The Politicization of Bad Behavior
By Doug Edelman (10/04/06)
In recent days we have seen a swirling dust storm of political posturing, parrying and thrusting over the Foley affair (no pun intended). All that dirt in the air is going to make both parties pretty muddy come the first drizzle of reality.
The fact of the matter is that bad behavior should only taint the guilty individual, regardless of their party affiliation. The fact that Foley is a Republican who has committed reprehensible acts does not reflect negatively on the Republican Party any more than the fact that William Jefferson has committed reprehensible acts taints the Democratic Party. As we conservatives have pointed out time and again, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY has been a foundation which made this nation great.
Sadly, however, the state of culture-war and the great political divide in this country today have so polarized us that EVERYTHING is wrung dry for its political advantage. And so it is with the bad behavior of those in office. This overly politicized response to every misstep by an officeholder is a two edged sword, cutting both ways and damaging both sides.
During the Clinton years, there were plenty of reasons to question the politics and policies of the administration β but it was Clinton's personal misbehaviors that became the rallying cry of the opposition. While there is nothing wrong with holding an individual's character up to scrutiny in light of their behaviorβ¦ attempting to broaden that scrutiny to imply that DEMOCRATS in general were somehow tainted by this one man's behavior was inappropriate.
On the other hand, the Left DEFENDED Clinton's bad behavior β for political expediency. He was extremely important to the agenda of the Left, and as such the Left had no choice but to destroy Kathleen Willy, Paula Jones, and others who brought accusations against Mr. Clinton. Ultimately they defended Clinton in the Monica affair, brushing off criticism of the President's character and his perjury with, "it was just about sex" and then "it wasn't even SEX". It was this blind defense which cast doubt on the character of the Democratic Party at large β and probably contributed to the election of GW in 2000.
Conversely, the bad behavior of Tom Delay was seized upon by Democrats who attempted to paint the Republicans with the broad brush of a "culture of corruption". In response, Delay was zealously defended by Republicans who saw him as a political asset. In so doing, the Republicans became partaker of the same stench that Mr. Delay would have wallowed in alone otherwise, and lent credibility to the Left's "cultural" claims.
In the current controversy over Rep Foley, Republicans are starting to whine about the Mainstream Media's double standard β attacking a wayward Republican while excusing wayward Democrats.
While these Republicans are correct that there is indeed a double standard in the Press β this is NOT the issue they should use to highlight it! They are being seen as somehow defending Foley. There is no defending the indefensible. Foley is a scumbucket and good riddance. Republicans should be enthusiastically denouncing him and putting the trash out of their house. Politically, it's a hit to the Republicans - because of the timing... weeks before an election with no replacement candidate. But it's only one seat. A bigger calamity would take place if the public begins to perceive that the party would defend or protect such a vile individual just for the sake of a single seat in the house. Such a perception could cause a backlash against the Republicans that would result in a bloodbath at the polls.
Unfortunately, both sides are being tainted by Foley's individual bad behavior by playing it for political gain.
The Left is accusing the right β particularly Speaker Hastert β of knowingly covering up Foley's behavior to maintain his seat in the house. If true, a damning accusation β and if it can be shown that Hastert WAS knowingly complicit with Foley's actions, he should indeed step down as the Speaker would have acted as an enabler to this pedophilic perv.
On the other hand, the Democrats are by no means clean in this affair, as there are indications that THEY were more aware of Foley's actions, and for a much longer time. They held off bringing it to light until weeks before the election β when it would do the most harm to their opposition. If they did know and withhold such information, they are also guilty of aiding and abetting Foley's actions, and failure to protect the kids serving as congressional pages.
Some are trying to contrast the parties by pointing out two similar and concurrent scandals in the 80s. Gerry Studds, Democrat of MA and Dan Crane, Republican of IL were both censured in sex scandals in 1983. Studds famously turned his back to the Speaker and rejected and denounced the censure. Neither was asked to resign and both ran for re-election. Studds won and served several more terms. Crane lost his re-election bid.
Much commentary is being given to Studds/Crane, using them to put forth a case that a double standard is in play, as the Democrat was re-elected and the Republican was defeated. I see no such case to be made.
Actually, I would think the Studds/Crane contrast speaks more to their constituencies than to anything else! Congress censured both of them. Neither was asked to resign. Perhaps Congress would have done better for themselves had they given both of them the boot.
Studds openly defied his censure, ran for re-election, and won several more terms. His MA Democratic constituents didn't care any more than they cared about Chappaquiddick or Barney Frank's buddy running a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment.
Crane lost his seat. His constituents chose to replace him. They held him to account.
And THAT's where the double standard lies. The Right (the electorate, if not the elected) will generally hold their own to a higher standard of behavior. Those who deserve to be "thrown under the bus" will be. Trent Lott made a minor misstatement β and his leadership position was gone! Duke Cunningham is a pariah. Former IL Governor Ryan is shunned.
Foley is a reprehensible scumbucket. Personally. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Foley's behavior taints FOLEY, not the party any more than Clinton's Oval Office Diddling tainted anyone other than himself (and a blue dress).
The right is historically more willing to purge one of their own when they have a failure of character than is the left. If it can be shown Hastert knew of Foley's behavior and covered it up for political expediency... he should go too. The Republican Party must always be willing to clean house where necessary.
The left (both elected and electorate) seems to excuse and defend bad behavior by those who share its political leanings. The Democrats have historically been willing to tolerate bad behavior within their ranks for the sake of advancing their political agenda. Those using the fall of Rep Foley to cast aspersions upon the Republicans are the very same who defend:
Whitehouse diddlings with an intern
Driving off a bridge with a subordinate and leaving her to drown
Former leadership within, and recruitment for the KKK
Al "no controlling legal authority" Gore
Sandy (Classified Underwear) Berger
Etc.
Perhaps both sides would do well to simply hold individuals responsible for their own personal behavior β regardless of their party affiliation β and to begin to clean house (and Senate!).
Copyright Β© 2006 by Doug Edelman
Doug Edelman is a conservative political commentator and a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice, and his work is also seen on News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House etc. None of these pays him, so for the support of his family, he is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business. He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://edeldoug.blogs.com/
(Printer friendly version) Email: Doug Edelman
