| « | No Blogging Today |
»
|
|
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Serving While Republican
It's long been clear to any intelligent, attentive observer of the American political scene that liberal politicians, liberal activists, and their favored political institution, the Democratic Party, don't regard themselves as bound by any laws or moral rules. Indeed, the accumulated mass of liberals' self-justifications and self-exculpations for major violations of both statute law and moral constraint has grown so large that one can hardly mention it in public without producing a smothering weariness and an urgent need to change the subject.
The remarkable thing about this phenomenon is how reliably the courts, including the Court of the Old Media, allow liberal felons and miscreants to skate away free of penalty, without even a chiding. Yet those same courts, confronted with the tiniest suggestion that a conservative might have sinned in even a minor way, will descend upon the tainted one with a display of wrath the God of the Old Testament would have been hard pressed to equal. This has been beautifully exemplified by the prosecution of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, formerly the chief of staff for Vice-President Dick Cheney, over what amounts to a lapse of memory about a minor detail of a noncriminal incident.
Mind you, Bill Clinton could lie to a federal court, could lie to Congress, could lie on television to the entire American people, could defend himself by arguing about the meaning of "is," and suffer absolutely no consequences. As the only Democratic president elected to two consecutive terms since FDR (who was himself an adulterer) and the supreme icon of their no-standards standard for self-indulgence, liberals venerate him with an intensity scarcely less than what they feel for Roosevelt, and would defend him to the outermost limits of illogic. But a he-said / she-said contest over who had said what when and to whom about Mrs. Joseph Wilson's employment at the CIA might cost Lewis Libby, a Republican, more than twenty years in a federal prison.
Ann Coulter's column of today assesses this shameful state of affairs with the sort of merciless brilliance that has earned her the admiration of the American Right:
This makes it official: It's illegal to be Republican.Since Teddy Kennedy walked away from a dead girl with only a wrist slap (which was knocked down to a mild talking-to, plus time served: zero), Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.
As a result, Democrats have run wild, accepting bribes, destroying classified information, lying under oath, molesting interns, driving under the influence, obstructing justice and engaging in sex with underage girls, among other things.
Meanwhile, conservatives of any importance constantly have to spend millions of dollars defending themselves from utterly frivolous criminal prosecutions. Everything is illegal, but only Republicans get prosecuted.
Please read the whole column. It will jog your memory in ways you can't imagine, about incidents you won't believe you've forgotten. It will more than make up for Miss Coulter's occasional lapses of taste when she speaks "live." Beyond the rogues' gallery she assembles lies an even more revealing event:
If you haven’t heard the story, here’s the gist. Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez, recent winner of the Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award at CPAC, was once a gay porn, erm, actor and escort. But apparently he isn’t anymore.The left is making this revelation a Jeff Gannon redux.
What they’re actually showing is that, once again, the left loves the sin but hates the sinner (if the sinner is a Republican). Because you won’t find many if any denunciations of what Sanchez did on its own merits; they’ll just slam him for “hypocrisy” for being a Republican with a past.
Corporal Sanchez isn't an officeholder; he's just a Marine who's aligned himself with the Republican Party and has taken action to protect campus conservatives from assault by leftist agitators and disruptors. He moved away from the shameful conduct of his past under the prodding of his conscience. As a former homosexual-for-pay, he was already likely to be a target of revilement by those who claim that sexual orientation is innate and immutable. As a conservative activist and the honoree of a conservative conference, he had to be destroyed. The revelation of his past was the sole avenue by which to attack him, so the Left tactically suppressed its stance on how there's nothing wrong with homosexuality and rammed the shaft home.
Wasn't Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank discovered to be shacked up with a younger man who was running a brothel in their shared apartment? Didn't New Jersey Governor James McGreevey disgrace himself and betray his wife by his homosexual affair with an aide he had hired? Did anyone on the Left speak a word of chastisement to these men about their shamelessness?
No, of course not. They're Democrats. Democrats are a protected species -- and not by virtue of being endangered. "No opprobrium for Democrats" must be tattooed on the eyelids of every liberal in America. After all, there are abortion rights to protect, homosexual mascots to pander to, and same-sex marriage to advance!
If anything could make matters worse, it's this: Most conservative spokesmen are so frightened of the Old Media that they won't condemn shamelessness among Democrats either. But let the shadow of suspicion fall on a Republican official of any degree and we fall all over ourselves to plead for mercy -- not for him, but for us who are associated with him by our common political affiliation. We are as gutless as our adversaries are brazen.
