Mitt Romney: A modern man for all seasons
During his floor speech explaining his vote to convict Donald Trump, Mitt Romney was overcome by emotion and paused to compose himself.
The intense moment came when he spoke of his devotion to God, saying: “I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am.”
Lump in throat. Long pause.
“I take an oath before God as enormously consequential.”
The oath, in this case, was the one all 100 senators swore — to do impartial justice as jurors in the trial of the president.
It made me think of a line from Robert Bolt’s play “A Man for All Seasons,” a classic that used to be much quoted by people who now dance as marionettes on Donald Trump’s strings. It’s a play about conscience, politics, the pressure to conform to the group and the sticking point when men of integrity can be pushed so far and no farther. Like reverence for Winston Churchill, admiration for this play used to be nearly universal among conservatives. (The 1966 movie, starring Paul Scofield, is a gem.)
Explaining that he could not falsely swear an oath, as it was a declaration before God, Thomas More says, “When a man takes an oath, he’s holding his own self in his own hands like water, and if he opens his fingers then, he needn’t hope to find himself again.”
Romney, having sworn to do impartial justice, could not — or more accurately, would not — evade the truth.
The president abused his power by using the weapon of American military aid (which he was not legally permitted to withhold) to extort an ally under attack. The demand was for a criminal investigation into a political opponent when there was no evidence that the Bidens had done anything illegal, not that Trump, who favors repealing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and who was in negotiations to build a Trump Tower Moscow throughout the 2016 campaign, has anything against corruption in general. The clear purpose was to invent a corruption narrative that Trump could then exploit in the campaign. “Joe Biden is so corrupt. He’s under investigation by Ukraine!”
It was unseemly for Hunter Biden to trade on his father’s name for a plum spot on the board of Burisma, but it was not illegal. There was nothing for Ukraine to investigate. As for Joe Biden, there was zero evidence that he did anything to protect his son’s company (on the contrary, his pressure to fire a corrupt prosecutor arguably put Burisma in jeopardy).
Nothing that the Bidens did merited investigation. If their names had not been Biden, Romney noted, Trump would never have acted.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, too, acknowledged that these are the facts, only to scurry behind the vapid excuse that this is for the people, not the Senate, to decide. Romney was unwilling to sidle away from responsibility. If the Founding Fathers had intended that such things would fall only to the people to decide, they would not have included impeachment in the Constitution. No, they gave the job to senators.
Only one Republican senator has demonstrated the backbone to do his duty. (Which, it should be noted, is one more than the number of Democratic senators who were willing to do their duty when Bill Clinton was tried.)
Some of the president’s defenders hotly declare that those who favor impeachment and removal do not “trust the people.” As a matter of fact, that’s right. The founders did not entirely trust the people. They were critics of direct democracy.
In Federalist 51, James Madison wrote: “A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
He added: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”
The people look to leaders, trustworthy leaders ideally, for guidance. Throughout this period, one after another Republican leader has shirked this responsibility.
In More’s time (under Henry VIII), adhering to conscience required the ultimate sacrifice. He lost everything — his office, his liberty and, ultimately, his life — for refusing to violate his conscience. In our time, adhering to conscience carries the risk of Twitter abuse, being shunned by fellow Republicans and possibly losing an election. That is too much, apparently, for all but one of them to hazard.
That isn’t just an indictment of their characters. Another line from Bolt’s play feels relevant. Thomas More laments, “I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”
IN OUR TIME, ADHERING TO CONSCIENCE CARRIES THE RISK OF TWITTER ABUSE, BEING SHUNNED BY FELLOW REPUBLICANS AND POSSIBLY LOSING AN ELECTION. THAT IS TOO MUCH, APPARENTLY, FOR ALL BUT ONE OF THEM TO HAZARD.
Allow me to take you back. The year is 1957 and “Leave it to Beaver” debuts in black and white on CBS.
The earnest and playful family comedy offers up solvable moral dilemmas and a heaping spoonful of unvarnished optimism in the American Dream for six years and remains for many people one of the greatest television shows of all time.
