Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to Mitt Romney’s campaign, went on CNN yesterday to explain the circumstances surrounding the former governor’s departure from his position at Bain Capital. Gillespie settled the controversy by saying that Romney left Bain and went to work at the Salt Lake City Olympics in 1999 and then “retired retroactively” from Bain in 2002. This explanation has met with criticism and ridicule.

This is unfair. (It was especially unfair for Daily Kos, the home of the liberal netroots, to post a photograph of an Irish setter, identified as Seamus, seated comfortably in the backseat of a car with the word, “Retroactively.”)

The concept of “retroactive retirement” is well-established. Ben Affleck retroactively retired from the cast of “Gigli,” thus restoring his bankability as a movie star. As the journalist Matt Yglesias recalled, Michael Jordan retroactively retired from his two seasons playing for the Washington Wizards, and thereby preserved his basketball legacy. The director Julie Taymor retroactively retired as director of “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark,” when it was an infamous Broadway flop; she then retroactively _un_retired when the show became a hit. (The matter is now in litigation.)

The criticism of Romney is especially unjust because, after all, he has retroactively retired from other jobs besides the one he held at Bain Capital—Governor of Massachusetts, for instance. During his term in office, Romney sponsored a health-care law with an individual mandate. As Romney said when he signed the law, on April 13, 2006, “Today, Massachusetts is leading the way with health insurance for everyone.” Later, when he began running for the Republican nomination for President, he retroactively retired from that position and said, “what works in one state may not be the answer for another.” Romney thus has a record of consistency in his commitment to retroactive retirement. (Ryan Lizza has written about his mastery of the technique.) Retroactive retirement should not be confused with retrofitted retirement, which is currently being considered by Anthony Weiner, the former congressman who left office amid certain Internet unpleasantness.

The principle of retroactive retirement is also different from that of prospective retirement. Prospective retirement was pioneered by the columnist and conservative legend William F. Buckley, when he ran for mayor of New York, in 1965. When asked what he would do if he won, Buckley replied, “Demand a recount.” Buckley’s prospective retirement from the mayoralty is a variation on a sentiment best expressed by Groucho Marx: “I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member.”

Then there is introspective retirement (Greta Garbo); consecutive retirement (Brett Favre); hyperactive retirement (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton); and hypoactive retirement (George W. Bush).

Notwithstanding Gillespie’s clarification, the Romney campaign still appears to be struggling with its explanations of the candidate’s business career. This process is also not a problem. Under the theory of retroactivity, the Romney team can keep coming up with explanations until it finds one that works. This process continues, prospectively.

Illustration by Steve Brodner.