Selective Indignation?

Leading Democrats in Washington were quick to become outraged, and eager to share their outrage with anyone who would listen, following remarks made by Presidential Advisor Karl Rove recently. When Mr. Rove, who has long been a lightening rod for the enraged left for his part in George Bush’s two successful presidential campaigns, drew a contrast between conservatives and liberals in their response to the terrorist threat that was revealed on September 11, 2001 – by pointing out from the factual record what was said by members of both camps – the howls of protests were quick in coming from leading lights within America’s liberal party.

Minority Leader Harry Reid called for an immediate retraction. New Jersey Senator John Corzine accused Mr. Rove of practicing the “politics of divisiveness and distortion.” New York Senator Charles Schumer spoke of a line that shouldn’t be crossed, while pointing out that Mr. Rove “jumped way over” that line. Six Senators from the Metropolitan New York area – including Messrs. Corzine and Schumer signed a letter demanding an apology from Mr. Rove, with four of them stating that he should be fired if the apology is not forthcoming.

What a difference a few days makes.

Perhaps the American people should be happy to find that Democrat leaders have found their voice when it comes to fighting against “divisive language” and the hostile atmosphere that pervades official Washington of late. After all, it was only a few days ago that these same voices within the minority party were deafeningly silent as one of their own, in the person of Illinois Senator – and Assistant Minority Leader – Richard Durbin made a few incendiary remarks himself.

But then, maybe the Democrats – through their unbalanced reaction to these two episodes – are merely acknowledging that there are actual differences, in both circumstance and substance, between what was said by Mr. Rove and Mr. Durbin. Goodness knows this writer is willing to acknowledge such differences, if that is the case.

Of course, the respective roles within the political scene occupied by these two men are vastly different. Mr. Rove speaks not as a policy maker, but as a Presidential Appointee and Advisor, while Mr. Durbin speaks as a United States Senator, a leader within his party, possessing far more direct influence over American policy – which may explain why it was only Mr. Durbin’s comments that were carried extensively by Al Jazeera. And whereas Mr. Rove made his comments to a private gathering of like-minded people – the Conservative Party of New York, Senator Durbin chose to make his on the floor of the United States Senate – as a part of the Congressional Record.

But without a doubt, the most significant difference between these two episodes is in the substance of what was actually said by the two men. Mr. Durbin’s comments regarding the conditions at the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp need to be seen for what they are – one man’s opinion, a subjective evaluation. By contrast, the comments Mr. Rove made that have caused such hysteria on the left are backed up as a matter of record. One has only to go back to the written accounts of the time to see that those on the left did indeed advocate understanding for those that carried out the murderous attacks on New York and Washington. They did indeed think initially of the need to acknowledge what America had done to “bring this attack upon itself.” All in the world Mr. Rove did was point out facts, including the fact that the Arab world has seized upon Senator Durbin’s remarks and put them to good use in their propaganda mills.

But therein may lie the scandal. For some time now, it has been a common cry on the part of the Democrats that Republicans are playing dirty whenever they bring up the matter of Democrats’ records on certain issues in which they find themselves out of the American mainstream – issues that include matters involving national security and the war on terror. Apparently, since the only thing that keeps the American people from voting in greater numbers for the Democrats is this nasty little matter of what they have done on the record – it is considered bad form to point the record out.

But if a party’s record is to be off limits in the national political discourse, upon what are the American people supposed to determine who to support at election time? The fact is that the records of both candidates and parties are among the best indicators that voters have as to what to expect out of them if they are elected – or returned – to positions of power. It appears more and more that the current Democrat leadership recognizes what a perilous political situation that fact puts them in, meaning that anyone who has the audacity to point out what they have actually done with what power that they have been given – including Karl Rove – must be beaten down mercilessly. Such an approach to political dialogue certainly resembles the tactics of certain leaders of the past – but none that are remembered kindly by history.