In her article,
Three Cheers for Romneycare, Ann Coulter insists that Romneycare and its mandate was a Free Market Solution. Of course a government mandate to buy a product is not a "free market" solution, it is a slave market solution. Using a government mandate may be a market based solution but there is nothing free about it. The purchaser isn't free not to buy. The seller is only able to move the product through coercion and has to qualify with the government to be able to force-sell the product.
It's certainly not free market, and while it can be viewed as a "conservative" solution, it's only a form of conservatism that rejects human freedom and free enterprise. It's a nanny-state conservatism, which is exactly the attack that Romney and his supporters have used against Santorum.
Coulter's only defense of Romney's nanny-state policy is that it's state based, and did not take place at the Federal level. As
I pointed out last week, if Romney supported a mandate as a state executive, there is no serious reason to believe that he would oppose one as a Federal executive, except "principle" and Romney does not exactly radiate principle.
The mandate allows for a less liberal version of national health care, and it's such a conservative free market solution that the famously conservative free marketer Barry from Chicago ended up adopting it. But the mandate is not conservative or liberal, it's certainly not free market, but it is corporate.
What the mandate really is, is Brooks' "free market socialism" that he called on Obama to adopt in his Times column that ran before the State of the Union address.
Free market socialism gives the left its program but routes it through corporate owners. Obama has been responsible for numerous variations of this across different industries, most notably in Green Energy. We know the maneuver better as Crony Capitalism.
The mandate gives the left national health care and gives health insurance companies mass slavery by forcing every American to buy their product. The left wins, health insurance companies win, everyone else loses.
But the truly brilliant thing about Coulter's defense of Romney is that it takes everything he did as Governor of Massachusetts off the table. No matter what he did, we are assured that he won't do when he gets to the White House because he is committed to states rights.
Suddenly Romney's record doesn't matter and everything hinges on the notion that is a staunch Constitutionalist.
And the mandate? As Coulter puts it, "No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance."
Coulter leaves out the words, "be forced to" but that's a natural mistake. Still supposing that's the case, then the Constitution doesn't give each person an unalienable right not to be forced to buy a subscription to the New York Times or a Chevy Volt.
There is a Jewish religious legal principle, "Menuval BiReshut HaTorah" which warns that it is possible for a person to follow the letter of the law and still act like an abominable human being. There is more to being a good person than just remaining within the boundaries of the legal codes. There is also more to believing in the Founders vision for America than in supporting repressive nanny state laws that serve corrupt interests, but do not technically violate the Bill of Rights.
If the left was really forced to implement its agenda while remaining within the limits of the Constitution, they could do it. It would take them longer than it might the way they are doing it now, but it is still doable. At one debate, Santorum pointed out that Ron Paul's ideology rigidity might have led to a serious blow against the Second Amendment. And that is also a reality. Just because the left rejects Originalism, does not mean that they could not operate within such a system and turn it to its advantage if they had to. That is why it is important to remember the principles of liberty in practice, not just the codes in abstract.
At the Daily Beast, David Frum lays it out pretty clearly in a column titled,
Three Cheers for Ann Coulter.
More cheering yet is the logic implicit in Coulter's phrase "free-market alternative." Alternative what? Answer: alternative mode of providing universal health coverage. That's what Gov. Mitt Romney accomplished in Massachusetts—universal coverage via private insurance. Universal coverage is what Romneycare provided, and if you give Romneycare three cheers, universal coverage is what you are cheering.
So three cheers for Ann Coulter's three cheers—and for this public step toward a more humane and rational vision of conservatism.
Frum leaves out progressive, but that's implied. And why not a progressive conservatism. It can be like burning ice or oilwater.
When we see tens of millions of people going without insurance—and thereby either suffering much worse health outcomes or else dumping their costs onto others (or both)—we're not seeing a principled aversion to coverage. We're seeing a crisis of affordability.
Or, and this is a third option, purchasing services and products on an 'as needs' basis. But when you think in terms of national and global solutions, then individuals don't make "different" decisions, they make good or bad decisions. A good decision is in line with the technocracy, a bad decision is out of line with the technocracy.
Those who aren't on board either haven't gotten "access" to the opportunity and require a social justice remedy. Those who object are parasites who are exploiting the system. Not wanting to be part of the system is not an option for the humane and rational system of the technocracy.
Either you are with us, too deprived to be with us and need our help... or you are against us.
What's the soundtrack to that number? "You don't know how lucky you are, boy. Back in the USSR."
Three cheers.
