Is the decision fortunate, because it gives Romney a compelling issue on which to campaign?
Clark Coleman writes:
There were three possible decisions:
1) Support the law pretty much in its entirety.
2) Overturn the entire law.
3) Throw out the individual mandate and leave the rest of the law.
#1 happened. #2 would have reduced the November election to a vote on the economy. If the economy had a temporary uptick in September and October, and some news out of Europe was temporarily good during that time, even if wise people do not believe the good news could last, we could have an electoral disaster in November. Decision #3 would have the same potential, because the average blockhead voter would read only the headlines and conclude that ObamaCare is not such a big issue any more, even though wiser heads would conclude that decision #3 would eventually bankrupt the medical insurance industry and drive everyone into government-provided medical care.
So, given the obvious fact that large numbers of voters are apathetic, ignorant, stupid blockheads who are not fit to participate in a system of self-government, and who require a total disaster to motivate them, decision #1 was the least bad outcome today. The biggest downside to it is the legal precedent established, that government can force you to do anything via a “tax” measure. That precedent can be overturned later. In the meantime, whenever Congress tries to exercise this new power, they will only awaken the legions of blockheads to throw them out of office.
The analogy here is the debate in 2008 over whether it would be worse to elect McCain or Obama, where the former would not inspire a conservative revolt and the latter would do exactly that.
A key point is Romney’s reaction to the decision. None of this RINO/neo-con nonsense about accommodating the new order. From Gary Bauer’s daily email:
Governor Mitt Romney came out swinging in response to the ObamaCare ruling. He said, “[W]hat the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected President of the United States, and that is I will act to repeal ObamaCare.”
Governor Romney added, “ObamaCare was bad law yesterday, it’s bad law today.” He also labeled ObamaCare as “a job killer.” He finished his remarks by echoing the words of Ronald Reagan, telling them, “This is a time of choice for the American people,” reminding the nation that to in order to “get rid of ObamaCare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama.” He’s exactly right!
If not for this decision, Romney would have nothing to talk to John Q. Blockhead about during the rest of the campaign except the economy. Now he has the economy and ObamaCare. Now the fools who talk about not voting, or who want to quibble over Romney’s imperfections, will get on board and we at least have a chance to throw Obama out of office.
LA replies:
Your argument assumes (a) that Romney will campaign seriously against Obamacare, and (b) that Romney is serious about overturning Obamacare. I don’t agree with either proposition. His statement today was pathetic. The main point he made against Obamacare is that it will increase taxes. He doesn’t oppose it as an act of tyranny. Romney is a hollow man, a stuffed man.
- end of initial entry -
Daniel W. writes:
You wrote:
“[Romney’s] statement today was pathetic. The main point he made against Obamacare is that it will increase taxes. He doesn’t oppose it as an act of tyranny. Romney is a hollow man, a stuffed man.”
I agree completely. Maybe I’m just young and naive, but I waited with genuine anticipation to watch Romney speak. I thought that the Court’s decision—an act of actual tyranny—would awaken some better part of the man and inspire him to say something powerful that would make me proud to believe what I believe and motivate me (and people like me) to take action against this nightmare. Isn’t that what leaders are supposed to do?
But instead I got nothing. I felt nothing. No one did, I’m sure. You’re right, the man is hollow. But are the people? Will actual leaders emerge?
I read somewhere about the suppression of moderate conservatives in England, that it would lead to the growth of radical movements since there was no above-ground alternative to state liberalism. Do you think that will happen here?
Do you think that the young white men who are being transformed into providers for a nation of underperforming and dangerous minorities will strike back? Our ancestors conquered the world on wooden ships. I believe that there was once something mighty in our blood. Do we still have it in us?
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 28, 2012 07:26 PM | Send