When westerners glance at Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of leadership, they rarely get beyond the concept of non-violence (ahimsa), perhaps forgetting something just as important to him: truth-force (satyagraha). In judging the potential for leadership, Gandhi's primary emphasis was on moral authority, self-sacrifice and attributes like moral integrity, self-discipline, courage and the idea of leadership through example.
I thought about him (Gandhi, not former GOP Congressman Joe Walsh) today when I read Mitt Romney’s excuses for refusing to endorse Kamala. Jacqueline Alemany and Leigh Ann Caldwell reported that as “a parade of anti-Trump Republicans announce their support for Kamala, one prominent GOP Trump critic has withheld his endorsement: Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), one of the rare anti-Trump Republicans who still holds elected office. Romney, the lone Republican senator who voted to convict Trump during his first impeachment trial in 2020 and an outlier in today’s Republican Party, has consistently criticized the Republican nominee and lamented what he views as the decline of the GOP under the former president. But for all of his denunciations of Trump, Romney— who is set to retire when his term ends in January— has so far resisted outreach from the Harris team and subtle pressure from Republican officials associated with the Democrat’s campaign who want him to officially back her. With weeks left before Election Day, time is running out for any endorsement to influence voters.”
They point out that Romney questions the value of his endorsement because of how red Utah is. But Romney may have some value for defeating Trump in 3 swing states: Michigan, where he grew up and his father was governor and two states with large Mormon populations (about 6% of the voters), Nevada and Arizona. Kellen Browning reported yesterday how Kamala is battling Trump for Mormon voters in those two states. “Although many Mormon voters questioned Trump’s character and detested his mockery of women and immigrants,” wrote Browning, “most initially stuck with him in 2016. In 2020, a portion— 18 percent in Arizona— backed President Biden, helping flip the state blue. This year, Democrats believe that an even greater number, perhaps disgusted by Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election and by his felony convictions, could turn their backs on the Republican Party. In the western battlegrounds, even a moderate desertion by Mormon voters could prove fatal to Republicans’ chances because of the sizable number of Mormons in both states.”
Romney could be a help if he were on Team Kamala, but he’s “also cited concerns for the safety of his family as one reason for his reluctance to endorse her… In a recent interview with The Atlantic, Romney hinted at his anxiety over attacks he and his family might face if Trump is elected again. ‘How am I going to protect 25 grandkids, two great-grandkids?’ Romney said, after hypothesizing whether a future Trump Justice Department would target him or his sons. ‘I’ve got five sons, five daughters-in-law— it’s like, we’re a big group.’ …More than 200 Republicans who worked for Romney, the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and President George W. Bush published an open letter in support of Harris last month, warning that another Trump presidency ‘will hurt real, everyday people and weaken our sacred institutions.’”
A handful of other former top Republicans have distanced themselves from the MAGA movement but similarly abstained from backing Harris. Former House speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said in an interview this spring that he would not be voting for Trump— “character is too important to me— and that the presidency is a job that requires the kind of character that he just doesn’t have”— but he’s “going to write in a Republican.” And Bush’s office recently announced in a statement that he would not be endorsing in this election cycle, as he “retired from presidential politics years ago.”
In an interview following her announcement, Cheney argued that writing in someone other than Harris was insufficient.
“Given how close this race is, in my view, again, it’s not enough,” she told ABC News, adding that it was important to “actually cast a vote for Vice President Harris.”
A GOP operative, speaking on the condition of anonymity to be candid, dismissed the idea that Republican endorsements for a Democrat aren’t impactful, arguing that some voters on the right still relied on the “permission structure” to provide an emotional or psychological justification for those who might otherwise have reservations about voting for Harris. The operative said that especially in an election that will probably be extremely close, Romney could make a difference in a key swing state like Michigan, where he was born and his father served as governor.
“Romney already doesn’t have much influence inside today’s Republican Party,” the operative added. “But just because he isn’t shaping the party’s direction now doesn’t mean he won’t be able to down the line … The effort to reposition the party will be a long, long ordeal.”
