Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
An Open Letter to Mitt Romney
Dear Mr. Romney:
I read your opinion piece in The Washington Post under the interesting heading: “Democracy Dies in Darkness”. You called it: “The president shapes the public character of the nation. Trump’s character falls short.”
You say, “A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.”
If the president shapes the character of a nation to a degree, what if that shape created confusion, division, and fueled anger under a one size fits all mantle called hope and change? You gave President Trump some credit, but do you realize the impact that his policies have had so far? Crime is actually down in Chicago for the first time? Could it be because unemployment among minorities is at the lowest its been in decades?
As President Trump entered office I think he looked for honesty and integrity, starting with our justice system and found glaring shortfalls to say the least. Do you remember Peter Strzok and Lisa Page? How about destroyed emails, bleach-bit servers and the spider web called Fusion GPS?
As President Trump entered office eight years of resentment, anger and division were already in place. Eight years of spewing out phrases like white privilege, intersectionality, being too male, and gender-neutrality. At Christmas dinner, someone mentioned neighbors who are letting their three-year-old son determine his sex. They put a dress on him and braided his hair. Three years old. Trump found a drug epidemic, a rise in teen suicides and cyber-bullying. Where was the promised hope and change?
You state: “Several allies in Europe are experiencing political upheaval. Several former Soviet satellite states are rethinking their commitment to democracy. Some Asian nations, such as the Philippines lean increasingly toward China, which advances to rival our economy and our military. The alternative to U.S. world leadership offered by China and Russia is autocratic, corrupt and brutal.”
When Trump entered office he found an already emboldened Russia and China, who had plenty of time to make gains politically, financially, and militarily as the last administration stepped into the background on foreign policy. During that time, a group called ISIS formed and tore human life to shreds. They were called the JV team of terror. The Middle East was on fire.
You also said: “Our leaders must defend our vital institutions despite their inevitable failings: a free press, the rule of law, strong churches, and responsible corporations and unions.”
When Trump entered office a free press gave token amounts of time to the silencing of free speech on campuses across the country, the harassment of Christians and churches across the world, the increase of Antisemitism, the spiraling of the healthcare industry under The Affordable Care Act, and instead focused on picking apart the new administration even before their new pencils needed re-sharpened. There was nothing this administration could do right.
When Trump entered office the European populist movement was already well underway. Trump didn’t create the Paris we are seeing on the news. Europe was glad to have America pay most of their defense tab, so they didn’t have to think about it. They were stunned for a few days while Russia sailed its military might through the English Channel onto the Middle East, then went back to letting America worry about it.
I lived in Massachusetts when you were governor. I was a newly minted Republican and voted for you. I also voted for you in 2012 as president. That was six years ago. It feels like sixteen. What has happened to our country and the world in a short amount of time is nothing short of shocking. Your opinion piece sounds like a campaign speech that might have worked back then, when you ran for president. Back then you also knew better. Obama once told you the cold war was over and the 1980s wanted its foreign policy back. You were right and he was wrong. His foreign policy, and lack of leadership on many other fronts is why we have a Donald Trump for president. Review this segment through the lens of where we are today – only six years later.
With all due respect, if this opinion piece is a presidential campaign launch, I won’t be voting for you again. If you can do great things as a senator, bold things, and call out with clarity, for truth and justice on behalf of the American people, like Tre Gowdy and others have done, then you will inspire hope, and be doing what the people in your state have elected you to do. I believe you are a good man. Good luck, Senator Romney.
Published in General
There is no unity in the GOP and there hasn’t been any since before the 2016 primaries. If Trump-skeptic Republicans cannot rally the party, neither can Trump. Trump neither has the character nor the leadership skills to pull the various parts of the GOP together and keep them together for concerted effort. The 2018 midterms highlighted the fact that there is a deep division. If Romney’s letter is inopportune, it’s nonetheless accurate.
