Marc Racicot served as Governor of Montana (1993-2001) as well as chair of the Republican National Committee ( 2002-2003). He was also chair of George W. Bush’s re-election campaign. In short, he was a Republican insider.
Given his previous associations, it should not surprise that he is not happy with the nomination of Donald Trump to be the Republican candidate for President.
In today’s Washington Post he offers this op ed to explain his opposition.
Racicot begins, as many Republicans do, with Abraham Lincoln, which to many of us now seems at least silly given how far that party has strayed from Lincoln — and from Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and even in some ways Ronald Reagan — in its move to the extreme right in recent years.
Nevertheless there are some pointed — and I think valuable — words in this op ed.
Racicot acknowledges that in many ways Lincoln, a failed businessman as well as a loser in previous political campaigns, could have been considered unqualified for the Presidency even in normal times, much less as we careened towards war. He was elected in a four way race with less than 40% of the popular vote (Racicot rounds up t0 40), and yet he is considered our greatest President by more historians than is any other occupant of the Oval Office, even than of our first President from before there was an Oval Office.
How could this have happened?
Racicot writes
There appears but one conclusion. The collective whole of our citizenry, like a jury, has always had the capacity, if the evidence was before them, to discern those best qualified by virtue of their character and capacity, to lead us through perilous times.
Those here at Daily Kos would surely, considering the election of 2000, argue with that conclusion. Except remember — at the time of the election of 2000 we did not know or even have much of a hint of the scale of what might be confronting us, whereas in 1860 it was clear that we were heading towards some kind of crisis over the issue of slavery.
After his introductory material, Racicot lays down several markers that he thinks obligatory in considering our choice of leaders. The first is commitment to country over party or ideology:
As responsible, though admittedly not perfect, citizens, we are obliged, before automatic commitments to political parties, ideologies or candidates, to give consideration to those timeless and eternal qualities of genuine leadership that transcend ever-changing political charters, programs and affiliations. Rarely stopping to inventory them, we all know them when we see them.
The second is the character of the candidate:
It is inescapable that every decision made by every leader reflects the character of the man or woman making the decision. Character is the lens through which a leader perceives the path to be followed. It conceives and shapes every thought and is inextricably interwoven into every word spoken, every policy envisioned and every action taken.
Persistent seriousness, solemn and honest commitment to the interests of others, exhaustive study and detailed proposals, sincerity, humility, empathy, dignity, fairness, patience, genuine respect for all of God’s children, durability, modesty and the absence of self-interest are those qualities of principled leadership absolutely essential to presidential decision-making.
Before continuing with his op ed, I want to focus on some of those words that Racicot offers as criteria in the paragraph immediately above.
Persistent seriousness is clearly something most honest observers would not apply to Donald Trump. That some of his supporters/advocates have expressed an opinion that he would become more “presidential” so far seems to lack supporting evidence.
commitment to the interest of others — in Trump’s case, only insofar as his mouthing words to draw their support for his candidacy
exhaustive study and detailed proposals — there is absolute NO EVIDENCE that any sentient being could with honesty apply those words to Donald Trump.
By now you get the picture. Arrogance is not humility, patience is not demonstrated by being thin-skinned and blasting out nasty tweets, demeaning those you can categorize as “other” is not a genuine respect for all of God’s children, modesty does not apply to one who is a constant braggart (often about things that are demonstrably false), and clearly Trump never lets go of his self-interest.
Racicot notes his hesitancy to judge because of his own imperfections, and recognizes the power of the more than 13 million who during the primary process chose to support Trump. He thinks their thoughts and voices need to be given fair consideration, but then he writes:
But after long and careful consideration, I cannot endorse or support their decision to express their frustration, anger and disappointment by selecting Trump as the Republican nominee for president. Trump has demonstrated neither the aforementioned qualities of principled leadership, nor offered any substantive or serious conservative policy proposals consistent with historical Republican Party platform positions. Both, in my humble view, are indispensable preconditions to his selection as the Republican candidate for the office of president of the United States.
It will not surprise you that he cannot endorse or support Trump. But he goes further in hoping for a miracle like the one that gave us Lincoln, to occur in Cleveland.
It is unlikely he hope will be fulfilled. The RNC is working in conjunction with the Trump campaign to prevent any possibility of the nomination of Trump being derailed.
Why then read what Racicot has to say? After all, despite his previous positions,he is far from a household name, even though to many in the political class his words will have a great deal of impact.
Might I suggest something, which I have offered in a few comments on other threads. Look at the state he served as governor. Remember that it has a Libertarian streak to it. Remember also that in 1992 H. Ross Perot drew enough votes to flip the state to Bill Clinton. I suggest that if Racicot chose to actively bless the campaign of Gary Johnson, Montana’s three electoral votes might actually be in play.
Let me offer a further thought. The more statements like those we have seen from Dick Armitage, Hank Paulson, and now Marc Racicot, the greater impact it may have within the chattering class.
I can also see the Clinton campaign or perhaps some organization supporting them taking this op ed, highlighting some of its contents, including what I have quoted, and doing a target mail or email piece to a lot of Republicans and even some Republican leaning independents. Certainly in Montana, but perhaps elsewhere as well.
I did not see a reference to this op ed in this morning’s Pundit Round-up. Since I thought it worthy of attention, I offer this posting.
Do with it what you will.