I see from Talking Points Memo that Mitt Romney has now rehearsed and mastered a response to questions about why he referred to corporations as "people."  Talking about some mega corporation, or even a small one, the way we talk about the neighbor next door might sound like a faux pas to us but I think that a lot of people are going to find Romney's explanation rather compelling and even convincing.

You know how when you're at the company holiday party, some of the people there are not just being polite when they agree with the boss about the collective "shared mission," and even collective "shared sacrifices?"  Those people vote.  You know the guy at work who stays in a job he only kinds of likes, "because of the people?"  You know, the lady who's been there 20 years and looks around and says, "this is my family?"  These people are all sincere and they all vote and they all think, on some level, that corporations are people.

Hell, I'm a cynical bastard and I love my colleagues.  Catch me in a good mood and I'll give you a hundred reasons why the corporation I work for isn't like the others.  You know, when it comes to work, just showing up every day is bound to breed some loyalty towards the place and some pride in it, too.  It takes a special kind of masochist to keep going somewhere and not develop some sort of personal connection.  There are a dozen places in New York City that I have deep personal connections to that I don't even get to once a year.  But I'm always there for work when it's required.  The mind naturally protects itself by forming a connection to the places, tasks and people that its exposed to repeatedly.

I'm off in metaphysical land, of course.  Romney just means that a corporation is an assembly of people who have willingly banded together in pursuit of a common goal.  It is, as he says, "more than just buildings," which is an answer that will resonate even as it purposefully misses the point about why corporations don't deserve the consideration that people get.

For one thing, everyone is not there willingly.  In life, you can only pick from the jobs that are offered to you.  You might not even get your preferred field or industry.  Your preferred industry could be rendered obsolete and replaced by something you don't like.

It's funny, because in some instances, we completely recognize that workers are not all at work willingly.  If we did accept that premise, we would say that sexual harassment is not a problem.  Some companies just have that kind of culture!  If you don't like it, find a company where people aren't allowed to get grabby.  We would not restrict smoking in the work place.  Go find a smoke free company if that's what you want.  We would not even require safety standards or minimum wages.  We have a whole set of laws having to do with dignity and fairness in the work place because the system has learned, over time, that without at least some minimal standards, people would either wind up horribly exploited or would refuse to play altogether.

The other Romney argument, which sounds nice, is that everyone at the corporation shares a common goal.  This would imply that the employees of Ford Motor Company could decide, en masse, to try to make an airplane one day instead of cars.  Of course, they can't.  Management decides on the goal and management's decisions will have a lot to do with what they think shareholders will accept.  Or, in the case of a private company, well, an employee at Facebook may or may not share Mark Zuckerberg's goals, but that's what they're working towards.

But, again, I think that people will ultimately buy the Romney argument.  We do, after all, get paid to sublimate all of our needs and goals for the day in favor of the needs and goals of the people paying us.  Worse arrangements have been made in life.

I guess I'd like to ask Romney if he believes that all organizations are people.  Would he say, for example, that government agencies, which also employ people in pursuit of a common goals (often a goal written by Congress and thus approved by the representatives of people both inside and outside of the agency) are people?  Because he wants to cut those.  Is the CIA people?  Is the National Endowment for the Arts people?

But there's this little bit of something I read in a Clive Crook column today... Even 48% of Democrats believe that big government is a bigger threat to America than big corporations.  I just don't think that in the face of that, it will be so easy to hang Romney with the "corporations are people" line.  As wrong as it is, a lot of people buy into the notion.

I think the key with Romney, if he's our opponent next time, will be to accept that he thinks that corporations are people and then to point out that as President of Bain Capital, Mitt treated a whole lot of people very poorly, often to profit himself and his people at the expense of others.  His answer to that, which is, "not every business works out," will probably need some work since the obvious retort is, "that's true, especially if you slash their resources while leveraging them to the hilt."

Hopefully, some one is organizing a Swift Boat type group of workers laid off from Bain Capital companies.  Forget what Romney believes about corporations.  Let's concentrate on how he treats people.