It’s a good article, but Diana West misses an important point.
Mitt could have won solely on his “tunnel vision” of the economy . . . except for the fact that he really had NO vision at all, except to run on his reputation as a successful businessman.
His economic vision, if I remember correctly, was his “Five Point Plan” which included things like “Across the board tax cuts.” All right, that sounds fine. But we’re all knowledgeable enough to know by now that tax cuts without simultaneous spending cuts are no tax cuts at all: the difference between what government receives as tax revenue and what it spends will be made up by 1) borrowing the money, which is simply a promise to collect more in taxes in the future, or 2) printing money, which reduces the value of each dollar (manifested as a general increase in prices), and which is really a de facto tax on those whose incomes are fixed, i.e., the poor.
We also know that to talk about spending cuts is politically risky, but Mitt should at least have laid out a few basic principles of how he would go about accomplishing it.
He also said things like “I champion small business.” That’s also nice, but as someone trying to position himself as the “anti-Obama”, he should not be championing any one group — a position that implies the kind of cronyism we see today among government, big bailed-out businesses and banks, and unions. He should’ve said “I champion the free, competitive marketplace, which is the most innovative social institution ever devised, and which provides the most choices for everyone.”
I don’t think that’s a negative message at all, and would have provided a clear contrast between himself and the current administration.