Why the Republicans could better run America

Public broadcasters and some commentators in the press can scarcely disguise their contempt and derision when referring to Republican politicians in the US.

On radio, such views are usually accompanied by a smirk and a laugh from the host or presenter, as if they were at some dinner party in a Democratic stronghold.

"Nutcases" and "dangerous" are common epithets, some of which come from overuse during the George W Bush era. You can add Fox Broadcasting here as well.

I can’t recall any commentator on the National radio network giving a sympathetic view of the Tea Party Republicans or explain why an anti-Obama alternative might actually benefit America. So here goes with the two main contenders:

Mister 1 Per Cent
Even though he is an ovious target of the Occupy movement, Mitt Romney, the front-runner to face President Obama in the election, is viewed as the least objectionable.

He is variously described as a moderate and an Eastern establishment (ie, Ivy League) type – as , of course, was George W before he became a Texas oil man and state governor.

Most of what we are told about Romney are that he is Mormon, who are weird, and rich, which means he lacks empathy with the common people.

In reality, Romney was a founder of Bain Capital, one of the original private equity funds. That makes him a capitalist and a highly successful one. His father ran one of the big motor vehicle companies, so his breeding and administrative abilities are unquestioned (certainly compared with Obama’s).

Romney is undoubtedly pro-big business, urban elitist and would govern with ease, as he has already done so in Massachusetts, a far from conservative or “blue” state. He is polling much better than John McCain did in the big states that will decide the election.

His economic policies are music to the ears of free marketers, Wall Street and business generally:

Lower taxes, less regulation, balanced budget, more trade deals to spur growth. Replace jobless benefits with unemployment savings accounts. Proposes repeal of the law (Dodd-Frank) toughening financial-industry regulations after the meltdown in that sector. Proposes changing, but not repealing, the (Sarbanes-Oxley) law tightening accounting regulations in response to corporate scandals, to ease the accountability burden on smaller businesses.

Into the Santorum
The big, if it can be called that, news from the primary from this week was Rick Santorum winning Alabama and Mississippi, two small southern states considered conservative.

Santorum also gives news gatherers heebie-jeebies because of his religion. He is Catholic, as was John F Kennedy, and a strong opponent of gay marriage and abortion (as are many Republicans).

These views are an anathema to the media so Santorum is considered a right-wing blue-collar populist and therefore halfway to the nut-house with little understanding of foreign affairs or the affairs of state.

In reality, Santorum is the son of a psychologist and a qualified lawyer, who practised law before being elected to Congress at the age of 32 (he is now 53). He was then in the Senate until 2006, when he started earning big bucks as a lobbyist for the heath and energy industries.

Santorum wants family-friendly policies that tie in with Charles Murray’s analysis of American society and the underclass in Coming Apart.

He has seven children, including a handicapped one, has advocated tax credits for children and wants to revive manufacturing in America.

This makes him sound like an economic “wet” but in fact he is as dry as bones. A summary of his economic policy is:

Spur jobs by eliminating corporate taxes for manufacturers, drill for more oil and gas, and slash regulations. "Repeal every regulation the Obama administration has put in place that's over $US100 million. Repeal them all…because they are all antagonistic to businesses, particularly in the manufacturing sector."

And that doesn’t mention his belief in free trade (he wants five FTAs signed in his first year) and proposed cuts to welfare entitlements.

Read all the candidates’ policy positions here at the Wall Street Journal.

The guru of Takaka
The man who more or less popularised the description “management guru” has come to town in more ways than one.

Tom Peters this week addressed a large Food & Grocery Council audience, including a few MPs and a cabinet minister, with his inspirational message to focus on the small stuff. (His latest book is called The Little Big Things – 163 Ways to Pursue Excellence.)

In a brief chat beforehand, he also revealed (and to his surprised audience) that he now living in Golden Bay for three months of the year.

At 70, Tom is feeling the cold US winters near Boston, so he and his wife now own a 90sq m bach near Takaka.

“I love it there,” he says. “They say the locals are so laid back they are horizontal.” Not the kind of activity you would associate with a hyper-energetic Peters seminar, which when the NBR sponsored his first visit back in the early 1990s ran to a full day in a packed Aotea Centre auditorium.

Tom says he can come down here for two reasons: he is getting older and he can keep in touch with the world through the internet.

The book that launched him, In Search of Excellence, is now 30 years old, and remains must reading in business schools. His message to concentrate on executing a job well and not being distracted is just as lasting.

Tom was ranked third on the international Leadership Gurus list in 2008 and last year was fifth.

You can hear a lengthy radio interview by Radio Live’s Andrew Patterson on his Sunday Business programme, 9.30-10am, this weekend.

Why the Swiss are so rich
Politicians seek popularity through extending paid holidays and lifting minimum rates of pay.

In Switzerland, they do the opposite. For one, politicians don’t decide how to spend other people’s money – those who earn it do.

In a referendum last weekend, the Swiss voted down a union push to raise the paid annual leave entitlement from four to six weeks.

The majority of voters heeded warnings that such a cost on business would mean fewer jobs, higher costs and put the economy at risk.