Romney to Ryan to Akin; Mitt Goes Platform Diving
There is a scene late in the movie “Judgment In Nuremberg”
in which two American jurists, presiding over a trial of Nazi judges, are
debating whether someone who was following enacted legislation could be held
responsible for the application of unjust laws.
One insists they be acquitted, while the other, played by Spencer Tracy,
demands to know why. Tracy’s view prevails, and the trial ends in convictions.
Afterwards, he meets with one of the German jurists, a person Tracy
held in great esteem before the war. The
man accepts the verdict, praises Tracy for his fairness, but pleads that he
never expected it to come to the end it did.
Tracy final words are decisive “(I)t came to that the first
time you sentenced a man…you knew to be innocent.”
The movie’s sympathies clearly lie with Tracy (as they must)
but the larger question of when authority must resist injustice is still
valid. Equally true is the question of
what fealty a Presidential candidate owes to the party platform upon which he
runs.
Ordinarily, we don’t pay all that much attention to party
platforms. They are part of the back
stage arcanery (or chicanery) that is the political convention, with rules and credential
committees, and off-site meetings for shrimp, roasted tenderloin, and cash with
well-heeled lobbyists and ultra-wealthy contributors. It is what we don’t get to see when the
network cameras are on. Much of this is
covered by the peculiar omerta that is politics, from the tiniest contest for alderman, to the Presidency itself. There
are things you just don’t talk about.
The Romney machine was moving towards Tampa with an
inexorable momentum that may very well carry him to the Presidency. His choice
of Paul Ryan was greeted with a type of rapture formerly reserved for the
Beatles, he is outraising Mr. Obama by a huge margin (and that’s just the
disclosed money) and Republican-dominated administrations in swing states
across the country have put in place a thicket of barriers to voting for those
who are more likely to support Mr. Obama.
Even Timothy, Cardinal Egan, the most powerful Catholic figure in the
country, had been brought in to close the Convention. Charisma, money, brute force, and some help
from a higher authority. Little had been
left to chance.
And, then came Todd Akin.
An obscure Congressman from a very conservative Missouri district, he
won the GOP senatorial primary in a splintered field. Akin, by all accounts a deeply and sincerely
religious man, has a negligible record of accomplishment in Congress, and
apparently few friends there.
Congressman Akin indulged himself in a few out of the mainstream
thoughts about rape, and then made a quick detour into the science of
reproduction, and the female body’s ability to distinguish between good and bad
sperm.
Skunk at the picnic!!! As fast as you can say “conference
call with Romney and Rove” virtually every Republican in the country ran for
the hills. The GOP Senatorial campaign
and Crossroads said they wouldn’t fund him, and dozens either begged or demanded
that he drop out (including, after a pause to see where the wind was blowing,
Romney and Ryan). When he dug in, they
started looking for procedural moves to get him out (he did win the primary,
but what’s an election if you don’t like the vote?) When that didn’t
immediately work, they developed a case of collective amnesia. Akin, Akin?
You mean that gay guy on American Idol?
Never heard of him.
Akin was not without a few friends. Back home his constituents shared many of his
views, as did many Christian conservatives, and Mike Huckabee lent
support. Huckabee hit the nail on the
head. While Akin’s language could have
been more politic, on the topic of faith in general and abortion in specific,
he was right in the mainstream of contemporary Republican thought. Ryan himself was a co-sponsor, with Akin, of
a bill that would have banned all abortions, without an exception for rape,
incest, or the health or life of the mother.
Yes, but, Ryan didn’t mean it that way, and certainly Romney
holds a different position (surely, that must be the most used phrase in the
campaign-there is always something where Romney held, or used to hold, a
different position.) So, Akin has to go.
Except, Akin won’t,
and Akin’s work lives on. The GOP
Platform committee has met and adopted a document of surpassing conservatism. It’s down on Sharia Law. Wants a Constitutional
Amendment to ban tax increases. A return
to the Gold Standard. A provision
denying women roles in combat (take that, Tammy Duckworth, so you lost your
legs in the service of your country!). A
double fence on the Mexican border, presumably because one is insufficient. Reality TV this isn't.
And, that absolute ban on abortions, with no modifying
language, and an acknowledgment that it could be extended to ban several forms
of birth control. It even includes a
“salute” to states like Virginia, who tried to add the trans-vaginal
ultrasound.
So, where does Mitt stand on these? Well, Reince Priebus, the head of the
Republican National Committee, hastily pointed out that it’s the GOP platform,
not Mitt Romney’s platform.
I don’t think that’s enough.
I can understand and respect that there are people of faith who deeply
believe that abortion is wrong in all circumstances, and wish to live their
lives that way. But the GOP position,
Mitt Romney’s position, appears to be “carry your rapist’s baby to term, or die
trying.” That's a little harsh for me.
Romney has made it to the doorstep of the office of the most
powerful person on Earth. He has done it
with smarts, and ruthlessness, and tons of money, and a remarkable skill of
running on his past accomplishments while denying his past positions.
He has even managed to deny Ron Paul delegates their moment
in the Sun, even though he didn’t need the votes. A man with that kind of talent for power
could have softened platform, toned down some of the more outlier parts. He chose not to, for reasons only he must
know.
Mr. Romney, is it your platform, or not? I think we would all like to know.
MM
