Barron YoungSmith makes the connection:

Although he has more political experience than McNamara did, this critique could easily apply to Romney as well. As Nick Lemann has written about the consulting business, the "metrics" used by companies like Bain endow their practitioners with what feels like the capacity to solve any problem, no matter how shallow one's understanding of the actual business at hand: "[I]t is more a simulacrum of intellectual mastery than intellectual mastery itself, but what's more important is how it feels. It feels as if you'd been given a key that opens up everything." That's an almost perfect description of Romney's foreign policy address, in which he transmuted absolute gobbledygook about international politics into a set of rationalistic axioms.
That, of course, undermines the most important rationale for Romney's candidacy: the idea that he has a special capacity to assess America's problems and develop reasonable solutions to them. If Romney is superficially competent, but unable to question the underlying premises of the position papers he gets from the Joint Chiefs, the Heritage Foundation, and his own advisers, then like McNamara he will end up applying his efficient mental machinery in the service of absurd, even disastrous assumptions.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.