Daniel Nichols Finds a Reason to Vote for Romney

It’s something like Dale Price’s tongue in cheek remark that a Republican in the White House will jog the press into doing their jobs.

If George W Bush had targeted American citizens for assassination, or killed so many civilians in drone strikes, or had expanded presidential powers at such an alarming rate we would, I am convinced, be near something like a revolution.

But because so many on the left hold on relentlessly, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, to an illusory Obama, the quasi-messianic figure of national transformation, the Man of Peace, the One, there is little resistance to his imperial presidency. There are notable exceptions to this, like the Counter Punch blog,  Glenn Greenwald, the late Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky, but for the most part the left is oblivious. I saw a car the other day with many bumper stickers denouncing war and an Obama sticker as well, apparently without irony.–

In light of this one can make a good case for voting for Mitt Romney.

Nothing would awaken the left like a Republican pursuing similar aims. Especially a Republican like Mr Romney: rich, elitist, clueless. One can foresee massive demonstrations again, widespread resistance to the empire. How about a bumper sticker that says: “Vote Romney. Do it for the Left”?

The Right, with its infallible anti-charism for missing the bleeding obvious, has chosen to batten on the one aspect of Obama’s rule that is the scariest and most dangerous–his seizing of dictatorial power to indefinitely detain and murder anybody he likes on the basis of his secret and unilateral will alone –and remain strategically supportive of that, since it hopes to wield those awesome unaccountable super-hero powers itself someday to bring the American Way of Salvation through Leviathan by Any Means Necessary to the Empire.  Consequently, when a Lefty like Obama is advancing toward abolishing a free country and establishing a quasi-Napoleonic tyranny, both Left and Right support him since, dude, blowing up swarthy people with drones and killing people without any of that pantywaist due process crap is, like, awesome. (Meh, so what if hundreds of them are kids.  That’s the price swarthy people have to pay in our struggle to do whatever we like in pursuit of American ends).

But when a representative of the Thing that Used to be Conservatism takes over the job, the Left will at least pretend to suddenly care about that, thereby acting as a minor check on the growth of the Police State Presidency instead being what it now is: the supine supporter of an obvious tyrant and war criminal.  I wonder how many election cycles we will go through before the Executive decides that that little exercise in manufacturing consent is no longer necessary?

"How is it that my long comment from 2 days ago (discussing the ASP 2017 ..."

I had Lillian Vogl, the Chairwoman ..."
"Honestly, as a Soviet history buff I’m kind of impressed to see Beria back in ..."

Australian Conservatives are Catching the American ..."
"I would emphasize that 1 Corinthians 12 actually somewhat subverts the typical hierarchical use of ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"Hi Linda, there is not a conflict between the ASP and IDP. IDP has become ..."

I had Lillian Vogl, the Chairwoman ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Kristen inDallas

    One could make a similar argument for Obama though… IF it were Romney telling all his capitalist buddies they had to pay for employees “prevevntative services” most Republicans would have kept their mouths shut about that translating to abortion on demand. Kind of like how they do re. Massachusetts.

  • David R

    Ah, but what happens in four years if Obama wins? The GOP will be struck by the fact that they can’t nominate whomever they please, regardless of who awful he is. Thus the 2016 election will likely be a decent GOP nominee, whose actually pro-life, versus the typical pro-abort Democrat.

    If, on the other hand, Romney wins this year, then the next four years will probably be as crappy as under Obama, and 2016 will pit an incumbent Romney (total fodder) against a pro-abort Democrat spewing the salvific message Obama vomited in 2008.

    Long-term, I don’t think the needed revolution will happen if Romney wins, but I believe it will if Obama is the victor.

    Either way, I’m not voting for either tool. Why? LOGIC!

    Each moral decision ought to be based on the natural law.
    Each moral decision should be unaffected by the trends of how other people make the same moral decision.
    Voting is a moral act.

    Therefore, the act of voting ought to be based on the natural law and be unaffected by the trends of how other people vote.

    • Evan

      I have to disagree that an Obama victory would teach the GOP they cannot nominate whomever they please, regardless of how terrible he is. They didn’t learn that lesson in 2008, and I really can’t imagine they would learn it now. If Obama wins, I expect GOP leaders will blame third party candidates and those who followed their consciences and voted for them. The “lesson” they would learn is: we have to put more pressure on everyone to shut up and vote for our guy.

  • Steve P

    I noted that this was one of the areas of “agreement” by the candidates in the debate last night. The use of drones in the war on terror, regardless of any concern for “collateral damage”. I believe Romney used the phrase “by any means necessary” or “with whatever means are at our disposal”. I could almost picture him thanking Obama for laying all the great groundwork for these cool toys that you get to have if you are the President.

    • Pathfinder

      I noticed that too. For all the talk of Libya and the GWOT, not one word was mentioned (at least as far as I remember last night’s debate, which admittedly after a while I was more in “please, just make it all stop” mode) — not one word was mentioned about NDAA or war by executive order.
      Whether or not you care about brown people being blasted by Hellfires, I think you should care about those two things due to the constitutionality of them (or lack of the same). They effect American citizens — which in the end should be our focus, as our fellow citizens are our ultimate responsibility.
      (and usually, the country that takes its own citizens into regard winds up regarding the lives of foreigners better as well)

      • David R

        Right. So a guy with a pro-choice record now claims to be pro-life (except for hugely broad exceptions); nevermind the fact that he’s changed positions on countless issues so many times that we’ve all lost track; and he totally ignores what ought to be a super easy criticism of Obama–namely, NDAA and executions by the will of the President.

        How exactly does anyone think voting for him could be a good choice?

        Gary Johnson is not going to tell me I must be complicit in abortions, and he’ll respect the Constitution, even if that means his will isn’t done. Those two issues alone put him miles above the competition.

        • Pathfinder

          Well, I’m not voting for Mitt Romney.
          Gary Johnson is a possibility — I don’t agree with him on all issues, but he appears to be a better choice on many issues than those other two.

  • Steve P

    By the way, has anyone recently watched “The Siege” with Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis? It was pre-9/11, and I can’t believe how prophetic that movie has seemed to me over the last 5 or 6 years. You can stream it on Netflix, if you have that.

  • “both Left and Right support him since, dude, blowing up swarthy people with drones and killing people without any of that pantywaist due process crap is, like, awesome. ”

    I heard that somewhere. Wasn’t it some study that found people who stay on either side of the ideological debate love slaughtering innocent people because they are swarthy?

  • Will

    Romney keeps saying that Syria is Iran’s route to the sea. Google it. Presidential material?

  • Patrick

    The media – especially the White House press – was no better during the Bush days: they barely pressed him in the run-up to Iraq, and sat by while he expanded executive power arbitrarily. Remember the “signing statements”? The media is clubby no matter who is in power.

    • Nonymous

      Neither the media or the Dems “checked” Bush before Iraq or after. They got after him when his WMD lies were exposed, but that was just to keep up the hum “Republican Bad.” Nobody except the tin-hat left called for impeachment or any other consequence for anyone about anything — torture, Guantanamo, or the surveillance state. The media will be vigilant only for Romney’s attempt to go back on his word and do something about abortion and the HHS mandate, gay marriage, or the continuing explosion of the federal budget. They know Romney isn’t firm against any of those things, and they’ll mean to keep him that way, but that’ll be the limit of their “awakening.”

  • Matt Bowman

    Mark, this is an impressive application of the proportionality principle. Bravo