GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Liberal Hypocrisy or the Left’s Situational Politics

by

A few months ago, The Malcontent‘s Robbie wrote, “For many on the Left . . ., hypocrisy is quite possibly the greatest crime one can ever possibly commit.” Yet, it seems that on any number of issues, liberals, including their allies in the MSM, are the greatest hypocrites around.

Back in 1991, then-Congressman Barbara Boxer (D-DailyKos) led a group of angry Democratic female representatives in a staged march to the Senate to “demand a delay in the confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.” She and her liberal colleagues were upset by allegations that the first President Bush’s second nominee to the Supreme Court had been accused of sexual harassment. And while the allegations against that good man were far less consequential than those leveled against Democrat Bill Clinton a few years later, Mrs. Boxer stood by her fellow Democrat in the 1990s, even thanking him in her victory speech when she won re-election to the U.S. Senate. The woman who raised a ruckus over a Republican accused of boorish behavior (talking about porno movies and pubic hairs on Coke cans) was silent when a Democrat was accused of rape.

And while no one had been able to corroborate the charges against Clarence Thomas, the woman who accused Bill Clinton of rape could substantiate hers. If Barbara Boxer held Democrat Bill Clinton to the same standards to which she had held Republican Clarence Thomas, she would not only have voted to impeach him, but would have also advocated his public flogging and subsequent lifetime incarceration.

We see successors to Barbara Boxer’s hypocrisy today in the American news media. MSM web-sites newspapers, magazines and even networks, ever eager to publish “art work” mocking sacred symbols of the Christian faith — even lambasting those who attempted to deny government funding for such sacrilege — refuse to publish cartoons disdainful of images sacred to Muslims. (My view is that our news media should show respect for all faiths — faulting, in the same tone, those who would dip a crucifix in urine and those who would represent the Prophet Mohammed in a derogatory manner.)

Eugene Volokh (via Instapundit) has collected various Boston Globe editorials to present a striking example of MSM hypocrisy — the same paper which showed sensitivity to Muslim sensitivities in the fuss over the Danish cartoons was disdainful of elected officials who sought to cut off federal funding from institutions showing art works which mocked symbols sacred to Christians.

Why is it, I wonder, that some on the left and in the news media show more sensitivity to representatives of a faith foreign to many Americans than they do to a faith to which the vast majority of Americans adhere? (Michelle Malkin has offered the most comprehensive coverage of this kerfuffle, especially here and here.)

And it’s not just the Danish cartoons where the media has established a double standard. Just look at the coverage of the leak of the NSA program to eavesdrop on the international communications of suspected terrorists and that of the name of a low-level CIA operative.

The MSM got into high dudgeon at the mere allegation that a White House official may have leaked the name of Valerie Plame to the news media. And while a scrupulous federal prosecutor has thoroughly investigated this leak, he has yet to file any charges for the underlying offense (i.e., the leak) nor has he indicated that the leak “resulted in any national security damage.” In today’s OpinionJournal Political Diary (available by subscription), John Fund notes that the “the journalism community in Washington seems largely uninterested in who leaked the NSA material” despite the fact that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Porter Goss said that the leak has severely damaged the CIA’s “capabilities to carry out our mission.”

At least since Barbara Boxer organized her staged march up the Senate steps, those on the left will use any allegation of impropriety against a Republican to tarnish that conservative’s reputation. It’s not the impropriety that bothers them as much (no matter what their outrage) as the partisan affiliation of the individual accused. And should someone on their own side commit a similar impropriety, they will either ignore it — or explain it away.

Note how when questioned about his role in the Abramoff scandal, instead of denying his own involvement, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid starts repeating his mantra that it’s a Republican scandal. It seems he’s saying that if a Republican does it, it’s bad, very, very, very bad, but since it’s a Republican scandal, he couldn’t have done anything wrong because he’s not a Republican even if he did do some of the very things the corrupt Republicans did.

We have long heard of “situational ethics,” a term which defines the morality of the act based on one’s state of mind at the time the act performed. I think we need a new term to describe the morality of the left and and their MSM allies. Let’s call it situational politics.* If a Republican does (or is accused of) a certain impropriety it’s very bad, but if a Democrat does (or is accused of) the same thing (or even something worse), it’s not really all that bad because there are extenuating circumstances (which, of course, don’t exist for Republicans). Even if there are no such circumstance, it really can’t be that bad because a Democrat did it. And Democrats — and the news media — are good.

