While freshman Sen. Mitt Romney’s now-infamous Washington Post op-ed criticizing President Trump was met with cheers by many of the administration’s critics, it predictably triggered a massive backlash from his fellow Republicans. Romney’s criticisms of the president’s character and conduct echoed those of former Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who spent the last two years unsuccessfully trying to mount a conservative opposition to Trump in the Senate.
Flake’s relentless criticism of Trump alienated members of his party, but his conservative voting record still made him unpalatable to most committed members of the liberal #Resistance. This wasn’t a successful strategy: In 2018, the senator’s approval ratings hit a rock-bottom 18 percent. While Flake’s opposition to Trump was ultimately unsuccessful, his shortcomings do provide Romney with a guide for what he should avoid if he wants to replace Flake as a vocal Trump critic in the Senate majority yet maintain credibility in the public.
One of Flake’s biggest problems was that, for all his concerned tweets and Trump-critical speeches to empty Senate chambers, he never truly articulated what his vision of conservatism was. This was especially problematic given the unique space Flake occupied in the GOP. He wasn’t a hard-line conservative, nor was he a centrist “maverick” like the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Even Flake’s book, Conscience of a Conservative, largely defines his conservatism in terms of what it is not, eschewing Trump, populism, and xenophobia in favor of returning to a vague, idealized pre-Trump conservative consensus— one that never really existed in the first place.
Romney can avoid this fate by establishing his principles early and often, although that might prove difficult considering his record of flip-flopping in the past. However, his op-ed is preoccupied with Trump’s character faults and purported poor leadership. Like Flake, Romney doesn’t clearly articulate what his principles are beyond his attacks on Trump. Romney’s unwillingness to define himself will allow others to create their own definitions for him: to Trump supporters, he’ll be a “globalist elite” or “Never Trump hack,” while Democrats will eventually brand him as a “rich, entitled white man” as soon as he starts voting for conservative policies.
Flake’s second shortcoming was his failure to distinguish between disagreements with Trump on policy and on character. As a result, whenever Flake voiced concern with one of the president’s actions, his progressive critics were always quick to point out his voting record. According to FiveThirtyEight, Flake voted in agreement with Trump more than 80 percent of the time in the Senate. While this rate was somewhat low in comparison to other Republican senators, it made his criticisms appear insincere in the eyes of many Democrats and independents, because he did not always clearly distinguish that he was criticizing Trump’s character, not his policy.
When Flake did discuss policy, he fixated disproportionately on his disagreements with the administration, usually concerning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and immigration. By not often acknowledging the areas of policy where he agreed with Trump, Flake isolated himself from the conservative movement and rendered himself powerless. Flake wasn’t wrong to oppose some of Trump’s immigration policies, but perhaps Trump supporters would have been more inclined to hear him out if he had put greater emphasis on the many other times he and the president actually agreed. Instead, Flake made it far too easy for his detractors to paint him as a faux-conservative or RINO.
Again, Romney can do right where Flake went wrong. From the outset, Romney should affirm that his criticism of Trump’s leadership doesn’t mean that he will stop supporting conservative policies. On this point, Romney is already off to a fine start, writing in his Post op-ed, “I will act as I would with any president … I will support policies that I believe are in the best interest of my country and my state, and oppose those that are not.” While vague, Romney has drawn a clear and important distinction between the president’s policy and leadership style.
Flake’s final fault was that, while he was quick to point out when something was wrong, he never wanted to be part of the solution. He was concerned about how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would add $1 trillion to the deficit, unless Congress addressed exorbitant spending, but voted for it anyway after securing minor concessions that had little to do with the budget. Meanwhile, Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, introduced an amendment addressing their own reservations about the bill—Flake introduced no such amendment. Similarly, while Flake decried the separation of families at the border, it was Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who actually attempted to solve the problem by proposing legislation addressing the legal mechanisms behind the separations.
In his tenure, Romney needs to stand tall where Flake slouched. If he wants to the lead the conservative opposition to Trump, then he actually needs to lead. This means introducing amendments to flawed legislation and withholding his vote when the situation calls for it. In other words, Romney has to either put up or shut up. Flake did neither.
If Romney learns from Flake’s failures, he can easily avoid the former senator’s slow slide into irrelevance. If not, Romney’s first term may very well be his last.
Michael Rieger (@EagerRieger) is a contributor for Young Voices.
