Mr. George Milacek, who taught Psychology at Enid High School, was the
closest thing that we had to a rock star. He spoke in a
cartoonish voice that we all tried to imitate, and he always spoke his mind. When we asked him whether he was going to
vote for Reagan or Mondale (kids, check Wikipedia on the second one), he told
us exactly where he stood. “I’ve only voted for one Democrat in my life, and
that was John F. Kennedy,” he announced. “People think that I voted for him
because I’m a Catholic, but that’s wrong. I voted for him because he was a Catholic.”
For years, I have wondered if I would ever have a “Milacek moment” of my own. I am a lifelong Mormon from a multi-generational Mormon family. My ancestors did not walk with Brigham Young across the plains to Utah; they converted in England and met him there. But I have also spent most of my adult life voting for Democrats, and, though I would not identify myself as a liberal, I would certainly be comfortable with the label “non-conservative.” I am a confirmed centrist, and, for some time, the Democrats have been the only major party that even rents a storefront near the political center.
But I like moderate Republicans too, when they can be found. And, from the time that he ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, I have followed Mitt Romney’s career closely in a way that most Mormons (and very few others ) will understand. Seeing a powerful Mormon politician from outside of the Mountain West excited me and seemed to legitimate my faith and my heritage. Whenever I felt awkward about being a Mormon boy in the big, bad world--or when I was judged negatively by my peers--I could point to Mitt Romney and say, “there, I’m like him.” I imagine that this is very much what Mr. Milacek felt in 1960, and, had Romney won the nomination in 2008, I might very well have allowed my tribal affiliation to trump my normal voting patterns.
But then the Tea Party happened.
Let me make a few disclaimers before I go on. First, I do not see the coming election as a choice between the lesser-of-two-evils. Quite the opposite, I think that we have a choice between two reasonably good candidates. I believe that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are decent, honorable men who love their country and want to serve it according to their lights and their talents. I am also not clearly attracted to Obama’s politics and repelled by Romney’s. Like most non-ideologues, I think that America is in a fiscal mess that is going to require both substantial tax increases AND deep cuts in entitlement spending, and I am frustrated that the two major parties each accept only half of that equation. But I am also encouraged that both candidates support least part of the truth as I see it. As abstract individuals, removed from their larger political contexts, the candidates appeal to me (and don't) more or less equally.
But it's those larger political contexts that make all the difference. The recent primaries have made clear that there is no room in the Republican party for political moderation. Republicans in 2012 are, as they were in 2010, driven by an extremist ideology that is contemptuous of science, ignorant of history, and bereft of good sense. These extremists have swept away thoughtful conservatives such as Robert Bennett (UT) and Richard Lugar (IN) and replaced them with ideology-obsessed clowns. And, because they are clowns, the Tea Party faction in Congress has been willing to drive the nation to the brink of financial default before even considering the sorts of political compromises that make representative democracies work. By definition, these people cannot govern.
I do not believe that Mitt Romney, in his soul, aligns with the Tea Party movement. If it were possible to kick them to the curb and still become a Republican president, I think he would do just that. It is not, however, possible—and that is the problem. The pressures that have forced Mitt to the right of Idi Amin are not going to disappear if he becomes President. In all likelihood, they will intensify in the House and at least remain constant in the Senate.
If Mitt Romney becomes the President of the United States, he will owe his position to the extreme right wing of his party, and they will not go gentle into any good night. One of the few rules of modern politics is that, in the end, you got to dance with them what brung you. And whatever tribal affinity I may have for Mitt Romney—and I admit that I do have some—I cannot abide them what he will have to dance with if he makes it to the ball.
For years, I have wondered if I would ever have a “Milacek moment” of my own. I am a lifelong Mormon from a multi-generational Mormon family. My ancestors did not walk with Brigham Young across the plains to Utah; they converted in England and met him there. But I have also spent most of my adult life voting for Democrats, and, though I would not identify myself as a liberal, I would certainly be comfortable with the label “non-conservative.” I am a confirmed centrist, and, for some time, the Democrats have been the only major party that even rents a storefront near the political center.
But I like moderate Republicans too, when they can be found. And, from the time that he ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, I have followed Mitt Romney’s career closely in a way that most Mormons (and very few others ) will understand. Seeing a powerful Mormon politician from outside of the Mountain West excited me and seemed to legitimate my faith and my heritage. Whenever I felt awkward about being a Mormon boy in the big, bad world--or when I was judged negatively by my peers--I could point to Mitt Romney and say, “there, I’m like him.” I imagine that this is very much what Mr. Milacek felt in 1960, and, had Romney won the nomination in 2008, I might very well have allowed my tribal affiliation to trump my normal voting patterns.
But then the Tea Party happened.
Let me make a few disclaimers before I go on. First, I do not see the coming election as a choice between the lesser-of-two-evils. Quite the opposite, I think that we have a choice between two reasonably good candidates. I believe that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are decent, honorable men who love their country and want to serve it according to their lights and their talents. I am also not clearly attracted to Obama’s politics and repelled by Romney’s. Like most non-ideologues, I think that America is in a fiscal mess that is going to require both substantial tax increases AND deep cuts in entitlement spending, and I am frustrated that the two major parties each accept only half of that equation. But I am also encouraged that both candidates support least part of the truth as I see it. As abstract individuals, removed from their larger political contexts, the candidates appeal to me (and don't) more or less equally.
But it's those larger political contexts that make all the difference. The recent primaries have made clear that there is no room in the Republican party for political moderation. Republicans in 2012 are, as they were in 2010, driven by an extremist ideology that is contemptuous of science, ignorant of history, and bereft of good sense. These extremists have swept away thoughtful conservatives such as Robert Bennett (UT) and Richard Lugar (IN) and replaced them with ideology-obsessed clowns. And, because they are clowns, the Tea Party faction in Congress has been willing to drive the nation to the brink of financial default before even considering the sorts of political compromises that make representative democracies work. By definition, these people cannot govern.
I do not believe that Mitt Romney, in his soul, aligns with the Tea Party movement. If it were possible to kick them to the curb and still become a Republican president, I think he would do just that. It is not, however, possible—and that is the problem. The pressures that have forced Mitt to the right of Idi Amin are not going to disappear if he becomes President. In all likelihood, they will intensify in the House and at least remain constant in the Senate.
If Mitt Romney becomes the President of the United States, he will owe his position to the extreme right wing of his party, and they will not go gentle into any good night. One of the few rules of modern politics is that, in the end, you got to dance with them what brung you. And whatever tribal affinity I may have for Mitt Romney—and I admit that I do have some—I cannot abide them what he will have to dance with if he makes it to the ball.