Perhaps, this is all because in the mind of the left, all Republicans are narrow-minded corrupt hypocrites while Democrats (and their media allies) are noble individuals who only do noble things. And this shows — yet again — how narrow-minded the left really is. They can’t see Republicans as they are any more than they can see themselves, so obsessed are they with being right rather than doing right.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

*As I completed the first draft of this post, I googled “situational politics” and found that I’m not the first person to use this term. In a similar context, for example, talk show host Rusty Humphries uses the expression in this townhall.com column.

UPDATE: In today’s Best of the Web, James Taranto weighs in on the media’s hypocrisy in the Danish cartoon kerfuffle, contrasting the Washington Post‘s failure to publish the offensive Danish cartoons with its publication of a cartoon which, many believe, demeans our military and its leaders:

What accounts for the difference? A combination of fear and ideology. Muslim fundamentalists, or at least some of them, express offense by torching embassies and threatening terrorist attacks. By contrast, U.S. military leaders write firm but polite letters to the editor, and Christian fundamentalists ask their elected representatives to stop spending tax money on offensive stuff. (Never believe a liberal when he professes to find Christian fundamentalists “scary.”) There is no need to appease an opponent who respects rules of civilized behavior.

If you haven’t already, read the whole thing!

UP-UPDATE: Iowa Senator Charles Grassley on the leak to the New York Times of the NSA program:

I don’t hear as much about public outcry about this leak as I did about Valerie Plame and the White House disclosures of her — or presumed disclosures of her identify of a CIA agent. And to me that’s a two-bit nothing compared to this sort of issue that we have before us of this information being leaked to the press.

Because as prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald noted in a footnote to an affidavit he filed on August 27, 2004: “To date, we have no direct evidence that [then-Vice Presidential Chief-of-Staff I. Lew “Scooter”] Libby knew or believed that Wilson’s wife [i.e., Valerie Plame] was engaged in covert work.”

UP-UP-UPDATE: Dr. Sanity comments on Senator Grassley’s remarks:

For me this about sums up the Valerie Plame affair — a “two-bit nothing” matter — and tells me what the Democrats basically stand for these days. They get their panties in a bunch about Plame/Wilson, and then act like nothing happened (except of course “abuse of executive power”)when a really major breach of national security occurs.

(via Polipundit’s Lorie Byrd).

Comments

  1. #0 – What you’ve given is just a few drops in the vast ocean of liberal hypocrisy.

    So many more examples that you could have gone on with (but your post had to end sometime).

  3. #1 – P.S. I wish desperately that it weren’t so. I was a Democrat for 15+ years (before their slide went too far) and voted Lieberman in 2004 (in the primary, as a registered independent). I’d love to praise Democrats; there just hasn’t been any material for it in about, oh, 3 years.

  4. given that I mentioned Mrs. Boxer’s hypocrisy, I should perhaps have noticed that she gets all upset about alleged GOP vote fraud, but remains silent when there is solid evidence of Democratic vote fraud.

    I guess only Republicans can steal elections.

  5. There was a recent book published about liberal hypocrisy. I’m sure everyone’s familiar. In an interview, he was asked about Republican hypocrisy. Doesn’t that happen a lot too. He said, and this is from memory so not verbatim, “Oh, of course. There are many cases. But in those cases, the mainstream media is all over it so no book is necessary.” What’s fascinating about the items in his book, which are really blatant and mind-boggling, is that those things weren’t all over the news. They are definately news-worthy.

  8. Or that Carlyle Group had as much or more to do with George Soros and the Clintons, as with the Bushes.

    #5 – Well, just as Dan pointed out, the double standard extends well into the media… the NSA terrorist surveillance program leak was a hugely damaging breach of national security, and Valerie Plame absolutely nothing… yet which got the coverage…

    Dan could have gone into Hillary’s campaign finance scandals, or Nancy Pelosi’s… and (for lack of space or whatever) didn’t…

    I tell you, it’s all about abortion… the judiciary… Roe v. Wade. Anything or anyone that might undermine Roe is demonized. While anything or anyone who might support it, is permitted to get away with some jaw-dropping crimes.

  9. I’ve just started reading your commentary, so my compliments to the authors. Thank for this opportunity to add my own thought.

