THE TROUBLE WITH ROMNEY… A FAILED ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY.
ADAM SMITH’S IDEA THAT THE INVISIBLE HAND THAT REGULATES MARKETS MAY WORK BUT IN EXTREMES WHEN POWERFUL INTERFERENCES BY NON NEUTRAL FORCES INTERVENE THINGS GO AWRY.
The trouble with Romney is that he holds the same beliefs that the Republicans brought in with Ronald Reagan, but he can’t say that because of the disastrous results of those policies culminating with George W. Bush. Thus he has no new ideas to run on and the old ideas based on Milton Friedman’s extreme belief that free markets would always balance any inequities were disproven once and for all under George Bush. Even Federal Reserve Chairman at the time, Alan Greenspan, a true believer, was flummoxed by the free market’s failure to correct the mortgage and derivatives bubble and prevent the meltdown.
Did Bush juice up the economy by cutting taxes? No. Did he create a better economy and make a more stable life for Americans? No. Did he make the World safer by the judicious use of military power? No. Did he head off terrorist attacks that intelligence sources said were imminent before 9/11? No. Did he foresee the mortgage/Wall Street crises in the face of a growing bubble and make corrections before the economy imploded? No. Did he lower the National Debt which was on track to becoming zero before he took office? No. Where is he in this election year? Hiding, because he is a liability to the Republican campaign. Thus Romney has no Republican record to run on.
However Romney is now trying to get elected on double talk he would be a better manager of the economy and foreign policy without any specifics. Bush ran after a Democratic President had achieved outstanding economic growth during the Nineties; paid down the debt and held government spending in check including defense spending. But Bush won by a suspect Supreme Court decision authored by a cadre of Republican appointed justices. Gore, the Democrat, was the likely winner.
Now Romney can’t seem to connect with a broad cross-section of America needed to win the election. His words lack sincerity, he has misspoke numerous times, he has sequestered his tax returns. His wealth hangs like a dead dog around his neck. He is ambiguous as how he would achieve prosperity for the majority of Americans and provide economic safety for the aged, disabled and children. What his foreign policy would be is any one’s guess but probably it would be similar to that of Bush.
He threw 47% of Americans under the bus in a speech that was only supposed to be heard by wealthy donors, yet was secretly videotaped by a wealthy donor and released to the media. If that was the case one wonders how solid his alleged radical base really is.
He nominated Paul Ryan to be his Vice Presidential running mate. Ryan has alienated almost every segment of society except maybe the Koch brothers. Ryan is against woman’s rights, wants to eliminate Medicare by a phony voucher system, has alienated the Hispanic vote and almost all other segments of society except the Tea Partiers and the super rich.
Yet Romney plows on attempting to win an election by going back to failed economic policies of the past. We know that free markets don’t regulate themselves. In the most recent financial disaster the alleged free market was run by Wall Street. Someone always is dominant in a market unless the government makes sure all players are treated equally and then there are still inequities. Adam Smith and the other classical economists were great economic and political thinkers but free markets only exist in theory because all markets are regulated in some degree and as said not always by neutral forces and often the invisible hand that is supposed to balance out for the greatest public good is required to destroy a market that is too far out of balance . The truth of this bears witness in all the financial crises since the beginnings of capitalism.
Romney’s only hope is that he can buy the election with the backing of large donations and the Super PACs. Yes, money can win elections but there is a point of diminishing returns and he is past that point.
Romney’s Achilles heel is his own lack of sincerity which is based on his own lack of belief in the Republican mantra of the last twenty five years; low taxes on wealth, reduction of spending on entitlements, increased spending on defense and less government regulation of Wall Street and business in general.
He is running on a failed philosophy of government and lacks the ideas and the courage to say how he would correct those failures and resuscitate the Republican philosophy