First the Douchebag of the Week award, then this? A guy could almost feel sorry for the smarmy, overprivileged little mediocrity.
Hey, I did say almost.
Why Mitt Romney’s Call for Moderation Is Dishonest And Dangerous
In an essay published on July 4 in The Atlantic, Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, sounded off on the political polarization tearing apart the nation. In expected fashion, he directs the most ire against Donald Trump-supporting conservatives for making the United States “a nation in denial.”
Specifically, he says these Republican voters deny the seriousness of climate change and January 6, 2021. He somehow absolves Joe Biden of any blame for our nation’s current messes and instead blames Americans: “President Joe Biden is a genuinely good man, but he has yet been unable to break through our national malady of denial, deceit, and distrust.” After making his case for compromise, Romney concludes with the hope that a future leader not named Trump “will rise above the din to unite us behind the truth.”
To say that Romney’s essay is banal, insipid, or shallow would be an understatement. At this point, under this leadership, and with major problems plaguing the country, Romney’s argument is outright dangerous. He completely mischaracterizes the situation, acting as if both sides are at fault and a middle ground can be found when it’s clear Democrats are fully intent on wrecking the American constitutional order and putting the country at risk of disintegration.
Quite understandably, many Republican voters are not just upset at this situation, but fearful. They see their country turning into a tyranny that wants to silence and oppress them. Today’s left increasingly believes in nothing except power. Consequently, they lie about everything, introduce chaos and dysfunction into society, demonize and ruin all dissenters, and hoard as much power and money as they can.
That’s why Romney’s anachronistic calls for compromise and unity can’t be tolerated. They will inevitably lead to a one-party state that serves an elite class of Americans while driving everyone into dependency on government. Already this can be seen in Democrat-run states and cities, where politicians do what they please and continue being reelected despite their obvious corruption and incompetence.
This is why conservatives should stop paying any mind to ostensibly “moderate” Republicans like Romney, Rep. Liz Cheney, and Sen. Susan Collins. They are more than mere nuisances who are unreliable and out of touch; their work in hampering conservative policies and trying to win favor from Democrats enables a grave threat to the nation’s constitutional order. They are appeasers of the worst kind, treating all sides as if they all negotiate in good faith and claiming the moral high ground while their country goes up in flames.
Contrary to Romney’s argument, it is he and his fellow moderates who are in denial. They are pushing the lie that today’s conflict is between two parties who have alternative approaches to achieving the common good for all Americans. In reality, one party wants to destroy the country, and the other party doesn’t (to say that the GOP wants to actively build up the country might be too kind). There is no middle ground right now, and the sooner Americans realize this and respond appropriately, the sooner our dysfunction and polarization will diminish.
The Romneys, Cheneys, Collinses, and McConnells of the world can never be “part of the solution,” in the words of the old saw; their center-stage role as part of the problem effectively precludes any such possibility. As the author says, there is no middle ground now; the fences that the politically “moderate” might easily have straddled in less fractious times are now topped with concertina wire.
We live now in an age of radicalism—a time in which the struggle between two diametrically-opposed Very Big Ideas must be resolved. Squishy, dissembling “moderates” of Mitt’s ilk find it exceedingly unpleasant to be pinned down as to their beliefs, their program, and their ambitions, which will serve to effectively sideline them for the duration. Their comfortable satisfaction with a clearly untenable status quo puts the last bit of icing on the cake.
“Moderates,” like their “liberal” kissing cousins, are luxuries which only a relatively placid, prosperous society can afford to indulge. When a society finds itself riven by upheaval, strife, and turmoil—as ours now is, as all of them sooner or later are—”moderate” political hacks are about as useful as teats on a boar hog to have rattling around the place.
The conflict of our era could not possibly be more stark and elemental: between liberty and tyranny. We will have freedom, or we will not. On this battlefield, in this time, there is no place for complacency, indifference, or irresolution. Ultimately, like or dislike it, “moderates” face the same choice as every American does. They can either take a stand, or stand aside.