Flip on any cable news channel or move on over to President Donald Trump’s Twitter account in our present political scene and you’ll find any number of things, breathless screeching about a decline in America’s democracy, crude comments about those someone making them disagrees with and, perhaps most regularly now, good or bad takes on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
On the right, President Trump complains about “13 angry Democrats” investigating his team, presidential lawyer and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani blasts the investigation as corrupt and Fox News routinely works to diminish the credibility of the investigation in the eyes of the nation’s public. On the leftist side of the national and artificial divide, pundits on MSNBC and members of the minority in Congress state this is bad for our freedom and a sign of the end times. Now, to be fair, opinions are like something everyone has and aren’t a problem if they’re kept consistent, but some members of our political class acted a bit differently in the 1990s.
During the administration of former President Bill Clinton when independent counsel Kenneth Starr probed a White House occupied by the Democratic Party, liberals on the national scene weren’t as kind to independent investigations led by a Republican as they are now. According to a recent report from online publication Politico, Clinton advisor Paul Begala blasted Starr as “corrupt”, “out of control” and accused him of mounting a “witch hunt” (sound familiar?). In addition, back then, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich blasted leftist attacks on Starr, saying he was “sickened at the degree to which there has been a deliberate politicizing and deliberate smear campaign against a former federal judge.” That’s quite a shift for Gingrich, considering these days he says the Mueller probe is a “breakdown” of constitutional law and argues a president can’t obstruct justice (even though his team charged Clinton with that for the Lewinsky affair).
This is emblematic of a problem with ideological people. They care about nothing. In example after example, one can find scenarios where self-described liberals and conservatives will instantly condemn or praise behavior they’d salute one of their own for doing in the same way.
When President Trump went to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore, many liberal individuals questioned whether the summit was worth doing and whether the president had just enabled and given a “win” to a brutal dictator. In Esquire, writer Charles P. Pierce blasted the meeting, stating it was a gathering for “two truthless leaders” while in Congress, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the meeting resulted in “concessions for vague promises.” Had former President Barack Obama done the same thing (as he once floated doing during the 2008 election season), the right would’ve excoriated him and those on the left would’ve been campaigning for a second Nobel Peace Prize to be rushed to his home.
It is pathetic and a sign of societal rot that these people are able to get away with this hypocrisy.
If the United States of America is ever able to break out of this pathetic state politically, voters need to make sure they stay consistent along with their favorite pundits and political figures. If not, we’ll just go further down the tubes. As I don’t see a much-needed shift happening any time soon, I will no longer call liberals and conservatives in this nation by their actual ideological names, instead, to me they’ll be the sycophants and psychopaths running the nation.
I mean, if the shoe fits.