But one of the reasons the show was so popular was that it was, for many at the time, an escape from the anxiety-inducing social, cultural and economic changes affecting the country at a rapid pace. The Cleavers’ idealized version of 1950s American suburbia — safe, white, upwardly mobile and meritocratic — masked a reality that simply didn’t match the white picket fences of Mapleton Drive. Much to the contrary, at the time America was starting to feel the most significant economic downturn post-WWII in the Eisenhower Recession.
That year, 1957, the Arkansas National Guard was called to prevent the “Little Rock Nine,” a group of African American school children, from attending a white school. (Eisenhower then federalized the Guard, ordering them to support the integration and protect the black students.)
The Cold War had kids hiding under desks in duck-and-cover drills, and the Gaither Report called for even more missiles and fallout shelters.
Jimmy Hoffa was arrested, Ed
Gein committed his final murder and the Dodgers left Brooklyn.
“Leave it to Beaver” was very much an antidote to all of this, a television show that made America feel better than it really had reason to.
I’ll be the first to admit, President Trump’s State of the Union on Tuesday night gave me all the feels. From surprising a military mom with the return of her enlisted husband, to announcing a scholarship for a Philadelphia school girl, the event felt more like an episode of “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” than the dry accounting of our economic and political health that it so often does. For a reality TV president, that’s fitting.
Trump boasted of a good economy, record-low unemployment, a successful anti-terror campaign, a war on opioids, and laudable, progressive legislation like paid family leave and criminal justice reform.
To be clear, the details were fuzzy and sometimes even false. As is often the case, Trump wasn’t so much speaking in truths but in themes: a strong but compassionate America that wasn’t just surviving, but thriving.
For a moment, it was hard not to feel good about the state of our union. Whatever your prescriptions for our many problems, who could argue with the obvious gratitude on the faces of real people in Trump’s America.
Except it wasn’t real. Of course, it was real to the individuals who clearly did benefit from a Trump administration policy, favor or giveaway. Nothing should take away from their sense of appreciation.
But as avatars, they felt more like the exceptions than the rules. Even in an America with low unemployment and steady job creation.
It is commendable, for example,
THE CLEAVERS’ IDEALIZED VERSION OF 1950S AMERICAN SUBURBIA — SAFE, WHITE, UPWARDLY MOBILE AND MERITOCRATIC — MASKED A REALITY THAT SIMPLY DIDN’T MATCH THE WHITE PICKET FENCES OF MAPLETON DRIVE.
to honor Gold Star families. It’s commendable to honor our troops and our veterans.
But Trump has notably and repeatedly antagonized and belittled other servicemen and women. And he has faced wholly justifiable criticism from those same groups since he was elected, just recently for calling the traumatic brain injuries suffered by soldiers in Iraq “headaches,” and “not very serious.”
It’s commendable to honor victims of terrorism. But reckless foreign policy throughout the Middle East has endangered Americans and our allies.
It’s commendable to honor global defenders of democracy, like Venezuela’s Juan Guaido and Ivan Simonovis, who fight totalitarianism. But Trump has repeatedly defended and even celebrated the world’s worst dictators, and he has sought to oppress democratic institutions like a free press here at home. Meantime, his efforts in Venezuela have been scattershot and ineffective.
It’s commendable to want to protect our children from premature birth complications, bullying, failing schools and all other ills. But this administration has ripped immigrant children away from their parents at the border. Seven kids — that we know of — have died in ICE custody. Trump has also sided with the NRA against common-sense gun control measures to keep our kids safe.
We should commend this administration for helping the people it has, including the inspiring honorees at Trump’s State of the Union address. But behind the anecdotes is the very real pain this administration has caused to wide swaths of Americans and would-be Americans.
The version of America Trump presented last night was meant to make us feel good. But there’s another America that Trump presides over, too — the one he often likes to malign, dismiss and denigrate, both in words and policy. And for them, life is not the idealized snapshot he offered last night.