Romney's Central Problem

Andy McCarthy's weekend column on the main problem conservatives face if Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee (which all indications say now that he most likely will be) is a must read.  Of course, the central problem with Romney centers around his continued defense of Romneycare.  Here is McCarthy:

Obamacare is the issue that inspires the conservative base. Republicans simply must have the base’s enthusiastic support if they are to beat a lavishly funded incumbent who will pull no punches, none, in striving to keep his job. There is no serious person who doubts that Romneycare was the building block for Obamacare: The experts who helped design the former were consulted in the creation of the latter. Yet Romney continues to insist that Romneycare is a smashing success, one he suggests he’d do again without hesitation. 

McCarthy hits the nail on the head in his states' rights  federalism argument:

First there’s the Tenth Amendment business. Being a Tenth Amendment kind of guy, I’m predisposed toward different-strokes-for-different-states arguments: What’s right for Massachusetts may not be right for Mississippi or Montana. 

Nevertheless, some things are wrong everywhere. One such thing is a massive government infiltration into the private economy, one that coerces the purchase of a commodity (health insurance) as a condition of living in the state. For one thing, such an exercise in steroid statism establishes a rationale in law for government intrusion into every aspect of private life: If health care is deemed a corporate asset, then “bad” behavioral choices must be regulated, lest someone get more than his share. Romney portrayed Romneycare as a model, at least for other states, if not for the nation. But no free-market, limited-government conservative thinks this officious onslaught is a model to be emulated anyplace.

Far too many conservatives think that some vague references to the 10th Amendment make Romneycare acceptable under the Constitution.  But what about the principles the Constitution itself is built upon?  Would slavery or man-child relationships be right if a majority in a state voted for those atrocities?  Would the federal government not be able to right those wrongs?  As McCarthy rightly understands, there are some things that are wrong in principle everywhere, no matter if it is the policy of the federal government or confined completely within one state.  This was the argument of the Founders, Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge, and every other clear-thinking American.

The main problem with the Romney nomination is this:  at a time when we need someone to make the case in principle against schemes like Obamacare and Romneycare that inflict injuries upon the natural rights of the people (and at a time when the public is increasingly open to these kinds of arguments), Romney will only be making the case on a contingent basis (that is, only against Obamacare) instead of on the level of principle.  This is a shame.