SIX HIRB and the Scandals
In a discussion with a liberal friend, he referred to my position that, as a result of all the scandals, the Obama administration is one of the most corrupt in history as “strangely deluded” and then out of the blue referred to the Tea party as “the Tea ‘We Don’t Want Black People to Vote’ Party” as if it had some relevance to the discussion, even if true.
It is clear that at least one of us is ignoring the facts, but I am content to wait for the investigations to progress on the seeminly ever growing number of scandals, which is up to at least eight as I write, though I may have missed some. As we have learned from past scandals, it can take years to finally break through an administration’s stone walling to get to the facts and we are only at the beginning. For example, the Watergate break-in occurred in June 1972, but it was not unit August 1974 that the evidence accumulated to the point that Nixon had to resign. We are not even two months into the investigation of some of these these scandals.
Concerning the charge of racism I would ask my friend a couple of questions and make some comments.
1) I have been involved with the Tea Party from its earliest days and have not only attended Tea Party events, but spoke at one. I have seen no hint of racism and in fact at the event where I spoke, the lead speaker was a black pastor from Milwaukee. So as part of the tea party, how do I fit in to the charge of racism?
2) In the Tea Party’s earliest days disapproval of Bush rivaled disapproval of Obama. While the focus was on the present not the past, and thus on Obama, anger at Bush kept bubbling up even though he was no longer in office. If the Tea Party is concerned with its stated issues of the size of Government, taxes, and the debt, this is completely understandable. But how does your theory of racism fit in with the anger at Bush?
Of course the simple answer is that his charge of racism is false. But this is one of the big problems I see with the left. Whereas people on the right generally view those on the left as people with good intentions who are simply wrong on the issues, people on the left frequently view those on the right as bad or even evil, as in the charge of racism.
The frequency of the left’s malicious charges are equaled only by their baselessness to the point that they have become a source of humor on the right at how reflexively and how absurdly those on the left resort to such labels.
In fact this makes up so much of the liberal argument that Dennis Prager has coined the terms, “SIX HIRB” which stands for Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist, Bigoted, as a short hand way of referring to the lefts claims. One could add to this terms like selfish, greedy, uncaring, etc. but Prager’s shorthand captures the essence of the liberal argument: to attack the character of those who disagree.
This is detrimental for many reasons. First, it makes real debate very difficult for it takes what would otherwise be simple policy discussions, and instantly transform them into clashes between good and evil. More importantly, it effectively closes the minds of the liberals. After all if one believes that the real issue is SIX HIRB, there is no need to pay attention to any reasons that the right might say they are concerned with as these would be at best rationalizations, and at worse, lies.
The real problem is that if you only look at the evidence that supports what you want to believe and ignore everything else, you can believe anything and with SIX HIRB that is exactly what liberal have done. Self-reinforcing arguments from those they agree with are uncritically accepted. Anything that conflicts with their position is dismissed without any serious consideration as being grounded in SIX HIRB. In many respects when it comes to conflicts with the right, evidence and reasons do not matter. They are combating evil and in the fight against evil everything is justified.
This is why those on the left are so quick to see corruption in the right that they claim it even when it does not exist, but have such a blind spot when it comes to corruption on their side. Now it is very common to hear claims of “both sides do it” at this point, and while to some extent this is true, it masks the historical difference between the left and right.
It is simply a fact that historically, the left and right have reacted to charges of corruption by those on their side in vastly different ways. Sure, in the early stages there is a natural, and I would argue justified, tendency to defend those on your side from charges of corruption, the real difference between the sides become clearer as the evidence of corruption grows.
Thus, for example, when it became clear that Nixon had committed obstruction of Justice, Republicans went to the White House and asked him to resign. When it became clear that Clinton and committed not only obstruction of justice, but perjury as well, Democrats went to the White House and held a rally of support, and then helped divert attention away from the legal issues with claims that “it was all about sex.”
When Republican Congressman Mark Foley was found to have sent inappropriate emails to former congressional pages after they had turned 18, the Republican leadership immediately forced him to resign. When Democratic Congressmen Gerry Stubbs, was found to have had sex with then current pages who were still minors, he was reelected and went on to be lauded as “a role model” as the first openly homosexual Congressman.
Such examples of double standards abound. While corruption occurs in both parties, historically Republicans have not, or at least have not been allowed to, tolerate it within their midst. Either way that is a good thing. The same cannot be said for Democrats, who focus so much on the people bringing the charges, that even blatant examples of wrong doing are simply ignored.
Thus in the Fast and Furious scandal, the Justice Department send information to Congress, and when it was later shown that this information was known to have been false well before it was sent, executive privilege was invoked to block further investigation. More recently Holder claimed to Congress that he had never heard of prosecuting journalists, and then it was revealed that contrary to his claim to Congress he had in fact signed the application for the warrant. Either he does not know what he is doing, lied to Congress, or lied to the Judge. But we are told by those on the left nothing to see here, move along. And if we press the issue, SIX HIRB is invoked. It cannot possibly be that we want an Attorney General who tells the truth, it can only be that we are racist.
Of course, that which gets rewarded gets repeated. Thus it should not be too surprising that since the Clintons got away with all of their corruption, and are in fact honored stars within the Democrat party, with Hillary the odds on favorite for 2016, that corruption within the party would not only continue but would expand.
To be clear, this is not a claim of direct involvement by Obama. In fact, it is a reason to believe that he may not be directly involved. For corruption within the party that now controls so much of government may simply have metastasized to the point that it does not need to be directed from the top. It literally might be breaking out independently throughout the government. In fact given the large number of government agencies plagued with scandal, that might be a better explanation than corruption directed from a single source from above.
This would not absolve Obama from all responsibility, after all as President of the United States, he sets the tone from the top. His constant demonization of his opposition, combined with his unconstitutional claims of plans to go around Congress if they do not do what he want; his lawless actions that at best side step Congress, such as creating a new legal classification without any actual law to support it with his imposition of the Dream Act, set the tone. Such lawless actions display an anything goes attitude that only can encourage lawlessness within the various departments. Thus we should not be all that surprised by the current outbreak of scandals in so many areas.
Finally, it would seem that even if not directly involved Obama continues to support at least indirectly such actions. Clear examples of corruption and wrong doing are still being downplayed if not outright denied. Attempts to discover the truth are stonewalled and those involved defended and in some cases even promoted. But then after all, if you believe your opponents are SIX HIRB, then why believe anything they say, and even if true, they probably deserved it anyway.