If all goes well for DJT, then he and Romney will be working together until 2024; this letter makes a statement of what to expect. I think this should also be considered Romney’s message to his own constituents. Utah may be a Red State but it is not Trump-friendly. In 2004 (the last time the GOP won the Presidency), W got 71% of the vote to Kerry’s 26%. In 2016, Trump got a plurality of 45.5%; HRC did slightly better than Kerry with 27.5%, and 1-in-5 UT voters went for Evan McMullin.
Dismissing every critic of the President’s behavior as uniformly AntiTrump, demanding unity without any effort to assuage concerns, and throwing insults has not proven to be persuasive. The GOP loss of suburban voters appears to be an anti-Trump reaction, and I don’t see any effort to recapture those voters and the 2018 results leave me underwhelmed that there is a plan to find replacements.
There is going to be a GOP pushing an agenda when Trump leaves the stage, and I suspect a lot of elected Republicans are looking at the lackluster turnout in 2018, questioning whether Trump can pull it off again in 2020, and thinking about what direction the post-Trump party will be heading. There are only so many times you can claim a race is a “Flight 93 Election” where character and personal conduct can be overlooked.
Given the national strength of the GOP prior to Trump’s midterm defeats, by what measure did the old no longer work?
Yes, it’s possible. However, what you’re describing is a revolutionary, rather than evolutionary, act.
I’m a conservative. I like gradual change, because revolutions usually — not always, but usually — end badly. In the present climate, and with the rather shallow and volatile personalities who dominate our politics, I have little enthusiasm for revolution.
Also, I am fairly certain that the prospects for a successful conservative third party are approximately nil. The likely outcome of blowing up the Republican party is Democratic rule for the foreseeable future. So I hope we don’t try that.
I don’t think that’s correct. There is not, of course, perfect unity. That would be a bad thing. But there was more unity, prior to Trump, than there is today, wouldn’t you agree? I certainly can’t remember mainstream conservatives as divided as they are today, with prominent conservative figures of long-standing calling for, for example, broad Democratic party victories to deliver a message to Republican office holders.
So, while we were never perfectly united, saying that there was “no unity” seems mistaken to me; and arguing that there wasn’t more unity than there is today also seems mistaken.
I don’t doubt that it’s accurate: as I said in my post, I broadly agree with Senator Romney.
But it was inopportune, counter-productive, unnecessary, divisive, self-destructive, and tacky. I hoped for better from Senator Romney, a man I have always respected and for whom I enthusiastically voted.
Trump hasn’t changed the Republican party. Two years of Republican domination wasted demonstrates that. The GOP remains a broad alliance of disparate interests with leadership favorable to the status quo and independent of a president.
Romney is right that Trump is a poor charismatic leader. But Romney was not so critical of Obama or Democrats, so I doubt ugly politics and abrasive leadership are really what bother him about Trump.
Trump is no hero. But it’s absurd that most criticisms of his presidency regard fear of hypotheticals while most of his policies and diplomatic negotiations have been beneficial. His manners can be boorish, but the Right was already embracing schadenfreude and vulgarity before his election.
In the spirit of friendly disagreement: I’m not sure where to take this. Was the GOP atomized to the point that it was every man for himself, no of course not. There was some unity, but there were a number of factions with deep differences and a lot of intraparty hostility. My recollection is that John Boehner quit the Speakership in disgust of not being able to reach agreement within his own caucus. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz in particular showed up with a agenda that seemed exclusively directed at sniping at GOP leadership more than anything else. The problem with Trump is that he is happy to further stir the pot of discontent within his own team. I will absolutely concede that he did not create the various problems within the GOP and he is more of a response than a cause, but he is doing nothing to resolve the problem. If leadership will not exert force to keep the group together, then the forces pulling the group apart will prevail. That being said, I’m not sure the divisions we are experiencing today are along the same lines the GOP was experiencing pre-2015-16.
Again, in the spirit of friendly inquisitiveness: Romney’s communication was (in addition to being inopportune) “counter-productive, unnecessary, divisive, self-destructive and tacky” … yet accurate … how should he have communicated his concern that character is important to effective political leadership and public policy and his misgivings about the President’s behavior?
