Not as bad as Bush, so it must be okay
In the first comment on Jeff Scheuer’s excellent post “Shall we overcome?“, reader Henry Pelifian implies that Governor Blagojovich’s corruption is not a big deal and that his crime amounts to essentially just “loose and foolish talk” because, after all, “[g]oing to war with loose and foolish talk by elected officials is all right politically.” You see, goes the logic (as far as I understand it), since no one seems to care about the foolish and loose talk by President George W. Bush that led to war, and since Bush did something far worse than Blagojovich, we shouldn’t make a big deal over what Blagojovich did.
In a comment on a conversation between Paula Marantz Cohen and Robert Anthony Watts called “Political entitlement — liberal hypocrisy,” in which our dynamic duo discusses the propriety of giving Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat to Caroline Kennedy, reader Ari writes, “I think we’ve got a long way to go before liberals come anywhere near the cronyism of the Bush administration…”
These are only two examples from this site, but I have been seeing this sort of thing elsewhere — in blog comment sections and other op-eds — and maybe you have, too. Apparently, Bush is so dishonest and corrupt and Republicans are so dishonest and corrupt, no liberal or Democrat politician can commit any crime or be corrupt or improper, because whatever they do, it isn’t as bad as what Bush did.
Let us grant for argument’s sake that Bush is guilty of whatever misdeeds, motives, and lies that are attributed to him. The corruption or even downright evil of one politician, or one political administration, does not remotely excuse corruption by other politicians. Democrats, if you want to change the political culture (we heard a lot about change in recent months), the way to do it is not to ignore or excuse corruption in your own party by noting that sure, it isn’t good, but at least it’s better than the Republicans or Bush.
Leaving Bush out of it, there will almost always be some historical (recent or otherwise) example of political corruption and even evil that is worse than whatever is in the news that week. But “not as bad as” whatever is the worst example you can find is hardly something to aspire to. You’ve won the election, guys. It isn’t about Bush anymore. Your politicians must stand on their own accomplishments, policies, and integrity and be judged by what they do. It doesn’t matter how bad the last guy was. You can’t excuse corruption on the grounds that there is worse corruption out there. Have a little self-respect.
Print This Post
About Scott Stein
Abusive comments may be deleted and abusive commenters may be banned. See comment policies.
Now let’s see. Obama is not going to pull out of Iraq precipitately. He has spoken of stationing 30,000 to 50,000 troops there indefinitely. He seems to have changed his mind on the FISA wiretaps. Guantanamo may not be closed for a couple of years. Obama also doesn’t seem to object to the steps being taken by the Bush administration regarding the financial crunch. And he is now proposing … tax cuts. As Glenn Reynolds says, “They told me if I voted for McCain, I’d get a second Bush term And they were right!”
Maybe this clarifies my comments. Crimes or misdeeds may be judged by proportion, dimension and scale. That doesn’t mean one crime should be overlooked by another. What it does mean is that weight and importance of some crimes far outweigh others.
In one case someone someone said things that may have been illegal and look at the hullabaloo in this country. But when millions of people die in our two most recent misbegotten wars at enormous expense where is the same hullabaloo and outrage? Since 1975 additional tens of thousands of people including children have been killed and injured by our country’s buried cluster bombs in Southeast Asia.
Where is the focus of uproar, values and ethics? The ease with which immense funds are expended for war is breathtaking along with pervasive corruption in government contracts. In comparison one is a potential crime of talking bribery while the other crimes are so immense there is silence in comparison.
Henry,
I’ll leave it to others to debate whether there has been sufficient uproar and outrage, in this country and around the world, about the war in Iraq, and whether over the last several years there has been enough derision and criticism aimed at the war and the President. It seems that anything less than Bush’s arrest and trial will not be sufficient for some. A separate debate. But my post isn’t about the war in Iraq, and neither was Jeff Scheuer’s post, and that is the point.
