I like Mitt Romney, and I’ll always appreciate that he gave me a telephone interview on the day in 2007 that he announced his candidacy for president (though I doubt this was a good use of his time). I also think Romney would have been a pretty good president.
However, the notion being peddled now by Romney and some in the mainstream media that he’s highly principled — part of a vanishing breed of Republican politicians with integrity — is a myth. Romney’s career displays no more adherence to principle than that of your average hyper-ambitious politician.
The media praise stems from the fact that Romney twice voted to impeach Donald Trump. But Romney’s overall history with Trump is nothing for him to be proud of.
It’s true that Romney strongly opposed Trump’s nomination in 2016. But so did nearly every prominent Republican politicians, and certainly every one who could be characterized as part of the GOP establishment. Romney did nothing exceptional here.
Furthermore, any claim to integrity based on Romney’s dealings with Trump vanished when he gushed over the man in the hope of becoming Secretary of State. Trump dangled this possibility during a dinner at a fancy restaurant. But, in fact, Trump had no intention of putting Romney in charge of the State Department. Indeed, Trump was so intent on not selecting Romney that he gave the job to Rex Tillerson.
For Trump, the purpose of the dinner was to humiliate Romney for his earlier vocal opposition of the candidate. Trump succeeded.
I’m surprised that Romney didn’t see what was coming. But then, no one has ever dangled a Cabinet post before me, so who am to criticize Romney for taking the bait?
What I can say is that given his opinion of Trump, Romney’s eagerness to serve in the administration shows him to a man of no great principle. I’ll also speculate that Romney’s votes to impeach Trump might have been revenge for the humiliating treatment he received.
In any case, there’s no honor I can discern in voting to impeach Trump for that phone call with Ukrainian president Zelensky. Trump’s statements during that call were improper in my view, but they didn’t meet the standard for impeaching a president.
As part of his valedictory, Romney has been critical of Mike Pence. He says that “no one was more loyal, more willing to smile when he saw absurdities, more willing to ascribe God’s will to things that were ungodly than Mike Pence” as vice president.
Given Romney’s effort to join the Trump administration, it’s clear that, like Pence, he would have accepted the vice presidency, even though he had already witnessed a ton of Trump “absurdities.” How long would Romney have remained a loyal vice president? For as long as it served Romney’s ambitions to do so — probably about until the same time at which Pence balked.
I base this statement on the fact that, to my knowledge, Romney has never done anything major that was inconsistent with his ambition. I discount the two impeachment votes because there’s no reason to believe Romney’s ambitions included a second Senate term.
Romney’s epic flip-flop on the abortion issue was in complete harmony with his ambition — first to be elected Senator for Massachusetts and then to be the Republican nominee for president. Some of his other flips are identified here.
I’ve already discussed Romney’s groveling to become Trump’s Secretary of State. There’s also Romney’s groveling for Trump’s endorsement in 2012, after the former governor lost to Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina primary. Romney admits he knew Trump was a “a buffoon and a conspiracy theorist.” Yet, he treated Trump as an important and respectable voice in the Republican party.
I don’t blame Romney for this. He really wanted to be the GOP nominee in 2012. I don’t blame him for his 2020 grovel (although I do question his judgment on that one). He really wanted to be Secretary of State. I blame him some for taking two radically different stances on abortion, both with gusto. But as I said, the alterative was to be unviable as a candidate for the GOP nominee in 2008.
And that’s the point. Romney’s various maneuvers are entirely understandable. But they preclude him from plausibly claiming to be a man of principle. A profile in courage, Romney is not.
Based on my limited dealings with him, I’d say that Romney is probably a nice, decent guy. He’s also a talented administrator who did an excellent job with the 2002 Winter Olympics.
But as a politician, I think Romney is just another opportunist who never let principle stand in the way of ambition — at least not on anything important.
The alternative is being willing to actually do the things you tell the voters you're going to do. You don't have to be a saint to do that, or even a decent guy. I'll take that any day over a vainglorious striver who lusts after a title his father never obtained.
One of the sad things about our current political time is that to stay viable in the increasingly grotesque major political parties, otherwise decent people feel they have no choice but to do whatever it takes to in fact be viable. Mitt Romney is not a Saint. He is a decent man with a core identity that doesn't include some of the radicalism necessary to make it in the GOP or Democratic parties. Like so many others he has flipped and flopped. But what is the alternative? Lunatics who stand by their lunatic ideas?