Barack Obama and congressional Democrats’ vision for the country were largely validated by the election last November, and since then no unified voice has risen from the ashes of the GOP to effectively provide an alternative for voters to consider. Democrats have methodically passed measures fulfilling their vision for economic recovery, and President Obama has pursued greater engagement abroad with little opposition.

Unfortunately, politics in America is cyclical by nature and currently more polarized than usual; the Democrats cannot dominate forever. Because of our elaborate system of checks and balances, it is difficult for a party even in a position of overwhelming strength to enact its agenda—as we see in the health care debate raging on Capitol Hill.

It is therefore in the nature of the electorate, particularly those near any extreme, to expect more from our government than it can provide and to end up disappointed with the party in power after a certain period of time because of its inability to live up to its lofty campaign promises. At some point, the pendulum will swing back and the electorate will again tilt in favor of GOP candidates.

What determines the time and character of this reversal of fortune is the perceived fallout of certain policy initiatives—when a leader makes a few mistakes in the eyes of the public, he is nearly always seen as a disappointment, and takes ownership of the nation’s problems, new and old.

Since the president has taken on so many issues, it’s likeley that at least a few will not turn out so well and be perceived as failures. If any opposition leader is well-positioned to critique the president on these weaknesses when they arise, the once-popular president may find himself in political trouble.

Right now, some of Obama’s biggest weaknesses poll-wise are his pursuit of large loans to the auto industry, his engagement-first foreign policy approach which many conservatives label “declinist” and “apologetic,” and his general willingness to drastically expand the federal deficit to restart the economy.

Public disapproval of Obama’s handling of these issues seems insignificant when compared with the president’s high job approval ratings deep personal popularity. If the economy begins a robust recovery over the next year or two, with a privatized and solvent GM, and Iran at the negotiating table, disapproval in these areas may remain insignificant.

However, if economic recovery is halting, if GM limps on indefinitely under government ownership, or if Iran gets the bomb, these chinks in Obama’s armor could become gaping wounds. Mitt Romney is the Republican who is best positioned to probe those wounds in 2012.

Romney’s deep business background, reputation for executive competence, and record of business success gives him tremendous credibility on the economy. He knows exactly what he’s talking about when it comes to money. Compared to such a business pro as Romney, Obama might begin to come across as a wistful ideological ditherer who really doesn’t know the financial ropes well enough to get our economy growing again.

Romney has also staked out territory in the fight against Obama’s foreign policy with his recent speech at the Heritage Foundation, a broadside aimed at Obama’s “apologetic” foreign policy. He is clearly putting together a strong profile for challenging Obama’s biggest potential weak spots a few years down the road.

Add to that the fact that Romney’s father was the governor of Michigan, giving him background and credibility in the critical battleground of the Industrial Midwest, and he could shape up to be a major threat to Obama come 2012.