Iowa doesn't pick presidents, it
simply winnows the field. It's too prosperous to
provide an adequate test of which GOP candidates
can prevail in more economically challenged
primary states and the general election.
With New Hampshire also prosperous and
fairly safe for Mitt Romney, the South Carolina
and Florida primaries on January 21 and 31 offer
him the opportunities to prove he has what it
takes to solve the country's problems and score
convincing victories.
In both those
states, unemployment is 10%, as opposed to less
than 6% in Iowa and New Hampshire. Romney must do
more than chant the Republican catechism - fewer
taxes, less government and less regulation -
because all the candidates are doing the same in
one fashion or another. He must explain to voters what's
broken - how President Barack
Obama's policies are holding back growth and jobs
creation - and outline how he will fix those
things. Moreover, after George W Bush
bequeathed to President Obama the economy in dire
straights, the Republican nominee in the general
election cannot simply fall back on the catechism
without becoming too vulnerable to Obama's claim
that all the Republicans care about is enriching
the rich and returning to failed policies of the
past.
In Iowa, the economy was not enough
the focus of discussion. Caucus goers divided
between 25% who picked Romney because he is
perceived to be "most electable", and 75% who
splintered among a flock of other candidates who
fashioned themselves "true conservatives". Each
offered their own flavor of conservatism, and Rick
Santorum - the least vetted and vulnerable -
essentially tied Romney.
Romney
demonstrated considerable strength among voters
earning more than US$100,000 a year, and the
candidate with the most unrealistic and maddening
platform, Ron Paul, finished a strong third by
drawing significant support from those earning
less than $50,000.
Therein lies Romney's
challenge - folks earning more than $100,000 don't
need a better economy nearly as much those
gravitating to Paul's bizarre prescriptions, which
include shutting down the Federal Reserve and
returning to the gold standard.
Romney has
a solid platform. Unlike President Obama, he
understands nothing is much wrong with what
Americans can do and make, but unbalanced trade
with China and costly imported oil are sapping too
much demand - sending too many consumer dollars
abroad to pay for imports that don't return to
purchase US exports - and slowing growth. High
healthcare costs and new financial regulations
that don't curb bank abuses but have shut down
lending for most business expansion make investing
and creating jobs in America too difficult and
expensive.
Romney's principal challenges
are that too many primary voters who pick the
Republican nominee like simple conservative
orthodoxy - get the government out of my life -
but moderates who made Obama president and Romney
must win in November don't drink that Kool Aid.
Conservative pundits, such as editorial
writers at the Wall Street Journal and George
Will, endlessly ridicule Romney's economic program
for having 59 points instead of three - lower
taxes, less government and deregulation - and are
denying him an honest assessment from analysts who
should be sympathetic toward his quest for the
presidency.
As things stand, Romney in the
general election would have to contend both with
Democrats in the media sympathetic toward Obama's
big government philosophy and Republicans in the
media who think too much like Republican primary
voters and can't accept that something more
nuanced than conservative orthodoxy is needed to
right the country.
To turn his 25%
plurality in Iowa into convincing wins in South
Carolina and Florida, and beat Obama in November,
Romney must concisely and accessibly explain how
Obama's passive response to Chinese protectionism,
limits on oil and gas development, expensive
healthcare mandates, and a quagmire of bank
regulations are strangling American capitalism -
how his program can quickly turn things around.
His 59 points already have most of it, but now it
is time for the executive summary and eloquent
delivery.
That will take courage for
Romney to recognize, and skill for him to convince
voters that simply berating Washington is not
enough. The world is too complex for the
government of Rutherford B Hayes but surely safe
enough for an America that relies on
entrepreneurism and accountability, and not
command and control, to prosper and grow.
Peter Morici is a professor at
the Smith School of Business at the University of
Maryland and former chief economist at the US
International Trade Commission.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