If Gandhi were to evaluate Romney's arguments, he’d likely analyze them through the lens of moral consistency and personal integrity, two principles central to satyagraha (truth-force). Obviously, Gandhi would appreciate Romney's commitment to stand against Trump, recognizing the moral courage it takes to defy one's party in defense of ethical values. However, he’d certainly recognize that Romney isn’t aligning with his principle of moral action. Gandhi believed that neutrality or inaction in the face of injustice will only perpetuate harm. In Romney's case, his stance could be seen as a form of passive resistance—the kind Gandhi warned against as a kind of acceptance of a flawed status quo— rather than active moral leadership and full engagement in the struggle for justice, even if that meant discomfort or sacrifice. By withholding an endorsement for Kamala, Romney might be preserving his political future, but in Gandhi's view, such considerations could be seen as self-interest when the stakes— preventing Trump from reclaiming power— are as high as they are.
Gandhi also placed a great deal of emphasis on the role of fear in decision-making. Romney’s concerns for his family’s safety, while understandable, would be viewed by Gandhi as an example of fear hindering moral action. Gandhi famously faced threats to his life, but his deep conviction that moral truth transcends fear kept him on his chosen path of nonviolence, despite the personal risks. He’d probably argue that Romney's hesitation to act more boldly due to fear of retaliation or harm to his family, though very human, reflects a compromise on the moral courage needed to fully confront what Romney himself acknowledges as a dangerous figure in Trump. I’m guessing he’d urge Romney to embrace a fuller, more courageous form of resistance, one that not only denounces the wrong but actively supports the alternative— especially when the alternative, in this case, could prevent greater harm to society. Remember, for Gandhi, moral leadership meant taking a firm stand in the service of justice, even when doing so might bring personal risk or challenge long-held allegiances.
Two more philosophers on this: Rick Wilson and Friedrich Nietzsche. A NeverTrumper, Wilson is happy Republican elected officials and activists are endorsing Kamala. “This is the right thing to do in this moment of national peril,” he wrote. “Trump’s reelection would lead to an era of division, chaos, corruption and violence. It would begin a national collapse into autocracy, the deprivation of civil rights for millions of Americans, and a sovereign risk to our nation— if I may use a Trump phrase— like we’ve never seen before. Political courage is a virtue that is challenged in America every day. It is conflicted by ambition and corrupted by the fear of the seething violence and anger in the eyes and hearts of Trump’s slavering mob. But more frequently than not, it is constrained by the fear that taking a stand means leaving the tribal comforts of a party in which they shaped their lives, careers, and fortunes. It does, and it’s hard. I can promise you from personal experience that the hundreds of us who have already made the jump have cleared the path for you.”
Not addressing Romney directly, he noted that “for the many Republicans who heartily loathe Donald Trump, but still can’t bring themselves to cross that final Rubicon of endorsing Kamala Harris, I’m here to tell you that history, your children, grandchildren, and friends are watching. Just saying you won’t vote for Trump and that you’ll write in a third-party candidate or someone not on the ballot is morally and politically insufficient. It is not a sign of courage to merely reject Trump. It is not a sign of strength to say he’s unqualified to be president and then refuse to endorse Harris. (Some of you will vote for Harris in secret; this is fine for rank-and-file folks but not for you.) The test here is only passed with a ringing, public endorsement of Kamala Harris. Nothing else suffices.”
And then he does call out Romney, along with George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice. “The time for equivocation and excuses,” he write, “is over… You cannot beat Trump by pretending he is the lesser of two evils. You cannot reform the Republican party and allow Trump‘s influence over it to survive. The break must be hard and sharp. It will express that Harris is, in fact, not the lesser of two evils but an American who loves her country and who will put it above petty grievances, corporate deals, and personal venality.”
As Trump is shown over and over again, he is an institutional arsonist, a man who loathes and seeks the destruction of every American institution that is not in his immediate service. His first term was a cautionary tale: his second term, informed by the sweeping and aggressive statism of Project 2025, Agenda 47 (or whatever other identity the architects of his planned authoritarian government adopted today), spells the absolute end of conservatism and Republicanism as we know it.
