Skip to main content

The "New" Integrity

In the aftermath of Mitt Romney's vote to convict President Trump, Democrats, never-Trumpers and main-stream media members have universally praised Romney's integrity. Dictionary.com defines integrity as follows: "adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty." Apparently, integrity needs to be re-defined to conform to Romney's actions.

Perhaps when we speak of Romney's integrity, we are referring to his readiness to criticize Trump at every opportunity and then suck up to him in the hopes that he will be appointed as Secretary of State. Do we mean that integrity? Or maybe we are referring to his return to bitterness after not becoming Secretary of State, his ready criticism of Trump and then his groveling for Trump's endorsement while running to become Utah's junior Senator. Perhaps this is the integrity we describe? Maybe we are referring to the fact that many people were leary of Mitt's Massachusetts liberal policies he frequently exhibited as Governor, but took a chance on him as a Presidential candidate only to see him stab the entire Republican Party in the back over his personal hatred of the President. This is the integrity of which they speak? Or there is his move to Utah, after his utter failure as a Presidential candidate, knowing that was the only state in which he could be elected and then completely ignoring the will of his constituents and voting his "conscience" on impeachment. Integrity? One of my personal favorite displays of "integrity" is the holier-than-thou facade behind which he hid to cover his vote of hatred towards Trump; as if somehow he is SOOOOOO much more deeply spiritual than every other conservative Senator, that only he got the right answer from God. Ah yes, integrity! Oh let's not forget le piece de resistance! How about the fake Twitter account Romney created under the pseudonym of Pierre Delecto which he used to either anonymously criticize his enemies  or praise himself? Oui, oui monsieurs et madames--vive le integrity!

It took a long time for me to come around to Romney as a possibility for President. Unfortunately we share the same faith. I was determined not to vote for him for that simple and shallow reason. Instead, I studied him, listened to his speeches and finally believed his protestations that he wasn't really a liberal in conservative clothing and would govern as a "severe conservative" if elected. I caucused for him in Washington state and proudly fought to beat back the Ron Paul campaign subterfuge to try and steal the nomination against the clear will of the voters in our state. I felt that on a personal level, here was a good man, who lived his religion and had the refreshing integrity our politicians so clearly lack. I had great hope that he would defeat Obama and bring some common sense to the White House. I still believe Romney is truly good in his personal life; but I cannot reconcile that with his total lack of integrity in his political life. He has shown himself time and time again to be the same kind of political, self-serving opportunist that most other politicians are. What a disappointment.

If in fact, there were a single shred of evidence with which the rabid and crazed Democrats had come up with that actually proved wrong-doing or criminal misbehavior, I would have wanted Trump to be impeached. But all of the witnesses (yes, there were) and all of the documents (all 28,000 plus pages) could not conjure the evidence out of thin air that the they so desperately wanted. Accusations, hearsay, assumptions, gossip, outright lies, wishful thinking and general hatred of a political opponent do not constitute evidence nor prove sufficient, under the law, to subvert the will of the voters, overturn an election and impeach and remove a President. Nor should it ever. Actual integrity, demands that instead of bowing to the national temper-tantrum that Trump-haters have been throwing since the election, we follow the rule of law: we don't convict people for "thought crimes", we don't convict people because we disagree with them politically (for that we have a ballot box), we firmly believe in the presumption of innocence until PROVEN quilty--which applies to every citizen (even Presidents) and we believe in the right to confront your accusers (which Trump was denied throughout the entire process in the House).

The very people who praise Romney's betrayal today, as integrity, will happily and without hesitation, stab him in the back next week. The same people who accused him of ridiculous and offensive behavior while running for President, will go back to hating him as they did before. The voters in Utah that refused to vote for him the first time around, who praise his integrity today, will not be voting for him when he runs for re-election. So other than his most recent 15 minutes of fame, what has he actually accomplished? If he had the dictionary definition of integrity, he would have said, "I see no evidence of a crime here, but I hate Trump's guts, so I'm voting for his impeachment and removal." I wouldn't have agreed, but at least it would have been honest.

Romney's inability to translate his personal integrity into his political life will be his downfall, because clearly popularity is more important than principle to him and the need to be liked by the wrong people outpaces his commitment to principles of truth. I expect that kind of hypocrisy from the Democrats in Washington every minute of every day, but not from the Mitt Romneys of the world; for me that is one of worst demonstrations of his lack of integrity. Perhaps Mitt feels Utah is so safe for him that in four and a half  years the voters will have forgotten his betrayal. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...let's hope Utah isn't that dumb.

