Working toward a greater country to call home may not be efficient, but it is the right path for this republic, not more cutbacks to keep playing corporation.