Everything about the MAGA iteration of the Republican party results in greater power reposed by the state and the executive and more impingements on the rights and liberties of individuals.
Even if you, as a conservative, don’t agree with Harris on abortion or the economy, you must, at this point, recognize that Trump has a rampant demand for executive power and is, in fact, not conservative but radical in every dimension.
Over and over again, the guardrails have barely held. The systems have been strained to their breaking point. A second term will be unconstrained, dangerous and lawless.
As long as Trump remains the prime mover of a personality cult, the man’s authoritarian personality and policies will define the GOP. It takes a political party— not just party committees and allied SuperPACs— to ultimately mount national campaigns of political education, persuasion, and elections.
Trump made it seem otherwise, but the alien nation that emerged from the rallies and online chat rooms of MAGA is not a party; it is a cult. The GOP of today is the Baath Party, not the Republican Party. Your party loyalty was commendable in the beginning but is risible now.
Your belief that unless you stick with the GOP, you’ll lose all influence over whatever comes after Trump is simply wrong. You do not influence the MAGA party now, nor will you, me, or anyone else from the Before Times, and we never will. They are not conservatives. They are radical members of a personality cult. You’ll have a stronger voice in the days to come precisely because you abandoned Trump’s apparat.
Trump’s dictator fetish, his obeisance to Vladimir Putin, his contempt and loathing of NATO and other alliances, his radical belief that America’s military is a pay-for-play protection racket, the loathing in which other countries, both allies and adversaries, view Trump, and his inability to hold American interests and secrets from the predations of our worst enemies in Russia and Iran make him radically dangerous.
… Trump will end American support for Ukraine to give his friend and master Vladimir Putin a win that will destroy the NATO alliance and place Europe’s free and democratic nations firmly in the gunsights of a resurgent Russia. The end of this war must be in Russia’s capitulation and Putin’s removal.
Refusing to support Harris gives Putin hope and runway to continue his campaign of civilian slaughter in Ukraine. If he can survive until January 2025, Trump will hand him the victory that demonstrates American leadership in the world is at an end.
…For free-market Republicans, Donald Trump‘s promise to impose massive national tariffs— a move that every rational conservative economic thinker would never even begin to entertain— is one more reason why an overt embrace of Harris is imperative. Beyond being utterly wrong as an economic policy, it’s disastrous.
Once again, we have Harris as the conservative choice and Trump as the radical. Will marginal tax rates on billionaires move up by some tiny fraction?
Protectionism, tariffs, stacking the deck for his cronies and allies, targeted tax cuts for donors, picking winners and losers is again a radical mindset for anyone who believes in free markets and economic liberty and should have no place with anyone who believes in free markets and free trade.
All of you withholding an endorsement of Harris know Trump’s personal character isn’t simply deficient; it is degenerate.
I do not address myself to evangelicals in this matter because I believe them to have been by and large lost into the cult of Trump and lust for their socially desired outcomes to compromise with him at every level.
No, the question of character is for mainstream Republican leaders with daughters, wives, and granddaughters.
Trump is a rapist, he is a moral degenerate, sexual predator, and one of the most loathsome species of abusers imaginable. You know this. Even if you’ve only seen the tip of his greasy, abusive iceberg, you still know this in your hearts. Not one of you would want Donald Trump around your daughters. Not one of you wakes up hoping your sons will treat women as Donald Trump has and does treat women.
One endorsement holdout is Mitt Romney, the very definition of a family man, with children and grandchildren by he loves and adore. Why he cannot take the final step and say he will endorse Kamala Harris, a woman with a boundless love of her blended family over Donald Trump, a man whose loathing of his own children, serial adultery, and his close friendships sexual predators like Jeffrey Epstein, and P. Diddy is profoundly baffling.