Comments

  1. Wow, that's some pretty extreme views you express. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone express such anger towards Romney (though Trump could certainly give you a run for your money, I'm sure). You have some serious feelings about him, I can respect that.

    But, I have some other thoughts. I actually believe he seriously considered what evidence was presented. Of course he doesn't like Trump, he's never pretended otherwise. He does typically side with him in politics, and from a policy standpoint, they can get along most of the time. I personally have no idea if what Trump did was impeachable. I don't know the law well enough to know if what he did rises to the level of high crimes. I certainly believe it was unethical. I don't think anyone disputes what he did, it's just whether or not it is a crime and impeachable. Maybe if I read the 28,000 pages you reference, I would be informed enough to make that decision. Maybe if I sat through all those hours of senate and house hearings I'd feel more confident it which decision is right. But, I respect the right of each senator to decide for themselves. What I hate the most is when they just vote what their party says to do. There's a place where the party chairman makes all the decisions and everyone else falls in step or must leave, it's called China. When our senators just do what their party says, where is democracy? Wouldn't we be better off if they thought for themselves, voted their conscience, and didn't just serve the whims of an ideology or party because that's what will get them elected by the extreme constituents at the far end of their party? Maybe then they could work together and negotiate and we wouldn't have such a severely polarized nation full of anger toward the other side of the aisle (or family, or friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc.) So, I respect Romney. I don't try to defend all his prior choices. I don't worry if he tried to pander to the extreme right to get a nomination when he is actually a moderate. It's what our broken political system requires. I don't approve of this, and I think it did him in. But, in the face of certain retribution by his own party, he voted his conscience. How many others did the same? Might some more moderate democrats have actually thought maybe what trump did wasn't impeachable? Maybe, if so, not a single one voted their conscience. Might some other moderate republicans felt what Trump did was a crime after hearing the evidence? Maybe, if so, none of them have the courage to stand out. Was it hypocrisy or being holier than thou on Romney's part? I hope not. I have a hard time believing it. It makes no sense politically. It was political suicide to do what he did, and he knew it. That's bravery in my book. Just my thoughts and feeling about it anyway.

    James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi James. We have been out of town, so I didn't see your comment until now. So you had a lot to say and I'm not going to reply to it all. I respect your opinion and agree with some of the things you said. Let me try to sum up my response in this way: 1) I don't think Romney did what he did because of courage. I think he did it because he thinks he is safe as a Senator in Utah and could get away with it. Of course, I could be wrong. But after I got behind him for a Presidential candidate, he has been nothing but a disappointment to me. 2) For all of the reasons I listed in my blog, I feel that Romney has done nothing to demonstrate integrity, has been inconsistent, unprincipled and self-serving. I expected so much more from him than that. We can agree to disagree, because of course, only he really knows. But I know I will never trust him again. 3) I can assure you that Mitt Romney has successfully become one of the most hated politicians in the country and could never be elected to anything outside the state of Utah because of the reasons listed above. 4) I spend probably far too many hours following politics. I have read books about the impeachment, hundreds of news articles, listened to hours testimony (not all of it) and read much of the transcripts (again, not all). There was no crime. There was no impeachable offense. This was pure politics--to our everlasting shame as a nation. Romney was asking for more witnesses to prove the Democrat's case just days before he voted to impeach. Another example of his inconsistency. If they hadn't made their case then, and no more witnesses were called, and nothing else changed, then did he really vote his conscience or did he vote his dislike. I don't care if he hates Trump or not--that's his choice. But a man with integrity would not have sought his endorsement and then turned on Trump that way he did (among other things). 5) I never expect elected officials to march lock-step with their party; I agree that that is wrong. My anger with Romney is based specifically on his relationship with Trump and I don't think there is anything extreme about it. You know me and I'm not an extremist, so I would request that you be careful using that word. My opinion is based on the hours of research and time spent sifting the information. Like I said, we can agree to disagree and I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful comments!

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry if by saying that seemed an extreme view if I offended. I respect you and your opinion. It truly amazes me how much different people can view the same thing and come up with such different views and opinions. Even people who theoretically hail from similar political ideologies (conservative, republican, etc.). Truth is something that seems well beyond what any of us mortals can attain to in this political realm. We can only have opinions. And, truly intelligent, educated and informed people can still view the same set of events and come up with entirely different ideas of what we think truth is. This quote from Elder Uchtdorf helped me understand and accept this better.

    “But while the Atonement is meant to help us all become more like Christ, it is not meant to make us all the same. Sometimes we confuse differences in personality with sin. We can even make the mistake of thinking that because someone is different from us, it must mean they are not pleasing to God. This line of thinking leads some to believe that the Church wants to create every member from a single mold—that each one should look, feel, think, and behave like every other. This would contradict the genius of God, who created every man different from his brother, every son different from his father. Even identical twins are not identical in their personalities and spiritual identities.

