Conservatives Use Liberals to Justify Acts

Conservative reaction to two recent news stories raises a question that conservatives should consider very carefully: is liberalism really the behavioral standard by which we as conservatives want to be judged?

The old excuse that “everyone else is doing it” seems to have infected the reasoning of conservatives, who increasingly cite examples of liberal misbehavior to justify their own similar words or actions. Although it may not be fair for liberals to constantly get free passes in the MSM for what most of us would consider illegal or immoral conduct, conservatives should be willing to point out the hypocrisy while continuing to take the moral high road in their own behavior. That is, or at least that was, what separated conservatives from liberals on so many issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, political corruption, personal morality in elected officials, and others. Now conservatives seem no longer to care much about living up to a higher standard than our liberal rivals, but instead demonstrate that we wish we could behave badly too and receive the same free pass from the media that liberals enjoy.

In the following paragraphs I will reference two recent news stories and conservative reaction to them to illustrate the shamefully growing practice of wanting to be judged by liberal, rather than conservative standards:

1. President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s perjury conviction sentence.
Regular readers already know that Capital Cloak argued that since there was no underlying crime in the case, i.e. the outing of a CIA operative, there should have been no trial of Libby or anyone else. However, since a trial was held, Libby was convicted by a stacked DC liberal jury, and sentenced to prison time, President Bush commuted Libby’s sentence to a fine and probation. Liberals were, not surprisingly, outraged that their attempt to bring down the Bush administration through scandal fear mongering failed. Ironically, the Clinton’s criticized the president’s commutation decision, with Bill Clinton making this extremely hypocritical statement:

The former president tried to draw a distinction between the pardons he granted, and Bush's decision to commute Libby's 30-month sentence in the CIA leak case.

"I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted," Clinton told a radio interviewer Tuesday. "You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."

Of course, I am not suggesting that Bill Clinton was justified in issuing 140 pardons to many convicted criminals including his own business and political associates. Those pardons were wrong and certainly confirmed the stench of graft and corruption conservatives smelled for 8 years of the Clinton White House. However, instead of merely defending President Bush’s decision to rescue Libby by citing legal reasons or simply stating the president’s authority and perceived moral obligation to do so, the White House and conservative radio hosts and Internet bloggers took the moral low road by justifying the action based on Clinton’s numerous pardons:

"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has scheduled hearings on Bush's commutation of Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence.

"Well, fine, knock himself out," Snow said of Conyers. "I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?"

In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.

Conservative radio hosts like Sean Hannity, though doing so for the noble purpose of defending the obviously railroaded Libby, also joined the “look what Clinton did” chorus, pointing to the already mentioned pardons as well as former President Clinton’s impeachment in the House for perjury which ultimately resulted in no removal from office, no jail time, no fines, only the later loss of his law license. Libby was sentenced to two years for the same crime that Clinton committed. Conservative media figures also pointed to other examples of Clinton administration officials who have thus far escaped prosecution, such as former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. They pointed out that Berger committed a serious crime against national security by stealing classified documents from the National Archive, to which he plead guilty. Libby, who was convicted of perjury would serve jail time while Berger, who hamstrung the 9/11 commission by removing and destroying top secret documents dealing with the counterterrorism actions of the Clinton administration, only lost his law license, hardly a fair outcome and a clear double standard in punishments dealt in DC.

This argument successfully captured the understandable outrage of conservatives, and certainly by comparison Berger’s actions were far more serious than Libby’s, but by constantly holding out Clinton’s perjury, his last-minute pardons, and the treatment of Berger as an example, the White House and conservatives in the media contributed to the increasing trend of conservatives acting as if we wish to be judged by the loose moral and ethical standards afforded to liberals. If Libby’s commutation was legally and morally justified, as most conservatives agreed, why was it necessary to wallow in the mud with the Clintons and engage in childish and ultimately self-destructive “they did it and so can we” arguments?

Tony Snow’s snarky response quoted above was an unnecessary and atypical acceptance of the lowest common denominator in political judgment, the Clinton administration. Now conservatives are rallying to defend Congressman David Vitter (R-LA) who, when faced with a public outing by the madam of a highbrow DC brothel, confessed to his use of “services.” What is the most common conservative defense of Vitter? Clinton engaged in far more serious illicit behavior with a subordinate in the Oval Office itself and didn’t have to resign, so Vitter should not resign either! Is that really the moral high ground conservatives claim to occupy? Supporting his return to Congress because he was a good but flawed man would be one thing, but supporting him because Clinton got away with moral lapses sends a very different message to voters seeking to find some difference between the values of the two parties.

