The Mitt Romney-Donald Trump Paradox

Is Romney as good as some of us thought he was when he appeared on the scene as a presidential contender?  Is Donald Trump as bad as Romney says he is?  We now have almost four years to evaluate the scenario. As to a key issue, we see that Trump holds a clear pro-life anti-abortion on-demand public policy position and Romney never could articulate his stance so that people knew where he stood.

As a Latter-day Saint and an American, I desire the benefits of freedom for my family's religious expression and the blessings of liberty for all people.  This opportunity is unique in many ways to America.

The US constitution is unique from all others in the world.  It was designed to preserve the ideals benefits of freedom and individual liberty. Their efforts have been substantially proven to work for some 240 years. 

Wise prophets have commented for centuries that any threat to the principles of the constitution, and the freedoms and the country it has established, would come from within our own citizenry. Those that would seek power in the government would be the perpetrators, not forces from the outside by the powers of invasion. By willfully violating the principles of the constitution we slowly slip away from the restraints that preserve our liberty and freedom.

The principles instilled by our founders in the constitution have created a country with freedoms and restrictions on government power not previously organized before that time. It was a foundation where an understanding of laws and the bounds of human achievement and self-government would combine. The purpose is to give all that are willing to learn and to work an opportunity to accomplish such a life experience individually where the necessities of life are available on a collective basis in a state of peace and prosperity. 

Coming to the current day of political battles what do we see?  How did Mitt Romney become a Senator in Utah after losing the 2012 election? Why did Mitt Romney run for president or even want the privilege and power of our highest office? Is Romney's ego any less than Donald Trump's who never sought public office before?

Have the condemnations and proclamations Romney issued against Trump in a public speech in 2016 come to pass?  The answer is no.  Trump's policies and efforts have produced peace and benefits for the American people. He is the first president in 40 years not to start a war during his first term in office.

As much as the constitution was designed to halt the progress of ego-driven politicians, running for president still requires a person with sufficient ego to endure the continuous criticisms of their opponents.  Most are overachievers in some respects.  Some with good intent and others simply seeking the political limelight to continue their public careers. 

We have come to a time where we see again the presence of power-seeking individuals wanting to advance their political profiles by aspiring to the highest offices in the land.  Biden and Harris are just such individuals.  Biden who Romney now supports is old, failing mentally, and being used by his party as nothing more than a placeholder.  Aspiring politicians are the worst kind as their motives are often flawed.  There is nothing patriotic about living your life by way of a government paycheck in public office.  Trump on the other hand has proven to be a patriot, leaving his prosperity to lead for a time without a paycheck from the government. 

As fair and honest campaigns fail to achieve their desired outcomes, the campaigners resort to fallacies and allegations that are easy to distribute through the modern media.  One of the allegations against Trump is his use of scorn to point out the hypocrisy of his opponents. They claim this is divisive speech not becoming of a president.  If you look at history though it is common.  It is just another Ad-hominem attack against Trump because he uses it effectively.

Trump's opponents have invoked the very constitution designed to limit their power as the reason for their actions.  It would seem that they are completely wrong in their interpretation and application such as the Democrats claimed during impeachment. Their claim was, "nobody is above the law". While true in principle their application was shoddy.

I don't see Romney's vote to impeach the president based on anything but his known personal dislike for Trump, not for valid reasons of possibly violating his oath of office.  His choice was not a courageous act. Why didn’t Romney just vote and then explain his vote after the fact and not before in a sanctimonious analogy?  He knew in advance that his vote would be inconsequential regarding the outcome.  If he made the choice based on his misguided motives and not the facts, he probably didn’t do the right thing.  It would appear that his vote was an expression for his contempt of President Trump.  

Why did Mitt Romney’s vote sir such a controversy?  He knew before he voted his guilty verdict to impeach that it was inconsequential and would change nothing. Why stand on the floor and justify the premeditated act? He knew that he would draw considerable media attention, mostly praising him for his courage and draw ire from his critics.  

Was this really a courageous act as described by some in the media? As I mentioned the outcome was pretty much settled.  The Republican Senate wasn’t going to allow a politically motivated vendetta of partisan impeachment effort by the Democrats in the House to be fulfilled. That is what the Senate does. That is why it was created, to cool the heated emotions, partisan or otherwise that often settle on the body of the house.  They impeached the president because they could, not because it was justified.

The same media that called Romney a homophobe, a racist, and a woman-hater when he ran for president now praised him.   Doesn’t that seem like a shallow love-hate relationship? 

Romney’s problem isn’t about who he is but in what he has allowed himself to become a politician.  His effort at statesmanship turned a self-centered promoter as he chose to stand alone in demonstrating support for an ill-founded political opportunity by co-conspirators in the house. 

There is another way to see this. Mitt is condemning his Christian friends by implying that he has insights that they don't. Mitt ignored the obvious and let his disdain for Trump blur his vision. He allowed himself to be complicit in a blatant partisan attack on the constitution. His choice was to tell the Republicans in the House and the Senate that he was somehow smarter or more righteous than they were. Will God really give a lone maverick a sign when the same God established the constitution with a Senate to curtail the power of a reckless House?

This would seem more of a calculated political move on Romney’s part, grasping for another shred of the political spotlight.  He wants to stand out in the footnotes of history as some kind of maverick.  Voting with the Democrats doesn’t demonstrate the integrity of character.  The only thing integral in Romney’s character is his disdain for Trump.

It shows that he doesn’t see through the charade of using the power of impeachment as a means of political attack.  There was no bipartisan agreement as to the charges or any real validity to them.  Does anyone think the Democrats could have attempted this with a congressional minority? Who knows what Romney’s motives were. They weren’t to preserve the constitution. He was complicit in the most blatant attack against its balance of powers and in attempting to undermine the voice of the people.

There was no proven point of crime on Trump’s part actually affecting the 2020 election.  It is pure conjecture.  Romney on the other hand demonstrated his support of a blatant attempt to abuse the power of impeachment by a partisan group out of personal disdain for a candidate. This would appear to be nothing more than an attempt to undermine the voice of the people in the 2016 election and take away our voice in the 2020 election. His desire for the spotlight shows he lacked the wisdom of his contemporaries to act in the office to which they were elected.  That is to control the reckless actions of the House, not support them.