Economic policies would probably improove somewhat under Romney, though crony capitalism and banking lobby power would continue to dominate.
Glenn Hubbard is his chief economics advisor, that's really all you need to know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Hubbard_(economist)#Inside_Job
Civil liberties wouldn't improove at all. He already demonstrated this with his support for the NDAA and the Patriot Act.
Foreign policy would maybe even get more aggressive as all of his advisors are Bush/Cheney type Neocons. Obama/Hillary preferred covert action with lots of diplomatic attempts to solve issues. Romney could use the military much more openly, especially against Iran. Sheldon Adelson wouldn't give millions to him if he wasn't willing to do that. Mr Adelson is a very close friend and financier of Ben Netanyahu.
Fiscal policy wouldn't change at all: The promised welfare cuts would be more than consumed by increased military spending, especially if we get a bigger war (Iran).
-----------------------
Back to topic:
I wouldn't buy this Gold Commission talk.
The last one was setup to fail from the very beginning. Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman were the only members who had any real interest in it. All the others were just there to ensure that it wouldn't produce any real results, certainly not a majority recommendation of a return to gold.
If we'd actually see another one, it would be stuffed with anti-gold people once again. Romney is backed by Wall Street. He can't afford to return to sound money. Even if Ron Paul became a member, he would probably issue another dissenting opinion like last time and nothing would change in the end.
The only way to remonetize gold is doing it the decentralized way, state by state. Let fiat USD exist like they are and have parellel currencies.
This way the gold is in the hands of the people.