    Hypocrisy is another name for ‘true belief.’ The most vocal Democrats truly believe that their actions are above inspection, above reproach, and most of all above correction. Their flocks truly believe whatever they are told, and have lost the art of determining content within the context. Now that is both sad and dangerous for all who love freedom.

    Republicans, with the late 1970s addition of evangelicals and the 1990s Big Tent additions, have made their party more of a self-policing organization. I’ll caveat that by saying hopefully Boehner and Frist will put an end to pork legislation, though I do doubt Frist has the wherewithal to stand up to anyone from Alaska.

    Again, thank you for this opportunity to comment.

  10. Speaking of hypocrisy….CNN is reporting that the Oil industry is fuming over the cutting of $50 Million in funds from the federal government for research and development. Now, I’ve seen the oil industry (and several conservative supporters here) talk at great length about how a good amount of profits actually going into R&D. In the last quarter of 2005, Exxon alone reported their annual profits standing at 36.13 BILLION dollars. Surely, isn’t it hypocritcal of the oil industry to bitch and moan about such a drop in the bucket like $50 Mil when they can well afford all their own R&D? I really would like to take them up on their offer to see their P&L statements along with statements on how exactly the profits were distributed.

    You know, I realized something else interesting here: the posters and responders on this website take great efforts to ascribe a lot of unpleasant things to liberals/democrats. However, especially in the world of politics, you can give that label to everyone. It wasn’t so long ago that people like Dole & Gingrich were part of the group that talked about morals – yet both were divorced (Gingrich served divorce papers to his wife in the hospital while she was being treated for cancer) or the Bush’s who go on about morals, yet their own kids are involved with drugs and alchohol. Now that’s a might hypocritical, don’t you think?

    It’s also a bit hypocritcal to attack Democrats for accepting money then you turn around and write your mea culpas and excuses for Jack Abramoff. Would you have been so kind to a Democrat lobbyist with the same background and in the same situation? I sincerely doubt it.

  11. Um, Kevin, I did not excuse Jack Abramoff, indeed, wrote the following in my celebrated post on Jack: like Michelle Malkin, I ‘condemn his criminal activities unequivocally.’ And agree with the White House that he ‘must be held to account for what he did.’”

    And if I had known a Democratic lobbyist as I knew Jack, I would have said the exact same thing, praised his past leadership and grace, condemned his criminal wrongdoing.

    Gosh, I do wish sometimes my critics would address the points I raise so we could have a good exchange of ideas.

  15. #10

    You casually left out the part where, according to the IPAA, most of that money goes to small oil companies. Nor do you or any other liberals consider what happens when oil goes below $20/bbl again (and it will). In case you forgot, oil and NG are commodities.

    You like to bitch about “Big Oil” when they benefit from capitalism to the point that you want to punish them for it. However, I’ve NEVER seen a liberal mention the fact that there are several industries which profit more than “Big Oil” does.

  16. 11: I don’t think so….considering the things usually written here by the posters of this site (ie everything liberals do for the left is whacky), I seriously doubt you would ascribe the same “tragedy in the classic sense of the term” analogy to a democrat/liberal in a specific. Re-reading the original post on Abramoff, I stand by my original response here.

    Your post there includes “Democrats are not immune to this weakness. Even some of the most idealistic of their number.” This is the only time I can re-call seeing on this post where someone ascribes the same possibilites to Dems/liberals as your beloved conservatives, but I noticed it’s only done in conjunction with the “downfall” of a sleazy/greedy lobbyist.

  17. 15: No, I didn’t “casually” leave it out; I was commenting specifically on a juxtaposition between the $50m subsidy reported in the news and the multiple billions the oil industry as a whole (and specifically the $39B Exxon made) made in profits last year. I’m all for capitalism, heck I benefit from myself daily.

    So, show me on the IPAA website where I can find a list of their members and information on their P&L statements, especially with regard to amount of profit spent in re-investment, R&D and which ones are losing out on the $50m being cut by the Federal Government.

  18. How about Hypocrisy of the Federal Government with regard to taxes and spending?

    Isn’t it hypocrytical (in a financial sense) for the current ruling political party to create more and more debt for the country, yet want to cut taxes further at the same time? Seems our leaders need to go to credit counseling. We’re on the same path we were Reagan…make the Dems the enemies fiscally, cut taxes, yet spend, spend, spend. Whoever ends up in the president’s office next (whether they be Republican or Democrat) is going to have a *huge* mess on their hands. (and yes, pork comes from both sides of the aisle)

  19. #18, ummm Kevin… newsflash of truth for a second.

