Start Where You’re At: Mitt Romney?

Holy hell, it’s been hard to blog this year. I don’t know whether to blame the additional State Fair job, the suckiness of my regular job, the world as it is, or just the natural ebb & flow of being human, but the longer I’m away the harder it is to come back. Do I try to wow you with some heretofore hidden epiphany? Catch you up on my life? (yawn) List all of the spiritual accomplishments I’ve acquired in 2023? (ha!) Nah. Here’s what caught my attention today.

I pedaled over to the DMV this morning (they don’t call it the DMV in Minnesota, but fuck that: it’s the DMV) for a relatively painless Real ID appointment and plugged into Fresh Air’s interview with the author of Mitt Romney’s bio for the ride. Like many, I am intrigued with the recent revelations from the ageless Mormon, and have been mildly impressed with the integrity he’s maintained during his Senate terms. He has a family history of doing the right thing: as HUD Secretary, his father attempted to deny federal funding to communities that were de facto racially segregated, before Nixon shut him down (check out the This American Life segment if you want more on that). And voting for impeachment was impressive, especially considering the bodyguards he’s been personally paying for ever since.

Anyhoo, what my Buddhish perception found most intriguing about the interview was Romney’s bemusement over the self-imposed enslavement of most Senators to the US Senate. In his words, the chamber is “a club for old men” whose “psychic currency” as a human is built on the foundation of Being a US Senator. Not just that their job is important to them, but, for most of them, their identity is their job. The decisive question when making a vote is “will this help me get reelected?” He said he has tried to reason with them, to use himself as an example: that failing to win the Presidency as a major party nominee was about the biggest loss one could imagine, and he came out okay. But clearly, most of these guys are not like Romney. And many of these guys are not okay.

I’ve occasionally been confused by the contortions some Republicans have made to twist their lips onto Trump’s ass. I try not to assume that people are evil, so I look for motivation behind actions that are incomprehensible to me. Why even be an elected official if you don’t have issues or policies you care about? Why remain an elected official if you’ve caved on everything you purportedly did care about? Why play lackey to a narcissistic fool who would sell you out and put your life in jeopardy just to generate more likes on Twitter? You could probably make a lot more money in the private sector (especially once you’ve held office). And they don’t do it only because they fear actual retaliation – these spineless humanoids were selling out before Trump had the power to literally rally unhinged fans to attack them. In fact, it was the Republican party’s utter prostration to Trump that helped forge the mob of the unhinged that we’re all grappling with today. Is it just the lust for power? Maybe, but how much power do you actually have when a volatile, infantile, failed businessman controls your every move?

I think it’s something else. What Romney has that most of his old, White colleagues do not is an apparently real commitment to his form of morality, apparently from the Mormon church. It’s hard for me to believe that the guidance I receive from Buddhist practice & dharma is anything like the “spirituality” others glean from conservative religions, but I have to admit that my disbelief comes primarily from ignorance. There are countless fucked up things about the mainstream Mormon church (though far more about FLDS – hoo-boy!) but there does seem to be some idea of integrity built in, and clearly Romney’s religion and family stand outside of, preceded, and will supersede his role as a Senator. His sense of self is not chained to that, or any, title. Instead of getting an apartment in DC or living with other Congressmen, he bought a townhouse off the strip in the hopes his wife and kids would feel more comfortable visiting. What I’m trying to say in way too many words is that there is more to Mitt’s life than winning, and maybe if winning is all that matters to the once-and-oh-please-never-again-President, then caring less about winning, by converse illogic, is … good?

The bush I’m pummeling here is this: morality means something to Romney, something more than having power or winning an election. He believes that he has a higher obligation, and that has apparently kept him from caving like the others. This is a bit hard for me to say because it’s in pretty direct opposition to what I used to believe (as most things are these days – FU, Buddha!). When I used to hear that people were supporting candidates “of Faith” or because they were “right with the lord” or “Christians” I was always horrified. What does that have to do with policy? Don’t you want to know their positions? Isn’t that incredibly arrogant and presumptuous to think that someone will be a better leader just because they believe in your God? And while I still agree with most of that, I now understand the reasoning behind it. Well-meaning people may well believe that Christians – or Whatevers – will be better politicians because they will not be unduly swayed by what is convenient or popular or least risky – they will be guided predominantly by what their understanding of morality. When (some) people vote for candidates based on faith, they aren’t voting for the issues the church favors, but the spiritual guidance that leads to those positions. Political issues and proposals change all the time, but the basic moral foundations of the religion (wildly varying in interpretation, of course) presumably don’t.

I can accept that that’s actually not a terrible way to cast a vote. I mean, politicians lie and change their votes all the time, but if you really believe that they are guided by a strong moral compass – one that you also believe in – then you don’t need to worry about the vagaries of politics. They’ll always look into their God fearing hearts for the best decision. I doubt this holds up for most supposedly religious politicians, but I do get the theory behind it. If Roshi Joan Halifax or Lama Rod Owens or Thich Nhat Hanh were running for office, I wouldn’t need to know what they thought about any issues (though I can guess), because I know they believe in nonviolence and interdependence and universal compassion. So I can’t condemn others for following the same thinking.

On the flippity-flip, that’s the fucked up thing about Evangelicals and Trump. He has NO ground. There is literally nothing in this world Trump cares about except himself, specifically feeding his gluttonous ego. And yet, Evangelicals supported him because policy decisions that were expedient for him coincided with their own. It’s the opposite of what they’ve done in the past and still do with other candidates. They weren’t tricked into believing that Trump was a Christian; they’re not idiots. All his playacting just gave them a little cover for what they really wanted: someone who would shut down everything that went against their specific, contemporary political priorities. They took the path of nonbelievers and voted on policy alone. And it worked for them, at least on the surface. They got their ultra-conservative Supreme Court, at the very least. But if the tide had turned, if it does turn, and somehow Trump’s supporters shifted – if he were to become the hero of socially liberal, Israel-loving Jews, and believed they would propel him back into office – Protestant evangelicals & Jew-hating White Nationalists would be dumped naked on the side of the road. Supporting an amoral, petulant manbaby is a pretty huge risk for a contingent that believes the soul of our country is at stake.

Listen/look/feel me, I have always voted based on candidates’ political positions. If a few folks supported pretty much the same stuff, I might look at other factors. If someone comes off as a condescending asshole or has a plethora of rumors swirling about personal issues, I might reconsider; but I helped run a city council campaign for a guy who treated me worse than any boss ever has in my life. Despite the humiliation, I stayed because I thought he was the best candidate. (No, I’m not proud of that decision and do not encourage anyone to do the same.) But if I could truly look into the heartmindsoul of each candidate and vote on that, I might go the way of the spiritually-driven voter. I know people questioned the sincerity of Romney participating in a Black Lives Matter march back in 2020, but if that generated any votes, it was far less than he lost in standing up to the Republican party, so I have to trust his sincerity. And appreciate it.

Of course, of course it doesn’t have to be religion. It can be personal integrity, responsibility to one’s community; even true patriotism (a concept that scares the shit out of me) has occasionally been enough to withstand Trump’s infectious poison (e.g. General Mark Milley). But without any foundation in love or faith or ethics or responsibility (Have you no decency, Sir?), without any motivation other than holding office, holding office ceases to have meaning and those who do it simply bend with the prevailing winds. The Republican party is run by a hungry ghost protected by sentient doormats, and as long as they have power, the voices of the (yes, infinitely too conservative for me but still somewhat) decent members will be drowned out and ultimately disappear.