The New Republic

Why don't I think support for an individual mandate will destroy Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations? One reason is that many of his rivals in the Republican Party have also supported a mandate -- or, at least, said awfully nice things about it.

The latest addition to that list is the man many consider Romney's chief competitor, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty. Ben Smith has the scoop:

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty said in a 2006 speech that mandated health insurance was a "potentially helpful" -- but incomplete -- solution to the problem of the uninsured.

Pawlenty described a Massachusetts-style mandate in his speech as "a worthy goal and one that we're intrigued by and I think at least open to," but suggested that the central health care problem was not forcing people to buy insurance but helping them afford it. ...

the question then becomes - if you're going to require insurance -- and I think that is a worthy goal and one that we're intrigued by and I think at least open to, how then do you enable people to access the insurance?" Pawlenty said.

The answer, he suggested, was a combination of new efficiencies in health care and new subsidies, starting with a program to insure children -- a move welcomed by Minnesota Democrats at the time. He also suggested both market-based solutions aimed at enhancing competition and transparency, as well as new regulations on, particularly, drug ads.

Offering such qualified support for a mandate, in one speech, is obviously not the same thing as signing a law imposing one on your state. But with each revelation like this, it becomes more difficult for Romney's rivals to attack him over the mandate -- and more difficult for voters to hold it against him.

Of course, the real lesson here is the one about the mandate itself. There was a time when the idea had wide acceptance among conservative as well as liberal politicians. And that time wasn't very long ago.

share this article on facebook or twitter print this article