    “It also contradicts the intent and purpose of the Church of Jesus Christ, which acknowledges and protects the moral agency—with all its far-reaching consequences—of each and every one of God’s children. As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are united in our testimony of the restored gospel and our commitment to keep God’s commandments. But we are diverse in our cultural, social, and political preferences.” (Deiter F. Uchtdorf, Four Titles, April 2013)

    Yet, since those political opinions become deeply held and often felt, emotions get tied up and it really becomes a mess. Those on either end of the political spectrum tend to view the other end as irrational, wrong, and dangerous. To me, that kind of belief system is far more dangerous than when the individuals at either end institute the policies they hold to so strongly as being absolutely true. But there I go showing my opinions, which aren't so much true, as just what I think. So, while I would prefer to see our country run by those who share my vision of fiscal responsibility, respect for life and the constitution, I'd rather see political leaders of integrity, who could work together, even compromise, and have a lot less bickering, name calling, finger pointing, whining, anger, hatred, vitriol, etc., which pretty much describes both major parties equally (I put Trump and Pelosi as equals in this department). I have little hope for true leadership, leaders with vision, compassion, the ability to not get so completely set in their own ideology that they think the others are less than human and cannot work with them. So, I tend not to follow politics as closely, it's too discouraging and altogether nearly hopeless. It seems to me that if such a leader exists, they could never win over the end of their political spectrum that actually elects them out of the primary system. Is there hope?

    Ah, but here is something on which I think we could likely readily agree (depending on how you feel after living so long in Spokane), that BYU Gonzaga game over the weekend was phenomenal!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make a lot of good points and again, I agree with a lot of them. I certainly don't think for one second that Donald Trump is remotely close to being perfect. Our politics have deteriorated to a level of as you say, hopelessness? I am arguably too involved, but I keep trying to be as informed as possible and fight for the things I believe to be true, even when enacted by highly flawed characters. I guess all we can do is keep muddling through, but I always, ALWAYS appreciate a respectful exchange. That is getting harder and harder to find.

      And we ABSOLUTELY agree on that game. One of the most complete games BYU has played in years. I always cheer for Gonzaga, except when they play us.

      Hope you all are well. We love and miss you guys!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

So What Can We Do?

I have spent a lot of time picking apart the liberal plan for reforming health care in the U.S. I do not have any confidence in a government that cannot run anything cheaply or efficiently. They are the last people I would trust to manage one sixth of our economy--I wouldn't trust them to do my lawn care. So, it's high time to talk about what can and should be done instead. Here are some ideas that would go a long way to lowering the cost of health care for everyone without a government takeover of health care. 1) Individual responsibility: As with anything in life, when we are directly responsible for the outcomes of our decisions, we are better for it, individually and as a society. That responsibility includes being accountable for our life choices, the amount of risks we take and paying our bills. It seems like a no-brainer doesn't it? Unfortunately, we have gotten away from that thinking in reference to our health care. If I choose to have multiple sexual partners, why

Flawed Arguments and Stubborn Facts

My last post addressed some of the things we can do to improve health care without government involvement. I got a few comments, but wanted to address a couple in particular. These comments brought up issues that are worthy of response. One of the comments is as follows: " I would like to direct your attention to the writers first stated premise - there is no trust in the government with one sixth of our economy. My question is, how did it become one sixth of the economy? With every step of a 'free' enterprise system being everything but free, freedom is placed upon the back of those who are a dwindling base of contributors to support the greediness of astronomical proportions and the government is the recipient of easy target fingerpointing. If we insist on blaming government for a sick system, we are trying to fix the wrong problems." My initial reply was the following: "There are many causes of the problems in medical care which I have also written about on m

Why Ask Why?

To reason and to choose are the great intellectual gifts that are supposed to elevate us above the animal kingdom. Failing to implement reason or comprehend that choice leads to consequence has become the worst pandemic in the world...far worse than COVID. That failure has left us living with unprecedented fear, anger, division and tribalism. In my view, the only way we can begin to make a positive move away from such things is to ask basic questions like "Why?" I have so many questions, that I hardly know where to begin. Some of the answers I know. Some, I don't. And some, I can hazzard a pretty good guess. It is vital to our survival as a nation and as a world of nations that we start asking more questions and demanding answers from those who pretend to lead us. Are we sure of their motiviations or are we too lazy to care? Are we ignoring the nagging concerns that come to our minds in exchange for solidarity or political correctness? Are we afraid to ask questions becau