    The spending under Reagan was to restore the military to a point where it could actually defend America instead of run around the world doing nation building, as per JimminyCricketCarter’s prior efforts and standard.

    That stronger military literally led to the downfall of the Soviet Union –something FDR allowed to gain ascendancy at the expense of millions of innocent lives… a scale of human suffering that makes the Holocaust look like a minor offense.

    I don’t see the same thing happening now. What set of glasses are you looking through?? I hear Democrats wailing about cuts to programs… hell, SocSec Reform was killed because the Dems wailed about the hidden agenda to cut benefits… so, go figure?

    Put down the koolaid, take some air, and think for knee jerk second.

  20. It’s also a bit hypocritcal to attack Democrats for accepting money then you turn around and write your mea culpas and excuses for Jack Abramoff.

    However dirty, Abramoff is an American (and accepting his money laundered through tribal sources doesn’t clean it up — Democrats are just as dirty where Abramoff is concerned). Soros is a foreigner, with a focused, and unambiguously anti-American agenda.

    Dirty is one thing. Treasonous is another.

  21. Kevin, in #16, in standing by your original response (#10), you prove that you don’t read this blog to learn our ideas, but instead to argue with us, even if you’re not arguing with the points we raise.

    The reason I posted on Jack Abramoff the way I did was that I had once known Jack and – at the time – saw his many good qualities. The fact that you would, in your own words, “seriously doubt” I would use the same term to describe a Democrat in similar circumstances shows that you have absolutely no clue who I am. You should know better especially given the passage you cite where you reference my comment on idealistic Democrats.

    I have praised a number on the left, indeed, one of my posts which attracted a lot of attention in the blogosphere was when I praised Barney Frank.

    I am delighted that my comment motivated you to re-read my post on Jack. That said, I can’t see, how you can honestly stand by your original comment (#10) because you said I offered “ mea culpas and excuses for Jack Abramoff.” I did no such thing.

  22. #10 Kevin — February 6, 2006 @ 10:11 pm – February 6, 2006

    In the last quarter of 2005, Exxon alone reported their annual profits standing at 36.13 BILLION dollars.

    Do you know how much of that profit increase might have been a paper profit based on the (probable) increase in the value of their inventory? Recall that, unlike individuals, corporations are taxed on an accrual basis and are required to re-value their inventory (as income or loss) when they report profits. It is not easy to do.

    I have objections to the taxation of oil companies, but they are orthogonal to those issues. Oil companies get to basically double-depreciate. They get an oil-depletion allowance, which was enacted long, long ago, to allow them to depreciate the value of their oil fields because it was impossible to know how much oil was in the field to give them a reasonably accurate measure the amount of oil left in the ground at the end of the tax year, and so they could not make use of standard depreciation. More recently, it became possible to get a reasonbly accurate measure, so they began depreciating–but they continued with the oil-depletion allowance. Double-dipping, so to speak. And, of course, they greased the wheels with the politicians to allow them to continue.

  25. #20 rightwingprof — February 7, 2006 @ 9:41 am – February 7, 2006

    Soros is a foreigner, with a focused, and unambiguously anti-American agenda.

    Are you a xenophobe? Soros became a US citizen in 1961.

    If his having been born in Hungary makes him a foreigner, I guess that means that my partner, who was dragged by his parents from Munich to New Britski Connecticut in 1957 when he was six years old, is also a foreigner. He, like his father, were considered stateless at the time–his father was a Displaced Person during WWII. He–my partner–subsequently became a US citizen.

    Now, let me ask you this, what makes you an American citizen? Were you born here? If so, you are an American citizen merely by accident of birth.

  27. #27 ThatGayConservative — February 7, 2006 @ 10:22 pm – February 7, 2006

    So he should pay his taxes, right?

    He, who? My partner? He does pay his federal and state income taxes and federal SS taxes. I know so, since I fill out the tax returns.

    My question to rightwingprof in #26 remains.

    It’s interesting that you, like some others here, seem to want to divert attention from the question that was asked. Let rightwingprof respond to the question(s) in #26.