Getting down to brass tacks: If my political relationship with Trump is purely transactional, then I owe him no loyalty. I was told to walk with the devil to cross the bridge; vote for Trump despite all his flaws to prevent Clinton from becoming President (the Flight 93 Election). That also reduced his utility the moment he took the oath. I was told this was purely quid-pro-quo: He does what I want, then I give him political support; if he doesn’t do what I want, then I withhold that support. If he behaves badly, then why shouldn’t I or anyone else point that out? And if I do point it out, then why should there always be this cacophony of outrage from Trump supporters (who told us in 2016 it was all transactional)?
Comments in the feed throw character over the side as being unnecessary and expectations of public leaders being monarchical. Something else that is monarchical is unquestioned personal loyalty; the expectation that our duty must be directed to the individual serving in the office. I cannot think of anything that has been more disgusting and un-American in my lifetime than the demands of personal loyalty demanded by presidents in recent decades. I thought it was disgusting when the Democrats rallied to defend the Clintons’ bottomless corruption, I thought it was disgusting watching celebrities pledge their allegiance and kids singing songs to Obama, and I find Trump’s demands of personal loyalty to be no less troublesome. We’re Americans; our oath is to the Constitution and to its preservation. Trump does not get a pass from expectations for American leaders; if he wants to be a disruptive agent then he should bear up under the inevitable response.
Back in 2016 I got into a lot of back-and-forth on Ricochet because of my hostility to Trump as the GOP nominee. My concern was his character and my fear that it would lead him to self-destruct. I was told that I needed to get over myself, and that he would inevitably step up his game. My response then was to ask his supporters when they plan to hold his feet to the fire, because until you hold his feet to the fire his behavior is just going to get worse. So let me ask again: At what point do we hold his feet to the fire? And if we are not going to hold his feet to the fire, then how much baggage am I expected to throw over the side for no one’s benefit but his?
It is my understanding that many Republicans in Congress have said what Mitt said in private but refuse to say it publicly. Mitt had the guts to say it publicly.
As those of us who have been following the Mueller investigation have come to understand, our alphabet agencies are not really protecting us but The Elite. The Hillary Clinton side of the equation, to be precise.
Since Donald Trump became the Chief Executive, arrests for pedophilia and sex slave trafficking have soared. I stopped following this issue about fifteen months ago, but even then, from 01-20-17 to 01-08-2017, over 6,000 people had been arrested for such activities, with over 2200 women and children freed from their lives as sex slaves.
One reason for the upsurge in arrests is that prior to the Trump Administration taking over, various laws prevented Homeland Security from doing very much about such activities inside the USA. The arrests under Obama were mostly in places such as the Philippines.
And this interesting report came from John Kiriakou, regarding the CIA’s enmeshment with the sex trade trafficking:
“The CIA veteran described how he would meet up with an elite source in a hotel. In return for information, the source would demand a child.
“Kiriakou explained how he would think of the elite foreign oligarchs as being “scumbags”, but that he would be forced to “give them what they wanted”.
Full article about Kiriakou’s revelations plus youtube video are here: https://www.topsecretwriters.com/2018/01/cia-agent-says-agency-supplies-pedophiles-children/
Interesting to some of us how despite Trump’s lack of character, some major changes are going down, and various high officials are going down on account of those changes.
Yeah that just doesn’t work for me. Large parts of the conservative media have said the same or worse. Jeff Flake, Jon McCain and Ben Sasse have all said the same type of things. This is not a new view, Mitt is not having his own “Spartacus moment” as the one person willing to voice these thoughts that have been all over the press and this site for years.
I wonder how many of these shy members of congress asked for Trump’s endorsement in a 2012 election, may have been interested in a high profile job in the administration and then asked for Trump’s endorsement in 2018. Mitt’s main complaints were well known when accepted the endorsement. Courage would have been telling Trump off before the election, not after Trump asked his supporters to vote for Romney.
I do appreciate friendly disagreement. Thank you. ;)
Yes, there were factions prior to Trump. But, honestly, are you willing to take the position that the party is not much more divided now than it was then?
