Larry, That is an interesting idea, but I don't get it. The force applied to the stylus/cantilever would be to counter the force of friction between stylus and groove, and here, with a tangential arm, we have a cantilever that is always tangent to the groove across the entire LP. So the friction force would only vary according to groove tortuosity, ideally. The carriage end that holds on to the arm wand has the same job as the pivot bearing does in a conventional pivoted overhung tonearm, to resist friction or stylus drag. For much of the time (except for two moments when the stylus passes through the two null points on the surface of an LP, if your pivoted tonearm is set up properly), with a conventional arm, the cantilever is not tangent to the groove, which imparts a side force on the cantilever. I would think that's "worse" than with a tangential arm.
Properly designed tonearms that have zero headshell offset also underhang the pivot. That's a huge distinction from tonearms with an offset headshell that overhang the pivot. In order to minimize TAE, Lofgren, Bearwald, Stevenson, et al, introduced the overhung tonearm and headshell offset, regardless of the effect on skating force. You are correct that the resulting high TAE of an underhung straight tonearm does not result in audible distortion. But you say it doesn't hurt performance "much". I'd say it does not hurt performance at all, and in fact there is much to be said about the at least equally excellent performance of underhung tonearms with zero offset. (And I've said it elsewhere so won't bore you with my rationale.)