Every time anything happens, any corruption is uncovered, any crime is committed, some people want to connect it to Iraq or compare it to Bush or compare it to some other worse act. The Blagojovich corruption case has nothing to do with Bush. Scheuer wrote about political integrity being harmed by the way some were handling that case, and you didn’t want to engage in that topic because Bush is worse. So what if he is?
Pay no attention to this crime or misdeed over here because, don’t you know, something worse happened over there. Cluster bombs have killed a lot of people since 1975, so who cares if a guy tried to sell a Senate seat in 2008? Um, okay.
Write about ending war and banning cluster bombs or whatever you want. Persuade people if you can. Draw their attention away from other frivolous issues if you can. Fine. Make the case, if you want, that people spend too much energy on frivolity and that the news and the public should be more outraged by war and spend less time debating American Idol, or something. But of all the examples you could use to make that case, why criticize people for paying attention to something that is important, what seems to be a case of high-level bribery for a U.S. Senate seat and accusations of racism where none exists?
The way race is being used in the appointment of Obama’s Senate seat is what Scheuer wrote about, with sensitivity and integrity, I think. It has nothing to do with Bush. It has nothing to do with Iraq. It only barely has anything to do with Blagojovich himself or the corruption case itself. It was about something more specific and is worth discussing. Race relations is a topic worth discussing. Political corruption is a topic worth discussing. You read it and ignored it because, um, What about Bush and the war!
A word about frivolity: Granted that there is great suffering around the world and always has been and that governments commit terrible atrocities and we’re lied to all the time. Still, there are other things people like to pay attention to and talk about, even if it is frivolous next to war and peace. There is plenty to be outraged about that doesn’t rise to the level of cluster bombs (not that life is all outrage). If someone posts about a bad call by the refs in the playoffs this weekend, I hope your first comment won’t be, Who cares about the bad call — what about Bush and the war! If someone writes about a case of fashion idiocy, I hope your first comment won’t be, What about Bush and the war!
It’s been noted before (in the Wall Street Journal among other places) that Republicans are more prone to corruption than Democrats, on the whole, partly because they are closer to money interests. I think there’s some truth in that, from a broad historical perspective, but you have to overlook a lot of history, particularly in Illinois, Louisiana, and New Jersey, or otherwise carefully qualify the generalization. From a moral standpoint, however, each case must be viewed separately, and as Scott Stein suggests, nothing excuses the outrageous excesses of the present Illinois governor. My own ex-governor Spitzer’s pecadillos, by comparison, are miniscule (it was the hypocrisy that brought Spitzer down). Nothing Bush has done excuses other politicians from meeting ordinary standards of rectitude.
Okay, Scott, you’re right. To a point. Let me clarify that I wasn’t recommending excusing Blagojovich or anyone else of any misdeeds in my comment, I was just sticking up for Caroline Kennedy, who I do think is mentally qualified — though I will admit acting rather verbally challenged in front of a camera lately. I agree that the egregious actions of the Bush administration should not justify letting Democrats off any hook in any way for any nefarious doings. But, appointments don’t qualify. Honestly, appointments are the creamy filling in the cardboard Twinkie of public service, aren’t they? For better or worse, they’re that little mutation in the gene pool that can create a new species (sorry, Creationists!) or make a horrible monster that eats Tokyo. It’s normal to get worked up about appointments because they just pop into life and keep showing up, and you may really, really hate them, but it is not the same thing as giving all the government contracts to your favorite golfing buddy’s firm. Legal appointments are legal.
Ari,
I did not mean to (I don’t think I did) equate bribery with cronyism or awe at Kennedy fame. My post is not about bribery or cronyism. My post is about the reflex to excuse behavior with “Bush was worse” or “You should see what the Republicans did.” The rest of your comment on Paula and Robert’s piece, having to do with whether Caroline Kennedy should be appointed and what is the proper way to appoint people, referenced above, is a different subject. My post here takes no position on it. Whether or not the appointment of someone like Kennedy is ethical is independent of whatever cronyism the Republicans might have engaged in.
Scott
You are excellently exhibiting some plausible deniability, but Bush was worse.