We have George Will calling for a Democrat landslide, in order to teach the Republicans a lesson. We have Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot abandoning conservatism itself in protest. We have Bill Kristol and Mona Charen becoming anti-Trump obsessives, despite a big Republican majority supporting the President.
There was no never-Bush movement within the party. I’m aware of no never-Clinton or never-Obama movement on the left. I will argue that we have a uniquely vitriolic contingent now within the erstwhile Republican ranks (even as the party, overall, remains supportive, however reluctantly, of this President).
He shouldn’t have. He should have kept his public mouth shut and worked to bring productive pressure and encouragement to the President. He didn’t tell us anything we don’t know. What he did was burn whatever bridge he might have had to the Oval Office — not in terms of being elected, but in terms of influencing the President.
That’s that statesmanship thing: knowing when to refrain from saying the obvious, no matter how true and satisfying it might be.
Further friendly disagreement. (You’re welcome.)
It’s at least as divided I would say. Are we in raging agreement?
It seems to me that there is always someone who put themselves forward as an arch conservative who then “grows” and slams everything they stood for. David Brock comes to mind. I seem to recall during the latter part of the W Administration there was a W staffer who became the flavor of the month by writing some tell-all about his disappointment. It’s along the same lines of the Media’s position that the only good GOP President is a dead one. In ’08 I remember some noteworthy Republicans publicly announcing their support of Obama.
So what we are seeing is not unprecedented, but what we are experiencing is caught up in a more visceral push-and-pull within our politics.
Oh, I very much disagree. It may not have been as large but at times it was (and still is) vitriolic. Republicans who did not like Bush in ’88 despised him by ’92, and there has always been a faction hostile to the Bushes as a political dynasty. Just say something nice about Jeb! in a Ricochet post sometime and wait for the response.
I think this approaches a category error. Do keep in mind Bob Hope’s line about this from The Ghost Breakers when he asked about zombies:
“You see them sometimes walking around blindly with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring.”
His response: “You mean like Democrats?”
This actually does not surprise me. As the Democratic Party got taken over by Progressives, it became the party of “Yes”; any philosophical disagreement comes down to a bidding war. With regard to expectations of personal behavior and conduct, the Democrats threw that over the side decades ago. As the GOP got taken over by Conservatives, it became the party of “No” and you’re going to have deep divisions and factions as you go through the hard work of setting priorities and making choices.
I also find the “erstwhile” Republicans rather annoying; those who proclaim, with a sigh, that they are a man/woman without a party. Do you vote for the GOP candidate for mayor? Do you vote for the GOP candidate for State House? Do you vote for the GOP candidate for State Senate? Do you vote for the GOP candidates for the US House and Senate? Yes to all? Guess what? You’re a Republican regardless of what you think of Trump.
In other words, get in line and shut up?
My priest doesn’t tell me anything I don’t know, but he still has a duty to address the issues of our behavior and conduct. There is a probably a slight (but important) difference between telling people what they already know versus telling them what they do not want to hear. Bottom line, Trump only seems responsive to flattery. Jeff Flake voted for the Administration’s initiatives very frequently, but was a public scold. Verdict – Anti-Trump. Rand Paul mucks up the works frequently for the Administration, but publicly strokes Trump. Bottom line, he’s well regarded.
Also let’s keep something in mind: Trump is sui generis and in 24 or 72 months we’re going to have a new President. Who gets the benefit of this free-for-all attitude in the GOP once DJT goes back to Trump Tower?
That also sounds like a good lackey. I’m just not aware of anyone who became a great statesman by keeping his mouth shut. Maybe a good diplomat or some other agent, but not a statesman. Churchill was despised in the 1930s for saying the obvious about Hitler, but he was considered a statesman (in part) for saying the obvious about Hitler that no one wanted to hear. [Am I equating Trump’s bad behavior to anything related to Hitler: No.]
