Mitt
Romney is an empty suit in some respects, but he's not stupid. When
he says that “...the
polls show that among the names being floated as potential contenders
in 2024, if you put President Trump in there among Republicans, he
wins in a landslide”, people sit up and take notice – especially
when you consider that Romney was one of the more visible and active
never-Trumpers all during the Trump administration (and, for that
matter, in the run-up to the 2016 election). He did all he could to
thwart Trump's programs and initiatives, and to encourage (or shame)
other Republicans into doing likewise. In the Pantheon of RINO
never-Trumpers he would be placed just below John McCain. Surely
Trump running again in 2024 can't be on Romney's wish list – so why
even bring it up if it encourages Trump supporters, who remain
extremely loyal?
There's
a strategy involved here, and I think it involves cutting to the
chase and thereby scaring the crap out of not only the Democrats but
also of the Republican mainstream. If anyone out there really thinks
that Trump might possibly, conceivably, in their worst nightmare, run
again, they will immediately start to build walls and fortifications,
and make plans to pull every trick in the book to nip the idea in the
bud – and this applies to both parties.
There
are problems, however, with Romney's statement. For starters, it's
based on a number of premises:
That
there will even be
a presidential election in 2024. Lest we forget, certain members of
the left wing of the Democratic Party, along with left-wingers in
general, have suggested that we do away with presidential elections
altogether. Some will add “and the office of president”, but
others will agree to keeping the office but selecting its occupant
by committee – made up, of course, of members of the ruling elite,
i.e. the top layer of the left-wing pecking order and its
facilitators in high tech and among the globalists. (Certain, ahem,
overseas entities might be involved as well, for that matter.)
Admittedly, one might ask how is this significantly different from
what we have now, where there are only two parties in contention
(some would say just one, the “uniparty”, and that the rivalry
is about as authentic as what goes on in professional wrestling) and
where the candidates are selected by the ruling elite and presented
to the hapless public for its approval. The difference is that it
would actually be more honest in that it would eliminate the
pretense of elections representing “the will of the people”.
(And by the way, selection by the ruling elite is true of both
parties, despite the occasional populist noises made by subgroups.
Trump's problem was that he wasn't on the A list; in fact he wasn't
on any list at all, and that was his major offense – the hair and
the orangeness were just added to provide visuals for the media.)
That
the Republican Party will still be functioning in 2024. Right now
it is defeated, browbeaten, and being ground into fine powder by
Democrat majorities in Congress. The party that thought it was used
to standing by helplessly while the engines of government ground on
didn't know what helplessness really was until now. When Trump
spoke at CPAC he vowed not to start a third party – much to the
relief of the Republican mainstream! – but any notion that the
conservative (pro-Trump or at least not anti-Trump) minority within
the Republican Party is going to somehow take over and become
dominant between now and 2024 is wishful thinking at best.
That
Trump's base will still be intact in 2024. This seems like a safe
bet, but it's important to remember that the Trump base and the
Republican base are not the same thing. There is a correlation
there, certainly, but I don't think the hard-core Trump supporter
feels any loyalty to the Republican Party; in fact, I suspect that
they see the Republican mainstream as part of the problem if not the
actual enemy. If they had their way they'd throw the establishment
Republicans to the dogs and start fresh (and the establishment knows
this, which is why they're wasting no time distancing themselves
from the “deplorables”).
That
– even assuming that elections are held in 2024, and that the
Republican Party hasn't yet been declared most sincerely dead –
the primary system will still be in place. Remember the good old
days of brokered conventions and smoke-filled rooms? They could
come back (without the smoke, I suppose). If you get rid of the
primaries, then you get rid of the means by which what little is
left of the voice of the people can be expressed. All that is left
is wheeling and dealing. So let's say that Trump runs and comes out
ahead in the primaries – big trouble for the Republican mainstream
which will do anything to keep 2016 and the following four years
from ever happening again. One solution is to simply ignore the
primaries and hold the convention as if they didn't exist. Another
solution is to simply not hold primaries. Problem solved! And
don't think the Republican hierarchy hasn't been thinking along
these lines ever since 2016.