2. The arrest of Albert Gore III in California for DUI and narcotics possession.
Driving 100 mph is reckless and endangers the public. Driving 100 mph while under the influence of various controlled substances is incredibly irresponsible and inexcusable. This was not Al Gore III’s first DUI (two prior arrests), and it was widely reported that the young man had been abusing a number of prescription drugs. Clearly the former vice president’s only son has a substance abuse problem, possibly a parent’s worst nightmare. What was the “compassionate conservative” response to news of the incident? Few conservatives in the media extended to Gore or his son any sympathy or best wishes for a full recovery, yet many engaged in sarcastic jokes about the younger Gore’s environmental carbon footprint from driving 100 mph in a hybrid car. More plentiful were the admonitions that conservative radio hosts and callers had for the surely anguished father, chiding him for being, in their opinions, an irresponsible parent who spent more time on global warming than on his children.

I found it interesting that when some in the media asked rhetorically whether the children or families of public figures should be “fair game,” the overwhelming response from conservatives was to point out that the media had incessantly and viciously reported the Bush twins’ brushes with police for false id and underage drinking in their late high school and early college years, and so turnabout was fair play. Here is a brief sampling of conservative responses that were all too typical in the wake of headlines announcing Gore III’s arrest:

From Sweetness and Light
Doesn’t Algore have any problem with the fact that his son was burning the marijuana? Think of how much carbon dioxide got released… and is THC a greenhouse gas, anybody know? Now, take a look at the response to this from the same people who wanted to put the Bush twins in the stocks for drinking before they turned 21…..

Sad yes, doingwhatyoucan, but this is from a group who screams incessantly about how hypocritical and ‘holier-than-thou’ conservatives are and gleefully splay any and all faults, falls, and crimes (real and bogus) ad nauseum (and as 1st said, if it had been one of the Bush twins, breaking news alerts) - yet we hear barely a peep. And I for one had not known about his previous arrests. And therein lies the basic problem - the Bush twins drink at college (Gasp) and it is news for how many days?

Gore’s son is arrested (again) for speeding and drug possession - and nary a word is said. Sort of like Sandy’briefs’Burger and his non-punishment and yet Libby is drawn and quartered for a lie about a case that is utterly and completely based on a lie. Do As I Say - Not As I Do Liberals Strike Again. Sad, yes, deserved - absolutely.

From Hotair.com

Maybe instead of trying to save the UNIVERSE, AL GORE(the man who claims he invented the internet) should of stayed home more often.

A Crying shame. He might spend more time with his drug addicted son, or his celebrity seeking wife, or his addled brain.

The Eco-Messiah who wants to manage our environmental policy can’t even manage his own family.

From RedState

If any of the Bush or Cheney children were busted for drugs, speeding at 100mph right now, it would be front page news at both the New York Times and the Washington Post online.

College students Jenna and Barbara trying to sneak an alcoholic beverage was a huge scandal, but we're not supposed to question that Chelsea got a six-figure job to start out.

These were just a few examples from a mountain of such comments found on virtually all high-traffic conservative news sites. The comments made by callers to conservative radio in the wake of this story were of similar tone and content, with expressions of near-glee at the misfortune of the Gore family, in large measure because the media had been so quick and cruel to report the less legally serious misdeeds of the Bush twins. Certainly the media savaged the Bush twins for months after each incident, but conservatives should keep in mind that we loudly proclaim ourselves to represent family values, and showing a lack of sympathy for a family in crisis, as Gore’s clearly has been and continues to be, is unworthy behavior for “compassionate conservatism.” To adapt a scriptural warning to such behavior, “Nastiness never was happiness.”

If conservatives object to unfair media coverage of the family members of conservative public officials, how does salivating over stories about liberal families help resolve the issue? There is no question that great hypocrisy exists among liberals, their personal family issues, and the media responsible for news coverage. However, for conservatives there is nothing noble about wishing for others to suffer intense public scrutiny of painful personal matters simply because conservatives have also been victimized by the media.

Rather than wishing for equal media treatment with liberals when it comes to questionable behavior, conservatives should instead seek to live and uphold a higher behavioral standard than the one liberals aspire to. Conservatives should stand on principle instead of resorting to defending their actions or words based on what liberals have done in similar circumstances. If voters cannot detect a palpable difference between the two parties in 2008, they will likely side with the one that promises to represent the most significant change from the status quo. For conservatives hoping to hold onto the WH and regain the House and Senate, being different, rather than indistinguishable from, their opponents will be critical to potential victory.

Technorati Tags:
Scooter Libby, Bill Clinton, Presidential Pardons, Perjury, Sandy Berger, Conservatives, Liberals, Al Gore III, DUI, Media Double Standard, David Vitter