But why is it that we all seem to agree that Trump’s conduct is troublesome and counterproductive, but no one wants anything done about it? I see no value coming out of his Twitter feed. I do not benefit from the mess Trump made with porn stars. I have always been shocked by how Trump treats other people. I don’t think much of Comey, but the Director of the FBI doesn’t deserve to find out he was fired from the news while giving an address. I think a lot of Jeff Sessions and he didn’t deserve the humiliation he got. Now Mattis seems to be getting his share; I think a universe more of him and his judgment than I will ever for Trump’s. This mess with Michael Cohen is entirely self-inflicted, another example of Trump cheating on a wife and cutting corners. If our daily politics have to be continually dragged into his swamp, then I guess I really don’t care if Romney or anyone else refuses to get in line.
This certainly beats Mona Charon’s piece!! Great work and well reasoned. Thank you.
He could have secured the nomination and run for president.
Yeah, I think his message might have been good about three years ago.
Now it’s just a [redact]-move.
Well, there was this guy.
It would have been sufficient to stop after “petty” and “irresponsible.”
I’ve questioned Romney’s character ever since I saw his hit piece (video) against Trump in the 2016 cycle juxtaposed with the video of him accepting Trump’s endorsement — and cash — in the 2012 race. That’s what we call, “unseemly” in politics. Unprincipled, too.
MSJL, I think you’re glossing over the degree to which the party is more at war with itself than at any time in recent memory. You can’t cite anti-Jeb sentiment as an example of Never-Bush: the Never-Trump movement is opposed to the sitting Republican President, not the third potential Bush in the White House. Similarly, you can’t compare the occasional turncoat Republican with major luminaries of the right, guys of George Will’s stature, calling for Democratic victory. No, we have an internal division we haven’t seen since Nixon, at least.
That’s an odd thing to say, as if there were some compelling reason for Senator Romney to issue a critical op-ed piece about the President as his first conspicuous act in office. There wasn’t. It accomplished nothing, other than to distance Romney from the President and effectively eliminate his value as a counselor.
Given that Romney, in terms of presidential prestige, is, with the death of McCain, the second highest ranking member of the Republican party, that seems a pointless gesture.
That’s the gist of my assertion: nothing was achieved beyond some redundant moral preening; what was lost is the possibility that a senior Republican statesman might have been a much needed voice of moderation in this administration.
No one told him to get in line and shut up, obviously. But someone should have suggested that he think about what’s best for his party and his country, rather than whatever peculiar urge motivated him to shoot us all in the foot.
Maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but it seems to me that a person might refrain from shivving his ally in the back as a sort of general rule.
Both TBA and Henry: Fair enough on all points. As for being a counselor, perhaps this is a reflection that Romney does not plan to try to influence Trump behind the scenes; after two years it’s not clear who can exercise any influence over Trump’s judgment. The President is a force unto himself and he ultimately reverts to dysfunction.
As for shivving allies in the back, does anyone want to review Trump’s Twitter feed about Jeff Sessions or any other number of Republicans going back over the years? This goes back to my complaints about personal loyalties: Somehow we are all expected to be punctilious with regard to Donald Trump while he reciprocates nothing. As a fellow Utahan, I’ll bet Romney has a higher regard for Mia Love than he has for Trump, and he probably didn’t fail to notice Trump punching down after the election and kicking her on the way out. He’s a nasty piece of work, and our constant excuses for his conduct isn’t going to improve things.
One of the things that comforted me early in the administration was the quality Cabinet and WH staff (Bannon excepted) appointments and Trump’s seeming deference to men like Mattis who understand the different subjects much better than he. That is no longer the case. I understand fully Trump is the President and he does not have to defer to anyone in exercising the powers of the office but, with the exception of the last guy, he may be the least prepared person to ever hold the office. Presidents have Cabinet secretaries and staff for a reason. I am shocked anyone, especially someone like Bill Barr, would want to accept such a position under Trump given how men like Jeff Sessions have been treated.
I agree completely the talk from Trump supporters about Republicans stabbing him in the back fall flat given how Trump has behaved
And I can’t disagree with that except that ‘Trump is so toxic to our brand that he is forcing me to be toxic to our brand despite my being such a great guy” is the standard pig-wrestler’s argument. Romney’s in the mud with Trump but he wants us to know he doesn’t enjoy it.