This flows from the phenomenon noted by Neal Stephenson in his novel The Diamond Age:
"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices," Finkle-McGraw said. "It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of climate, you are not allowed to criticise others -- after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?..."Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others' shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all the vices. For, you see, if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour -- you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all the political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.
"You wouldn't believe the things they said about the original Victorians. Calling someone a Victorian in those days was almost like calling them a fascist or a Nazi....
"Because they were hypocrites... the Victorians were despised in the late Twentieth Century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefarious conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves -- they took no moral stances and lived by none."
"So they were morally superior to the Victorians -- " Major Napier said, still a bit snowed under.
"-- even though -- in fact, because -- they had no morals at all."
"We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy," Finkle-McGraw continued. "In the late Twentieth Century Weltanschaaung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception -- he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course. most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit-is willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing."
"That we occasionally violate our own moral code," Major Napier said, working it through, "does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code."
"Of course not," Finkle-McGraw said. "It's perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved -- the missteps we make along the way -- are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power."
This magnificent summary of the uses of shamelessness as a political weapon ought to be published on the editorial page of every periodical in America. It won't be, of course; the Old Media are so deeply enmeshed with the Democratic Party that no imaginable event could sever the bonds between them. If Jimmy Carter were caught red-handed brokering nukes to HAMAS, his journalistic defenders would dismiss it as a charitable gesture toward an oppressed people. If Bill Clinton were caught naked in bed with the entire cast of A Chorus Line, they'd sniff it away as "just about sex." If Hillary Clinton were proved to have personally rigged every voting machine in New York, they'd reply that it was all she could do to offset the pernicious influence of Republican propaganda.
But "serving while Republican" is accompanied ever more regularly by a preconviction for high crimes and misdemeanors -- a guarantee that the accused will be deemed guilty of any and every sort of misconduct, including all the extremes of misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance, merely for his party affiliation. The Old Media speak of any specific accusation as if it's already been proved beyond the possibility of refutation. Democrat mouthpieces thunder about the Republicans' "culture of corruption." Ordinary Americans drift ever further away from political involvement. Republican strategists will strain to find candidates about whom literally nothing is known. Politically engaged conservatives become ever more reluctant to look at themselves in the mirror.
And the Republic, under greater threat from enemies internal and external than it has been since the Civil War, gradually crumbles beneath us.
Comments
Well said. The protected class SHOULD be protected- but only when they are near to extinction.
Posted by og on 03/08/2007 at 06:31 PMSo what can Republicans do? Perhaps the only thing that can be done is for office-holders with an (R) behind their name to be totally transparent. Perhaps necessity could be turned into a virtue: imagine the web site of a politician that had a page called “Things In My Past That My Opponents Want You To Know”.
Essentially, it would be an attempt to take the wind out of the sails of the politician’s enemies. Sure, it would be uncomfortable for the politician in question. But as always, it’s not so much the crime as the cover-up that lands you in trouble, so never cover up. And more to the point, don’t do stuff that you will be tempted to cover up.
Now, obviously you don’t have to “confess” to every accusation, especially if the accusation is not true. But at least address it in clear and unambiguous language. But above all, the politician should be as honest and plain-spoken as humanly possible.
It is clear that initially only Republicans would be expected to do this, which is patently unfair. But there would be a subtle long-term effect on Democrats too, or at least on how the public views Democrats who don’t exhibit such transparency.
Posted by on 03/08/2007 at 07:46 PMBut, Alex, that’s rather naive. You seem to think that the Democrats would stand for having the wind taken from their sails.
After all, just what is Libby guilty of—really? He was a bit confused over a minor conversational detail about a bureaucratic nonentity, complaints on whose behalf were lodged by the adminstration’s enemies WITH THE PRESS in an affair in which he—Libby—was involved at best peripherally.
And remember, Libby is a lawyer, steeped in the mystique of the American system of jurisprudence, as well as probably most cynical as to its true nature. But he sounds like an idealistic type who hopes for the best—from a system which has been most foully twisted to even bring him to court, let alone convict and (one hopes not) sentence him.
In the words of the Clintonistas, there was no THERE there. But that didn’t stop the Democrats. Why should freely admitted turpitude stop them?
No, the only way to stop this slide into tyranny is to fight the Left and fight them hard (and fair, albeit with occasional roughness).
