I hate that this blog has become so political, as that really isn’t its intent; but so often, my friends post something political and my response is far too long for the comments. This has happened once again, with my friend Emily sharing an article from the National Review, What Is Consistent about Mitt Romney?. So, Emily, you’re getting a writeup in The Empty Soda Can. Try not to be too excited. 😄
Emily’s post regarding this article is as follows:
HALLELUJAH for this article. I thought I was losing my dang mind with all of these Dems falling all over Romney.
As an LDS anti-Trumper, I found Senator Romney’s latest stunt to be an obvious charade, and I’m stunned at how blind Dems and fellow anti-Trumpers are to it.
The author is generous in saying he “doesn’t understand” Romney and “credits his deep sincerity.” I see you, Mitt Romney, and you and your ridiculous antics drive me out of my freaking mind. SPARE US, I BEG YOU.
[Cue ‘The Greatest Showman’ soundtrack. I mean it’s just such an opportune moment, amirite?]”
The article itself is a decent read, and it’s obvious that the author, Michael Brendan Dougherty, appears to be an intelligent person who does his own thinking instead of allowing others to think for him—an unfortunately rare commodity on the internet. However, I think the first sentence of the article — the sentence Emily quotes, “I’ve never understood Mitt Romney” — reveals a lot more than Dougherty intended. This lack of understanding, methinks, stems from a lack of understanding of Romney’s belief system, namely the doctrines and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One cannot understand Mitt Romney without understanding this basic Weltanschauung, and it’s obvious from the article — particularly its error-laden preantepenultimate paragraph — that Dougherty does not.
Now, obviously Emily, a Latter-day Saint herself, has a much better understanding of the Church and its members than Dougherty. I suspect that she recognizes the article’s errors and gives the author a pass for his ignorance, which is totally fine: none of us should be held responsible for our ignorance. But in its treatment of candidate cum Governor Romney’s views on abortion, Dougherty does just that: he ignores Romney’s recognition of his ignorance — summarized in this and this compilation of many statements on the subject — and frames this “Come to Jesus” moment in the same way as his opponents’ campaigns in 2008 and 2012, a “flip-flop” of political expediency. This fundamental misunderstanding forms a foundation of folly on which additional misunderstanding is built.
So, returning to Emily: I get what you’re saying, Emily, about finding “Senator Romney’s latest stunt to be an obvious charade.” I have also been unhappy with some of Mitt’s choices since the 2012 election, so I understand your frustration with both him and his actions. However, in this particular situation, I honestly can’t say I agree. I’ve been in the same position (on a very similar subject), and I think I actually do understand Mitt Romney, in this case.
The position I was in was deciding who to vote for, in the 2016 Presidential election. In 2016 — as in every quadrennial election — I spent a lot of time reviewing the candidates, and I knew that Darrell Castle was the best choice (despite the ultraconservatism of his party). Unfortunately, I also knew that he had no chance of actually winning. Our effectively bipartisan system assures that. So, I wanted to vote for him, but as I resident of a purple state, I also had to consider the disproportional impact of my vote. The next president would inevitably appoint 2-3 Supreme Court justices, and I felt the most important goal — even more important than my personal rebuke of both major candidates — was preventing Hillary Clinton from doing so. Given the plurality requirement in Presidential elections, that meant having a President Trump, regardless of my personal feelings on the subject.
As Election Day neared, I watched the polls religiously. If Ohio was going to be close, I would hold my nose and vote for Donald Trump. I didn’t want to; I hoped I wouldn’t feel the need to; but my anti-Trump feelings were outweighed by my anti-Clinton feelings, so I was willing to take one for the team. Would I prefer that tens of millions of people would reject the major parties and vote Castle (or even another candidate who would still have been better than Clinton and Trump)? Of course I would. But was that realistic? Heck no, hence my quandary.
As it happened, Election Day polls in Ohio placed Mr. Trump ahead of Secretary Clinton by 3-4 percentage points. I went to the polls and happily voted for my first choice, Darrell Castle, and allowed that vote to represent my personal rejection of both major candidates — a rejection in which I wish more had participated, but one I was content enough to make alone. Of course, it made no difference in the long run, as Mr. Trump won Ohio by an even larger margin than predicted; but I had done my civic duty, and I was able to do so without compromising my integrity. In essence, I expressed my first choice, and the rest of the voters handed me my second.
This brings us to the impeachment. Like I, Senator Romney was between a rock and a hard place. He felt that President Trump was guilty (a position I don’t know enough to support nor reject), but he also recognized the impact that his removal from office would have on the 2020 election. Vice President Pence is less able than President Trump to carry a national election, and the GOP would be irreparably damaged by the removal of a president (see 1976, when Jimmy Carter managed to win). Had push come to shove, I expect Senator Romney would have held his nose and voted to acquit — not because he supports the President, but because he recognizes the inferiority of the alternatives. He, too, would have voted for his second choice, were it required to prevent a far inferior third option.
Like me, I’m sure Senator Romney would prefer a scenario in which President Trump were removed from office and a better choice were elected in November 2020. But like the possibility of Mr. Castle’s election in 2016, that scenario remains nigh unto impossible. So, just as I did in 2016, Romney hedged his bets until he was certain the second-best scenario would be realized, then voted his conscience. Some might see that as a lack of integrity, but I see it as the cost of living in a society: we all need to compromise on some issues, and Senator Romney is pragmatic enough to recognize when that need arises — and when it doesn’t.
Posts
