Mitt Romney's candidacy may end before it even starts, for in the twisted world of conservative ideology, policies that are actually successful are shunned, and policies that are mostly a failure are embraced.
Can you name a policy adopted by the Republican party in recent history that was an astounding success? Their foreign policy is garbage and their economic policy is garbage. To find any genuine success stories, you have to begin your search at the state level.
One such success story is Romneycare, but Mitt Romney isn't allowed to campaign on successful policy, because what's at stake right now is the entire ideology of conservatism. To campaign on successful governmental policy runs counter to the prevailing wisdom that government is the problem, not the solution.During his speech on Thursday afternoon, Mitt Romney made the distinction that he did not preside over the creation of a government-run insurance program, just as Democrats did not preside over a "government takeover of healthcare."
"There's no government insurance here," Romney said. "We didn't create a government insurance program or government insurance policy. ... No, no, we gave people a premium support program where they could buy their own private insurance of their choice. And for the poor, we helped them with support."
Sound familiar? It should, because it's exactly what was signed into law for the entire nation last year. And despite the distinction that no all-powerful, government bureaucracy of granny-killing took over the state's healthcare system, the idea that government can do good things is too much for conservative ideologues to handle.Campaigning on the successes of government is bad enough, but to campaign on any policy, no matter the good it did, that is supported by President Obama, is enough to be branded a heretic.The conservative reaction to Mitt Romney's speech both defending the legislation which carries his namesake, and explaining how his national policy will differ from President Obama's, was entirely predictable for anyone who was watching, as Dave Weigel of Slate.com captured at The National Review website.
Mitt Romney just gave a more articulate defense of Obamacare than President Obama ever has. He continues to believe that the individual mandate is a good idea, despite the fact that the “free-rider” problem is a myth. His effort to make a distinction between Romneycare and Obamacare was not persuasive: If anything, he convincingly made the opposite case, that Romneycare and Obamacare are based on the same fundamental concept.
Setting aside for a moment the fact that the House-approved Paul Ryan budget also features an individual mandate -- If the two healthcare laws are based on the same fundamental concept, then the concept would be that, in America, we do not tell sick and poor people that they're out of luck. Is that really a principle which conservatives want to position themselves against?In an interview with ABC, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz lamented the "sad" nature of Mitt Romney's current predicament, which really has more to do with the sad nature of the GOP more than it does Mitt Romney himself.I agree with Schultz that it is sad, but not for the same reason. What's really sad is that you cannot run as a Republican in this country anymore if you have created, or intend to create, actual functioning, successful policy which doesn't simply cater to the most fortunate among us and no one else.If Mitt Romney is the closest thing to a moderate that the Republican Party has, and they refuse to nominate him, they probably won't nominate a moderate ever again and will marginalize themselves to being the un-electable party for un-electable candidates.