Those who refuse to endorse Harris while opposing Trump out of pure party loyalty, and tribal affinity can look no further in history than elite Germans, who supported Hitler because he was “at least not a communist.”
The Von Papens of our time made their beds in 2016 and continue to back Trump. History will judge them with contempt. Their legacies are those of cowards, men who placed fear and ambition over the country they swore to serve and oath to the Constitution they took in vain.
If you’re seen to have provided Trump even a modicum of political cover, you will be remembered as an ally of the architects of the chaos and pain to come. Suppose you’re unwilling to take a step that could persuade even a few of your followers, supporters, and allies to cross party lines just once. In that case, you’ll be remembered as a true and profound failure as a leader.
By endorsing Harris, senior Republicans could position themselves within a historical context of bipartisan support that transcends traditional political divides. This is the big legacy move: You can be remembered for putting the country before the party, potentially influencing future political norms towards more cooperative governance.
In a coalition that spans from Bernie Sanders to Dick Cheney, there’s plenty of room.
This race will be close once again. We need every vote, and many of you can help move Republican voters to Harris. Those of you who care about the country, its future, the rule of law, American leadership, our prosperity, security, and dignity have one line in the most significant decision of your political lives.
Say it with me:
“As a Republican, I’m endorsing and voting for Kamala Harris.”
I don’t know that Nietzsche would have ever gone that far— but, despite his philosophy’s embrace by dumb Nazis who didn’t understand it— he, unlike his rotten fascist sister, hated nationalism and anti-semitism. He died in 1900 but his definition of good leadership (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) calls for attributes like strength of will, courage to defy convention, visionary creativity and self-overcoming. In the end, he viewed leadership as a process of overcoming oneself and the world’s mediocrity, not exactly descriptions that would fit Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. If Nietzsche were to evaluate Romney's position, he’d focus on themes of power, authenticity and the will to overcome societal constraints and find ole Mitt woefully lacking. He might appreciate Romney’s defiance of Trump as an assertion of individual will against the herd mentality of the Republican Party but he would also see Romney’s reluctance to endorse Harris as a failure to fully embody the qualities of a Übermensch—a person who transcends conventional morality to create new values and assert their own truth.
I’d go so far as to assert that Nietzsche would criticize Romney’s failure to endorse Kamala as a form of weakness and indecision. In Nietzschean terms, Romney’s desire to preserve his influence within the Republican Party and protect his family from potential threats could be seen as an expression of what Nietzsche calls ressentiment— a reactionary form of morality that arises out of fear, weakness and a desire for safety— not traits we want to see in leaders. Nietzsche held that individuals should embrace risk, challenge and the creation of new values, rather than clinging to outdated structures or seeking to protect themselves from discomfort. Romney’s refusal to act decisively is a retreat from the bold, assertive will to power that characterizes ideal leaders. By refusing to fully commit, Romney exposes that he’s trapped by a “slave morality” that prioritizes safety, order and the avoidance of conflict over the creation of new values— a betrayal of his own potential greatness, a failure to overcome the constraints imposed by conventional morality and societal expectations. Romney fails the authenticity test while adhering to the dictates of the herd. His hesitation to endorse Kamala, despite recognizing the danger posed by Señor Trumpanzee is an unwillingness to embrace his own purported values. He’s challenge Romney to take the next step: to assert his will, embrace his own values, and act authentically. In Nietzschean terms, Romney’s decision not to endorse her is a failure to affirm life fully— an unwillingness to embrace the potential uncertainty that might come with such a decision. Nietzsche would advocate for Romney to act with amor fati (love of fate), to affirm his decision regardless of the consequences, and to see his actions as part of the process of creating a new, higher form of existence. One thing about Nietzsche is that true greatness lies not in compromise but in the bold assertion of will and the willingness to take risks in the pursuit of higher values. I know I can’t really speak for him, but I’d say he’d see Romney’s refusal to fully engage, at age 77 (if not now, when?) in the fight against Trump as a missed opportunity to rise above the mediocrity of contemporary politics and become a leader who shapes the future according to his own vision.
Comments