That
loyal Trump supporters will still be willing and able to vote for
him in primaries and in the general election. Even as we speak,
people who vote Republican – or at least have done so in the last
two elections – are being declared enemies of the state, and are
being added to the watch lists of law enforcement and intelligence
agencies based on the notion that they are potential “domestic
terrorists”, or actual domestic terrorists by definition. The
supposed factual basis for this is as follows: (1) Capitol riots on
Jan 6: Trump supporters and no one else. And directed by Trump
himself, i.e. no advance planning, to say nothing of spontaneity.
(2) Capitol riots were an insurrection and a case of domestic
terrorism. (3) And they were also an expression of white supremacy
and racism. (4) Therefore, all Trump supporters are
insurrectionists, domestic terrorists, white supremacists, and
racists. (5) Therefore, anyone who voted for Trump in either 2016
or 2020 is all the above. (6) Therefore, the biggest threat to our
national security (and the Biden administration has as much as said
this) is Trump supporters and anyone who ever voted for Trump or who
would again – which, at last estimate, numbers around 74+ million
people, or nearly 1/3 of the adult population of the country. Where will
those people be in three years? Will they be able to vote as they
like without fear of reprisal, or will a new and improved method of
voter suppression have done its work?
Now,
I say these are premises, and they are unspoken but may be assumed
based on Mitt Romney's statement. Unless he's playing a game here,
with the goal of actually rendering some or all of these premises
null and void – i.e. of speeding up the process that is already
underway of morphing the U.S. from a democracy to a pseudo-democracy
to a “people's republic”. And of course, because he is who he
is, he will expect to be thanked for this warning by both the
Republican mainstream and the Democrats – as if they needed any
reminding! We've already seen the Democrats up their game by a
quantum leap between 2016 and 2020, and put measures in place (with
more on the way -- see H.R. 1) to insure that they will enjoy a perpetual hold on
the presidency and Congress. And if, by the same token, the
Republicans have been relegated to perpetual irrelevancy, why does
Mitt bother? Chances are he hasn't really faced the facts quite yet
– and given the overwhelming nature of the facts, chances are he
never will.
But
there's another angle to all of this. If Trump gives it another try,
and the Republicans absolutely refuse to cooperate on any level, who
are
they going to nominate? Certainly not any true conservative, and
absolutely not anyone who supported Trump in the slightest degree
during his term in office, or voted for any of his Supreme Court
picks, or voted against one or both of his impeachments. No, it will
be the usual shopworn loser formula – nominate a moderate...
someone who can “reach across the aisle”... someone who is
perfectly at home with the Democratic agenda... someone who will be
happy to identify as the anti-Trump... and someone who, in case of
the inevitable loss, will not be a sore loser but will be gracious in
defeat. The envelope, please – Mitt Romney!
So
yes, by sounding the alarm regarding Trump's possible return to the
political stage, Mitt is hoping to keep that from ever happening by
enlisting the cooperation of both the mainstream Republicans and the
Democrats. And then, given a dizzying array of “ifs” of various
probabilities (which, if multiplied together, produce a joint
probability not significantly different from zero), Mitt might just
squeeze his way into the White House.
Well,
dream on, Mitt – you tried it once and got ground up in the Obama
machine, and guess what, the Biden machine is much more powerful and
invincible, and adding to its power and reach with each passing day.
(I say “Biden machine” but that's just shorthand for “Biden or
Harris or whoever else the Democrats nominate in 2024”.) And, you
think you represent the Republican mainstream, but I don't think you
do, not with your obvious and often-demonstrated RINO vibes. The
real Republican mainstream consists of those gray ghosts who wander
the halls of the Capitol, kowtowing to the Democrats, apologizing for
not being more “compassionate”, being good (and grateful) losers,
and on those rare occasions when they win, not knowing what to do
next. You can become one of them, which is a certain recipe for
obscurity, or you can stick with your RINO/never-Trumper minority
within a minority party and be (or remain) a hero of sorts to the
Democrats and the media before you are relegated to obscurity anyway.
But at least you've planted the seeds of fear (as if any more were
needed) in the fevered brains of both parties, and they may come
around to thanking you for the favor just before they give you a gold
watch (a Chinese knock-off, actually) and a bus ticket out of town.