A couple of weeks ago, as the Obama campaign’s criticism of Mitt Romney’s controversial private-sector background intensified, the Republican campaign offered an underwhelming comparison. As Team Romney saw it, President Obama’s rescue of the American automotive industry was comparable to Bain Capital’s private equity practices.
The comparison really didn’t make any sense, and soon faded away. This week, however, there’s a new comparison: Bain Capital is roughly equivalent to the administration’s investment in Solyndra.
I can almost see the underlying point. Obama invested in green energy companies to improve American competitiveness, create jobs, and boost energy innovation, while Romney invested in companies to generate returns for investors. To the extent that both saw opportunities and made investments that carried risks, there’s a superficial similarity.
But as Molly Redden explained, any serious analysis shows that the comparison quickly falls apart.
First off, Romney allies typically explain away Bain’s failures as just the way capitalism works — sometimes, bad companies are swallowed by the market. Solyndra, whose solar technology was priced out of the market by cheaper Chinese solar panels, is a pretty classic example of this, and by citing its Adam Smithian demise in response to attacks on Bain, Romney allies have diminished their ability to dismiss Bain’s loser companies as just the natural cycle of capitalism.