M
Posted by Mark Alger on 03/09/2007 at 12:20 AMWhat can big “R” Republicans do? For one, they could grow a backbone. Force prosecution of the miscreant Democrats, at all levels. Also, stop panicking and jumping 10 feet in the air when the legacy media says “Boo!” Republicans will never get fair play in the legacy media, so don’t formulate strategy with them in mind. Expect the media dogpile, have your ducks in a row, and when the moonbat left wing of the Democrat party goes on the attack using their willing media mouthpieces, let fly with the napalm.
Posted by Mark on 03/09/2007 at 01:44 AMHyposcrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. (Source unknown.)
The left so loves sin they can’t bear to slander their beloved by calling it sin. Their currents terms of endearment are addiction, poverty, abuse.
Finkle-McGraw is right. The left has no morals, as we know them. They are indeed the free spirits.
Posted by on 03/09/2007 at 02:54 AMI like the way Jesse Ventura handled it as an independant: When he announced, he said something to the effect of, “Whatever they say about me, just know, it’s true, I’ve done it all.”
Posted by on 03/09/2007 at 06:05 PM"It’s long been clear to any intelligent, attentive observer of the American political scene that liberal politicians, liberal activists, and their favored political institution, the Democratic Party, don’t regard themselves as bound by any laws or moral rules.”
And you lecture liberals on hypocrisy? Hilarious.
Posted by on 03/10/2007 at 05:57 PMWould anyone care to answer “Joe” for me? I dislike to shoot fish in a barrel; it hardly seems sporting.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 03/10/2007 at 06:04 PM"Joe”,
I think Fran wants us to provide you actual examples. I too will leave that to others.
This following is probably a waste of time since you won’t read it. But I’ll answer you because Our Curmdgeon requested it.
As I’ve seen almost all liberals do under similar circumstances, I suspect you’d simply sweep all pro-conservative examples away with a wave of your hand.
See “Joe”, the difference between liberals and conservatives is basically a matter of attitude.
Most liberals are convinced they are right, no ifs ands or buts. And when liberals find that rare instance when conservatives are right, well then it’s only by accident and in spite of themselves.
Liberals may initially believe that conservatives are simply staid and content with the status quo. But when conservatives prove to be overly resistant to righting the wrongs that liberals KNOW they have the solution for (no matter how many times their schemes fail), the liberal is inclined to feel that the conservatives are EVIL (and the sole cause for why liberal schemes always fail).
And every body knows that it’s the evil who deserve to be punished, not the good.
From the liberal point of view, proven time after time, when conservatives break laws, well they need to be punished because conservatives are never simply in error, for they are evil, so even simple errors come from what seeps out from their dark souls.
But when liberals break laws, well they need understanding, because liberals mean well: any “stumble” of a liberal derives from only good intentions.
So, if a liberal lies, well, the ends justify the means. The liberal forces will try their best to give it a pass, or even try to make the lie an acceptable lie.
If you’re reasonable “Joe”, and not just a mocker, then you know that that sort of selective justice is a proven formula for undermining civilization. As such undermining is the aim of the worst of the Leftists, it is no small wonder that they love to delude liberals that the liberal’s cause is theirs too. (See sophistry).
From the conservative point of view, liberals and conservatives who break the law are deserving of punishment. Unlike the liberals they feel compelled to live by the laws the hold civilization together. Now the statist—that’s a Leftist who hides out on the right—will often convince conservatives that they provide the conservatives best hope. They usually do it by scaring the conservatives that if the statist isn’t given what they want then the Left take will take over. (See sophistry again. Liberals and conservatives are actually closer than all this appears. With the help of moronic media they are kept at odds with each other because such tension greatly benefits both Leftists and Statists who will split up the power, thereby gained, between them).
In short, liberals have been convinced that it is proper to have it all go their way. It’s only fair: because existing laws tend to be protected by conservatives, then conservatives who break them must be punished to the fullest extent regardless of extenuating circumstances. When all conservatives don’t agree, then liberals call them hypocrites.
But because liberals claimed intent is to perfect the laws (that the conservatives are somehow preventing them from achieving), then they deserve to be let off because they don’t support the law as it stands.
The same goes for breaking moral codes: liberals think those are passé, morally relative hogwash, and don’t apply to them, but the conservative earn all the shame they set for themselves—or they’re hypocrites again.
“Joe”, you feel comfortable calling Fran a hypocrite simply because you believe that is something you, “Joe”, lacking Fran’s “impossible” high standards, could never be called.
Liberal’s ease at leveling the charge of hypocracy proves that assessement is correct.
Posted by Pascal on 03/11/2007 at 04:28 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
