What I find most fascinating is that this reads completely counter to the authors supposed ideology and public positions, in a way that I'm not quite sure where they stand. It keeps changing so much.
Here's one - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/mitt_romney/412841
There's a reason that Romney, McConnell, and Trump share the same party, dysfunctional thought their relationship might be.
When he voted against the party - you say he had no effect on his party.
When he votes with the party - you say he has fallen in line.
What exactly is he supposed to do? No one person has the power to change the party.
I just appreciate someone, an individual, doing a good thing when they do it. This post is a good thing. The least I can do is express my gratitude for that good decision. This endless demonizing of every politician from a party X is what further entrenches tribalism. If every politician is rotten no matter what they do, do you think that leaves them with any incentive to serve a public that hates them either way? When people only see them as tribe members and not individuals, they will act that way.
Men like Romney tear at the social fabric of America for financial gain, that's what he and his party are dedicated to. To be fair, if they could make more money by not tearing at it, they would - the point is the money; the rest is meaningless. I've worked for private equity, they're every bit the monsters we've been told. Of course they put on a good show and a nice suit - and that's who Romney is and what posts like this are all about. But at the end of the day, he and McConnell and their party are just trying to create a moral justification for greed, the same as any conservative. They just don't like Trump because he lets the mask slip.
But yeah, that is scary.
Join the other party. They may be unpalatable to him, but his own party has become despicable. He would be considerably more influential with the other party: he could make substantial policy demands in exchange for his support.
> He would be considerably more influential with the other party
Would he? Or would he just be a figurehead, or a war trophy?
> he could make substantial policy demands in exchange for his support.
He can now. In a 50/50 Senate, for him to support a Democratic bill will ensure passage (unless a Democrat defects). He can extract concessions for that.
This may come down to him in a few months. There is a decent chance that the November elections will be 51 Republicans to 49 Democrats. Romney will have his choice of putting Mitch McConnell in charge, or jumping parties (cf Arlen Specter).
I would put it to him that, even if he could rein in the worst abuses, it will nonetheless bolster the party's self-image as successful in elections. That will be seen at every level as affirming all of their policies.
The problem, I believe, is that it's not about the "insanity of Trump". Trump took advantage of a party that had become insane, taking advantage of fervently held opinions and a number of thumbs on the electoral scale in their favor.
It seems to me that his best hope for fixing things would be to cause them to lose elections until they beg him to return and help fix things. I, as a Democrat, would not feel the least hard feelings were he to jump ship back. And that's not just short-term-thinking of being happy to win a few elections, but the much longer-term hope of no longer having to choose between "the delusional party" and the "at least we're not the delusional party" party. And worse, the fact that this decision appears to be a toss-up at best.