I’m no fan of Republicans, because in their own way they do just as much damage to the country as Democrats. In a way, they do more damage. They practice the same Big Government policies as the Democrats, most of the time, and then a majority are misled into believing that these are the policies of “capitalism” or liberty, or individual rights. They’re no such thing.
Similarly, Republicans are identified as the party of standing up to terrorists and other American enemies, while in fact the Bush Administration did almost as much to appease Iran as the Obama Administration now does (only much more consistently).
Nevertheless, Republicans are the party incorrectly associated with a strong national defense, individual rights and separation of economics and state. These are principles that most in academia, media and the influential entertainment world detest.
In that context, it’s darkly ironic to observe the stark difference between the way Democratic officials and Republican officials (when in office) are treated.
As a case in point, consider outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent testimony in Congress about the Benghazi disaster, in which American officials were murdered on 9/11/12. Consider some of Clinton’s comments to the U.S. Senators:
“I have to confess here in public going on the Sunday shows is not my favorite thing to do. There are other things I prefer to do on Sunday mornings and I haven’t been on a Sunday show in way over a year. So it just isn’t something I normally jump to do.”
“Nobody wants to sit where I am and think now about what ‘coulda, shoulda, woulda’ happened in order to avoid this.”
Now just imagine for a moment if a Republican Secretary of State had said these things, after the original 9/11. Imagine a Republican saying, “I don’t want to engage in ‘coulda, shoulda, woulda’” when grilled by Democratic Senators back in 2004, as Republicans were.
The original 9/11 happened only a few months into a Republican administration. The previous 8 years had consisted of a Democratic administration, Bill Clinton’s. In those hearings about the first 9/11, the Clinton administration was assigned no blame and Republicans allowed themselves to be on the defensive the whole time. The purpose of those hearings, back then, was to prevent George W. Bush’s reelection that year, and it nearly worked.
There’s a double injustice in the Benghazi case. Not only is Hillary Clinton not subjected to the same treatment anyone on the Republican side would have been. Hillary Clinton is subjected, today, to the grilling that the Commander-in-Chief himself—Barack Obama—never had to face and never will face over Benghazi. Even Mitt Romney did not challenge Obama, or hold him responsible in any significant way, during the foreign policy debates leading up to last November’s election.
The double standards are so stunning that it seems surreal to even point them out. If you think about it, the inconsistences do make logical sense. The Democratic Party is the party of victimhood. Its concern is not for real victims, but people who feel themselves to be victims because others do better. “You made more money than I do. That has victimized me.” That’s the whole basis for the Democratic Party. Republicans enable and humbly go along with this mentality, but it’s not their purpose for existing. It’s the Democratic brand.
When you apply this victimhood psychology to foreign affairs, you come to see Islamic terrorists as sympathetic characters, if anything. Think about what Islam is saying. “We’re Muslim and you’re not. That offends us. You are victimizing us by not being Muslim.” Similarly, the Iranian mullahs and others are saying, “You’re more prosperous than we are. That’s an affront to us. You are the victimizers and we are the victims of your prosperity.” They cloak their envy in religious fundamentalism rather than secular socialism, but it’s envy just the same.
Iranian officials and other Muslim dictators are saying very similar things to Obama, only from a religious rather than a secular socialist perspective. It’s no wonder the Obama Administration minimizes or even outright ignores the damaging things Muslim fanatics are seeking to do to civilization as we know it. No wonder Hillary Clinton would rather sleep in on Sunday than face Congress and own responsibility for anything.
It also makes sense that Hillary Clinton would stand up before Congress and, in effect, say… “Who, me? What did I do wrong?” She’s acting just like her constituents, who are Obama’s core constituents. Their whole mentality boils down to a single phrase: “Not my fault!”
In one twisted respect, Hillary is right to be resentful. She’s taking the hit for negligence that Barack Obama has never had to face, and apparently never will face. But if she had become President rather than Barack, she would have been no better. Like criminals, dishonest and corrupt politicians never stand by one another. Their whole careers are based on lies, in turn based on the self-deception and illusions of millions—so what sort of code of honor can be expected to exist between them?
Ultimately, it’s the American voters who enable all of this. As the federal government continues to stifle and even wreck our private economy, our medical care and financial system—and as terrorist regimes take over more and more of the Middle East, an area critical for our whole energy supply—people shrug, read their iPhones and glaze over it all. If voters and citizens don’t care, why should Hillary or Barack?
The caliber of the leadership Americans have permitted was on display during Hillary Clinton’s hearings. And it’s not pretty, not at all.