Mittens' Mutiny

Supposedly, a major benefit of democracy over autocracy is that it prevents the worst-case scenario. Autocracy is no doubt the superior mode of government - given an ideal autocrat. However, rulers are never ideal, rule by a poor autocrat is much worse than democracy, and power transfers can become costly disasters. Democracy excels by preventing the empowerment of the inept and by providing a continuity of at least decent governance.

Contrary to all that, I'm often surprised at how often the electorates choose the worst candidate possible for some position. In 2016, the year that Republicans routed Democrats in Missouri statewide elections, there were four Republican candidates for governor. Peter Kinder was the best candidate, and the worst was Eric Greitens, who campaigned under the platform of "I was a Navy Seal." To my dismay, the voters of Missouri fell for the ruse by a large margin. The result was a scandal-ridden show of ineptitude that collapsed after losing the support of other key Republican officials. The blame for the embarrassing incident rests solely on the shoulders of Missouri's conservative voters, who should have known better.

In 2012, Republican voters also blundered when they nominated Mitt Romney as their presidential candidate. The primary vector to attack Obama was via Obamacare. Conservatives hated the legislation on principle, it was passed by shady means, its grand opening was an epic debacle, and millions of Americans had either been unable to obtain the insurance they'd been promised through their state exchanges, or had lost their previous insurance and been forced to take on more expensive insurance. And in that environment, Republicans nominated the one man in the whole country who could not take his opponent to task over Obamacare, because he was the only man in the country who, as an executive, has passed legislation similar to Obamacare. Oops.

Refusing to learn a lesson, the great but misguided state of Utah recently elected Mitt Romney as their new US Senator. It was so stupid it hurt, sort of like Wisconsin sending Paul Ryan back to DC, but here we are anyway. As the foremost Republican NeverTrumper during 2016, Romney's bid was always transparently an anti-Trump reaction (especially after Trump publicly teased him with a cabinet position). Fittingly, his first act in Washington has been to send a Trump-bashing op-ed to that town's premiere Democrat party publication. I say fittingly as opposed to predictably because, while our cynicism is rarely misplaced, I and other writers in the reactionary right are routinely surprised at how brazen these people can be. With the op-ed, Romney's intentions are now crystal clear. Is it wise for him to tip his hand like that, before even swearing in? It can't be, but then all publicity is good publicity, and Romney thinks he can beat Trump at his own game.

Romney plans to go to Washington, battle Trump, oust him from office, and take the presidency for himself. That's why he's taking shots so quickly. He isn't waiting around for 2024 or even 2020 (I suspect), and he doesn't want to cede the glory of defeating neo-Hitler to the Democrats. And, short of that, he can at least position himself for a 2024 bid using his anti-Trump street cred to gain support from moderates and the Trump-bashing media. Basically, he's expecting that he can beat out other Republican contenders if he throws in with the establishment. Such a strategy has failed decisively in all the last three elections, but it's the best shot that this power-hungry cretin has.

The op-ed is amusing because Romney refrains from attacking Trump on anything specific. However, in his attempt to not alienate the conservatives who love what Trump is doing in Washington, he does provide several specifics of praise.

His early appointments of Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Nikki Haley, Gary Cohn, H.R. McMaster, Kelly and Mattis were encouraging. [...] He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years.

Otherwise, the article is a vague attack on Trump's leadership, and more specific list of the ways Mittens will provide better leadership. The most specific criticism of Trump comes in the opening paragraph.

The departures of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, the appointment of senior persons of lesser experience, the abandonment of allies who fight beside us, and the president’s thoughtless claim that America has long been a “sucker” in world affairs all defined his presidency down.

Trump's staffing has often been a shit show, probably his biggest shortcoming so far. And yet, it's politically not that significant. Not one vote has changed in response to cabinet appointments. Romney only mentions this first because he is a shark who smells blood in the water. The "abandonment of allies" accusation is vague, probably he is just piggybacking on recent establishment media attacks on Trump for withdrawing troops from Syria. Apparently Romney - who later shares the platitude that "America is strongest when our arms are linked with other nations" - also thinks America should militarily invade more other nations, not fewer. And finally, his most confounding accusation is that Trump's claims that America has been a "sucker" in world affairs is "thoughtless". Just what party is Mitt planning to run for? He can't be planning a switch to Democrats, given even his mild praise of Trump's policies. Plus it's questionable whether a white man could even attain a Democrat nomination at this point, let alone a rich capitalist. So he must intend to remain Republican. In the last election, Trump and Kellyanne Conway showed that a Republican can still win in long-shot swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by adopting the economic policy that America's heartland has indeed been hollowed out because Washington agrees to crummy trade deals and doesn't protect blue-collar industries. Does Romney think he can gin up enough mainstream support that he won't need to win in the Rust Belt? Two scenarios present themselves. Either Romney isn't actually very smart, or he isn't actually running for president.

To reassume our leadership in world politics, we must repair failings in our politics at home. That project begins, of course, with the highest office once again acting to inspire and unite us. [Goes on to explain the leadership he can provide.]

That's unambiguous language of presidential ambition, particularly from the man who already ran and lost once. So then, is Romney stupid, in his seemingly callous disregard for the winning recipe? While he takes care not to offend conservatives (besides insulting their beloved president) he doesn't take much effort to appeal to them either. This is a declaration of allegiance to the establishment.

I will speak out against significant statements or actions that are divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions.

Mitt Romney, defender of the fake progressive platform of virtues. So what's going on here? Romney would have to be very stupid and unobservant to think he can abandon Trump's winning economic message, go all in with the establishment, raise even more resentment from conservatives than is already there, and have even a glimmer of hope of winning a Republican primary. It could be that he's very stupid, or that he is just suffering from acute Trump Derangement Syndrome. Here's another theory that doesn't assume Romney - a successful businessman who got elected as a Republican in Massachusetts - is extremely stupid:

Democrats will be gunning to impeach Trump in 2019, no matter how ridiculous the accusations. Of course, it's all meaningless without the Senate. Romney's job is to rally enough Republican support to flip the Senate. After Trump is ousted, his establishment allies put pressure on Pence to graciously retire as well, and Mitt is appointed to take over.

Sound far-fetched? The alternative is that Romney is stupid and unhinged. Which is possible, but it would also imply that all his staff are too, and any allies he interacted with in deciding to launch his opinion piece, and so on. He openly states he wants the president removed. He appeals to the establishment. He has run before. All the pieces fit.

Some predictions that result from the theory.

1. Romney will not criticize the Mueller operation, and will use whatever is in the report to attack Trump.
2. Romney will not seriously criticize Democrat operations to impeach. He may offer some token resistance only to be won over by their case, if he's sly. Or, as brazen as he is, he might come out early with full-throated support.
3. Romney will contribute to a PR campaign against Pence. (Unless he angles for VP.)
4. Democrats/media will not strongly attack Romney.
5. As Senator, Romney will be working to build support from foreign leaders, especially from European allies.

While it's unfortunate that Utah voters are mostly dunces, at least Mittens' Mutiny is sure to provide enough entertainment value to make it all worthwhile. I believe that Romney is foolish and all his scheming will delightfully fail. Still, I've learned not to underestimate the ability of our American democracy to pick the worst possible candidate for a job.