Romney Has Principles, and It Drives Both Sides Nuts
Romney Has Principles, and It Drives Both Sides Nuts
On Tuesday, Mitt Romney drew big headlines by announcing his approval of the U.S. Senate taking up President Trump’s Supreme Court nomination in our current election year.
Romney’s office released the below statement qualifying his decision — a decision that just about assures that Trump’s nominee will have enough votes to be confirmed (barring any significant missteps during the confirmation process).
“My decision regarding a Supreme Court nomination is not the result of a subjective test of ‘fairness’ which, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is based on the immutable fairness of following the law, which in this case is the Constitution and precedent. The historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.
“The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.”
As is the case just about any time Senator Romney does (or even says) something of political consequence, one side of the aisle sang his praises and commended him for doing the brave and correct thing, while the other side trashed his character on very personal terms, and essentially portrayed him as a traitor.
There’s rarely any middle ground in situations like this.
Of course, the outrage this time came from Democrats and liberals who, earlier this year, hailed Romney as a man of deep integrity and conscience for being the only Republican senator to vote for conviction in President Trump’s impeachment trial:
As I described in a column back in February, it was a stark reversal from the left’s previous portrayal of Romney as a poor-people-hating bigot, who tortured a dog and killed a woman with cancer. But Romney had apparently earned liberals’ respect and good graces with his opposition to Trump, and also his participation this summer in a Black Lives Matter march.
However, the admiration only lasted as long as the next political earthquake, at which time many on the left, as expected, decided that they were right about Romney the first time:
With all due respect to Mr. Cleese, whose comedic talents have brought me countless laughs over the years, there was nothing even remotely dishonorable about what Romney did. There wasn’t even anything inappropriate about it — constitutionally, procedurally, morally, or otherwise. Heck, unlike a large number of his Republican and Democratic colleagues, Romney wasn't even guilty of hypocrisy on the topic of election-year Supreme Court nominations.
His only sins, once again, were ignoring partisan considerations, taking his job as a U.S. senator seriously, and acting on principle. Sadly, such acts confuse and anger the tribes. They stoke a vitriolic sense of betrayal that’s driven not by reason, but rather emotion.
And emotions right now are as high as I’ve ever seen them, at least in the political world.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was undeniably an American icon, and her achievements, contributions, and idealism were especially important to people on the left. To many of those people, the mere notion of a conservative taking her old seat is vile and unconscionable. But as much as she was adored by her admirers, Ginsburg’s legacy and even her dying wish do not transcend the Supreme Court, nor the constitutional authority of our president and the U.S. Senate.
Romney recognized that, and made a principled and entirely defensible decision.
Likewise, Donald Trump doesn’t transcend the office of the U.S. presidency. His office grants him immense power, and despite the faithful enthusiasm and loyalty of many of his supporters, that power is subject to the law and congressional checks and balances. If a president is impeached for an abuse of that power, and a U.S. senator believes that the abuse is both legitimate and rises to the level of an impeachment conviction, it his duty to vote to convict.
Romney recognized that, and made a principled and entirely defensible decision.
Those politically driven by emotion over principle have a very difficult time understanding how such positions and decisions can, in good faith, exist… or perhaps coexist. Thus, those individuals' recourse is to fall back on emotional safeguards like declarations of betrayal and cowardice.
The left's doing that right now, and the right will return to it the next time Romney so much as disapproves of something Trump said.
In reality, standing on principle in this day and age is exactly the opposite of betrayal and cowardice. It takes guts and conviction to ignore the overbearing partisan pressure and tribal rancor that dictate so many of today’s political arguments. Some might even call that integrity.
I for one am glad that Romney not only has integrity, but also doesn’t seem to care which side he happens to piss off, on any given day, by demonstrating it.