Romney’s Choice…And Ours

Mitt Romney’s decision not to seek re-election to the Senate seemed to shock Democrats more than Republicans.  Some on the left speculated that he feared a successful primary challenge from the MAGA crowd. Others thought his decision solely a matter of conscience.  Republicans, on the other hand, had little to say one way or another but it is fair to assume that many if not most were glad to be rid of him.

Romney may not be the saintlike figure the left has come to portray him as—there was that statement in 2012 where he dismissed Obama supporters as “dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it”—but there is no question that, like his father and Vietnam, there was a moment at which party politics became less important than truth and honor.  What Romney’s departure most pointed up was how few of his fellow Republicans had any interest in either.

Romney did not depart quietly, nor did he leave any question that his future in the current Republican Party was nil.  He accused most of his colleagues in the Senate of cowardice for loathing Trump in private but refusing to publicly call him out. He characterized his party as having been taken over by demagogues and lacking a genuine vision for governance.  Lest anyone think he had abandoned his ideology, he took shots at Democrats as well and called for a new generation of leadership, by which one suspects he did not mean octogenarians from Delaware. 

What Romney left us to ponder, therefore, was when even the most strongly held views on policy and governance needed to be subordinated to more crucial considerations, such as the threat to the survival of the system of government itself.

When that occurs, those whose ideals have been betrayed are essentially left with two choices—to abdicate, as Romney did, or to join those whose views they may profoundly disagree with, and may even deeply dislike, to ensure that they will retain the right to disagree in the future. 

In the current environment, for Republican voters this means a choice between not voting or choosing the unthinkable and pulling the lever for Democrats. Their reluctance to do the second stems mainly from the belief, accurate or not, that Democrats are as radical in their agenda as the far right is in theirs.  To them, Democratic policies, or at least what they presume Democratic policies to be, are anathema to freedom and will lead the nation down the road to economic devastation, lavish government giveaways, a destruction of American values, and weakness on the world stage. 

But even in the most extreme incarnation of this scenario, one crucial difference remains between the parties that mischaracterization cannot blur.

Democrats’ failings, perceived or real, are policy based, while the far right, for which Donald Trump is the pied piper, wishes to replace democratic government with, if not autocracy, at least oligarchy.  The Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene faction, which much of the rest of the party has, incredibly, allowed to dictate the rules, wants in turn to dictate the rules to the American populace.  In their vision, no one gets an abortion, everyone owns and brandishes a gun, no one can be taught that racism may still exist, gay people are all pedophiles, Ukraine is left to Russian genocide, and cities can go and rot.

The most powerful way for honorable Republicans to reject this vision is to reject those who promote it, as people such as Stuart Stevens and Rick Wilson of the Lincoln Project have, and publicly announce that they are voting Democratic until Republicans regain their honor. 

That may be too much to ask, but even those who simply refuse to support the party of Trump and Gaetz in word or at the ballot box, as has William Kristol and now Mitt Romney, will have an effect as well.  Republicans are the minority party, in numbers if not in power, and the choice to eschew casting a ballot is a tacit vote for democratic principles since even in a gerrymandered election, the minority needs all the votes it can get.

If a sufficient number of Republicans do as John McCain suggested and put “country first,” those who would tear it down cannot succeed.

Unless, of course, they are matched by a similar spate of defections by Democratic voters.

And that is the problem Democrats face heading into the 2024 election.

While polling this far in advance is even more inexact than the questionable results that will come later, it has become clear that an increasing number of voters on the left have decided that President Biden, despite whatever success he has achieved in his first term—and he has achieved a great deal—should stand aside in the coming election.  The main reason is age and the decrease in mental acuity that may accompany it, but the Hunter Biden scandal can easily degenerate into a second bullseye on his father’s back.  In addition, despite what is widely seen as a robust economy that avoided the recession most economists predicted, Biden’s handling of the issue is viewed negatively.  (See my earlier piece, “Fair or Not, Optics Matter.”)

Finally, many Democrats have come to realize that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had been almost universally idolized, committed a terrible blunder, bred of hubris, in not resigning when Democrats might have secured her replacement.  As a result, just as Thurgood Marshall’s early retirement gave us Clarence Thomas, RBG’s refusal to step down gave us Amy Coney Barrett.  Although a Biden mental or physical health collapse would hand the presidency to another Democrat, Kamala Harris does not enjoy sufficient approval to render this a palatable prospect.

As a result, as Donald Trump heads for a potential third run for the White House, if Biden cannot generate sufficient enthusiasm to impel either his supporters or those who fear Republican rule to turn out to vote, some against impediments thrown up by the right, the impact of those like Mitt Romney, who choose to sit out the election, might be rendered moot.

Democracy is an unforgiving system.  Anyone who chooses not to participate is ceding the prerogative to rule to those who do.  Thus, the question of whether Joe Biden is the best candidate the Democrats can select, or whether Kamala Harris is fit take the job if he falters, pale against what happens if Democrats, as they so often do, decide that unless their perfect candidate is heading the ticket, they will simply stay home.

If that happens and either Donald Trump or a Trumpette like Ron DeSantis ends up in the White House, they will have lost the right to complain.

And the country will have lost a great deal more than that.