I’m not sure, “That guy is in the mud and I wish he would get out” puts the speaker in the mud as well.
That guy is in the mud and it is a problem, unless I need/want something from him then it is just fine, does put the speaker in the mud.
Not sure when Romney has needed something from Trump but regardless, how so?
Broader point: Is there ever going to be an appropriate time for Romney or any other Republican to publicly utter the words: “I have a problem with this man’s behavior”?
I am getting the sense that the answer is “no”.
We are all just expected to nod thoughtfully at whatever spills out on the floor, silently mop up the mess, and hope voters continue to show up next November.
What shocked us in the 1990s with Bill Clinton now appears to be our playbook.
Not even close to a fair comparison. When we get credible evidence of rape, sex with interns in the white house, and lying under oath maybe you have a point.
I believe he was referring to Romney soliciting and accepting Trump’s endorsement for his senate campaign?
This is not directed at either of you, but Romney and Goldberg and many of the vocal Trump opponents on the right. Seems to me we have a new faction of conservatives – the character cons. They don’t really care if any conservative policy gets implemented, so long as their elected officials are perfect role models and have not sinned. Far better to have immense pride in the personal character of who you vote for than to have constitutional limited government and rule of law. Those are nice sounding ideals, but just out of reach, so why get dirty fighting for them?
Romney lost, giving us 4 more years of Obama socialism. But he was such a nice guy! So morally upstanding! It was worth losing to be able to vote for such a wonderful man!
And his endorsement and money in Romney’s presidential run before that. But, he’s so, so principled.
Trump was who he is in 2012. An awful lot of this existed then. In 2012 Romney didn’t have a problem with Trump, he went to Trump to ask for his endorsement. During the campaign Romney spoke out against Trump. When Trump was elected and Romney was hinting about the Sec State job, Romney no longer had a problem with Trump. In 2018 Romney wanted or even if it was just accepted Trumps endorsement. In 2019 Romney no longer had any need of Trump so his character was again a big deal.
Nothing happened, no new insight between October of 2018 and January of 2019 that created a “last straw”. Trump was OK when Romney could get something and not OK when Romney would never need him again.
Sure. If/when Trump does something new that is unacceptable. This thing that Trump just did/said is unacceptable. It requires a certain newness.
Trump two days ago was the same as three months ago, was same as 3 years ago. Most every “character” complaint existed before he was elected. Trump did nothing new over New Years for any one to react to.
If Romney was such a stand up guy and had such big issues he should have refused Trumps endorsement. That was the time to be a “big man” not after the election.
How about … credible evidence of cheating on his wife, paying for a cover-up, demanding the Attorney General make decisions regarding the Independent Counsel based on the President’s personal/political interests, having his campaign (through Don Jr.) contact a Russian connection basically to see if the Russian government had any useful information on the Clinton campaign it wanted to share, possible obstruction of justice charges (based on how you view the whole Flynn/Comey kerfuffle), etc. Do you really want to get Donald J. Trump under oath to testify about anything?
Even if you want to needle through all these examples, argue away legal liability, and take point-by-point exception versus WJC’s behavior, this is all very slimy. Is this now the norm we have to expect in exchange for getting a list of names on a Federalist list nominated to the courts?
I do not recall a day when conservatives ever espoused an ends-justify-the-means approach to our public discourse and governance. A “character con” is not a new thing, because once (at least vocally) we were all character cons. I also don’t think there is anyone who is making the argument for character before all other objectives, but rather why must I make a trade off. We used to say that our Constitution was intended for a virtuous people. Conservatives used to uniformly say that character is an important component of our body politic, and not that long ago. It seems like such a prominent issue primarily because Trump’s conduct tends to suck the oxygen out of the room.
Down the road there’s a price to be paid; voters do recoil from bad behavior. Republicans were crushed in ’74 after Nixon’s resignation and Gore likely lost in ’00 because of the Clinton impeachment. How many Republican House members didn’t come back this week?