I'm not going to disagree with my editor, because 60 percent of me thinks he's right, and the rest of me really likes my job. Instead I'll name the reasons why Mitt Romney will never run General Motors.
Why Obama Will Not Offer
First I have a hard time seeing Obama offering Romney the position, not because Romney isn't a whip-smart organizational genius who knows how deal with money in crisis, but because he and Obama happen to disagree about, well, mostly everything. Romney didn't support the GM bailout, he doesn't approve of the government's takeover, and he is not exactly on the record as a union-friendly guy, as he was recently no fan of EFCA. One of the main reasons Obama is bailing out GM is to protect the hundreds of thousand of jobs that would be lost in liquidation. What does Romney's jobs record look like as a manager? Boston Globe painted an unflattering picture with the following points:
Romney's business approach is clear. And for the current crisis in Michigan, it might even be the prudent approach. But it is not the articulated approach of the jobs-first White House.1) Romney's decision to stay on the sidelines as his firm, Bain Capital, slashed jobs at the office supply manufacturer stands in marked contrast to his recent pledges to beleaguered auto workers in Michigan...
2) Throughout his 15-year career at Bain Capital, which bought, sold, and merged dozens of companies, Romney had other chances to fight to save jobs, but didn't....
3) ...a review of Bain's investments during Romney's tenure indicates that job growth was not a particular priority.
Finally, what if Obama gave Romney the job and he, you know, actually saved General Motors? Romney would be hailed as a kind of business wizard, respected by conservatives, beloved by Michigan and hailed by moderates. The White House would have created its own Frankenstein for 2012.
Why Romney Will Not Accept
Obama has said he has "no interest" in actually running GM and Romney has said he has no interest in the government's GM strategy. So the appointment of Romney to lead/micromanage GM's financial turnaround would be something of a head fake for both men. But it would create special whiplash for Romney.
As an animal, Romney is hardwired to take over businesses with a ruthless, hands-on approach and deadset against the government running businesses, much less micro-managing their finances like a Bain Capital leveraged buyout. For Romney to run GM would require him to rewire his philosophy of federal involvement in the private sector.
Romney has been called a robot before, but this would literally make him Arnold Schwarzenegger in Terminator II, when the ruthless machine of the first movie was coopted by his former enemy John Connor and reprogrammed to save human lives. Romney 1.0, the ruthless laissez-faire capitalist opposed to government intervention would have to become a job-saving machine, a symbol and a surrogate of government intervention working for his former enemy. Hasta la vista, Republicanism.And that brings up the final point, which is that Republicans would be collectively aghast. It's become pretty clear over the last few months that when members of the GOP side with the Obama campaign, they risk ostracization from the rest of the party. Working as a paid employee of the White House on behalf of a union could cement Romney's status as an opportunisitic flip-flopper.
Anybody got more reasons why this won't happen? Or why it will? Or do you have better analogies for Romney's hypothetical choice? Let's hear 'em.
(Many thanks to Atlantic Politics colleague Chris Good for clutch brainstorming work which contributed to most of the piece, notably the T2 reference.)
Forget about any political leanings and aspirations and look at it from a businessman's perspective.
The first thing someone would ask themselves about the job is: "What are the chances of success?" As presently proposed, GM would still owe enormous amounts of money to the UAW retirees (through the preferred stock). Right there you have an enormous hurdle.
Then you have the possibility of government meddling. Think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac here. They're still pissing away money like no tomorrow. Just look at this brilliant presidential task force on autos. The only ones on it with a hint of business experience are some Wall St. crapshooters. Nobody with experience in manufacturing. Nobody from any sort of retail. Nothing that adds any sort of industrial experience. But we do have some tree huggers on that panel. Yeah! So how is the CEO of GM supposed to do anything when he's reporting to a bunch of yoyos with no corporate experience; people who actually have other agendas.
Here's on anecdote reported when the task force visited GM (from an unnamed GM employee). Some of the Task force members liked the Malibu and asked when it was due to go on sale. GM execs informed them that it had been on sale for 18 months. That's how bloody stupid these task force people are.
Now throw in the Congress and you have a real mess. The GM CEO will face all sorts of ridiculous demands from these numbskulls; everything from meeting "diversity" thingamajigs to building 7 wheeled cars that run on pixie dust and "make the world a better place". You just know that some committee will haul him up to congress and excoriate the guy over whatever some chairman is pissed off at.
Just look at the experience of the guy brought in to wind down AIG - for 1 dollar a year. When some execs got those previously agreed upon bonuses, the poor guy got hammered. Now he's leaving. He can't take it anymore.
Unless Barry can come up with some Dem true believer, who fully understands that the whole bailout thing is a giant UAW welfare scam, it's likely that he will not be able to get a properly experienced businessman to run GM, at least run it properly.
I'd say you're right on with a lot of this. GM is a huge challenge. Also Romney is used to being a CEO, a chief executive, the head honcho of his own campaign. The chief exec of GM is going to have to answer to the government, and if there's one thing a guy like Romney doesn't like doing it's answering to the government. On your final point, I don't think that running GM requires a seance and mind meld with Obama -- after all, I'm not so sure Obama thinks he could step in and run GM himself. But certainly we need somebody on the same page as Rattner, Deese, etc. I don't think Romney's reading from the same book.
First of all I think you make some good points, but largely dance around what I think is the bigger issue:
There is NO EXIT STRATEGY for GM.
No matter what anyone says (yea, good luck selling your shares in 1 year for a gain, hahahah!), politically, the best outcome is to keep GM humming along quietly, minimizing job loss and union concessions while making it appear that you've "cut the fat" to make it a viable long-term concern all by its lonesome.
Whoever runs GM is not actually "running" GM; they are merely the plaything of a troupe of puppeteers in Washington and elsewhere all tangentially interested (at best) with producing an economically sound show.
Anal_yst
http://1-2knockout.typepad.com
Whatever the politics, GM still has to sell cars. If it continues to lose market share, not even politicians will be able to put a happy face on it all.