By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, October 13, 2017
Even for someone who thinks the only difference between
2016 and 2017 is that in 2017 the universe decided to take the condom off, this
has been a truly remarkable week. Rather than focus on the totality of it all,
however, I’m gonna try to make one extended point.
Allow me to quote . . . myself:
One of my favorite scenes in Scarface is when Meryl Streep
compliments Peter MacNicol’s seersucker suit. Oh, wait. That’s Sophie’s Choice. I get them confused
sometimes. One of my favorite scenes from Scarface
is when Tony Montana shoots the Colombian assassin in the head before he can
blow up some guy’s car. There are just way too many expletives for this
family-oriented “news”letter to transcribe more of the dialogue than absolutely
necessary. But you can find it here. Besides, the line
I have in mind is pretty short: “You stupid f**k, look at you now.”
Hold that thought.
In last week’s decidedly un-jocular “news”letter, I wrote
about how the hypocrisy of the Left’s newfound outrage at Russia’s meddling in
our politics can’t be summarized by saying “Romney was right!” when he said
Russia was our biggest geopolitical foe in a debate with Barack Obama. Starting
with George Kennan’s Long Telegram, conservatives spent the entirety of the
Cold War pointing out that the Russians were undermining American life, and we
got mocked and ridiculed for it by self-styled sophisticates who thought such
concerns were little more than paranoia.
The ridicule didn’t end with the Cold War (when, by the
way, the extent and danger of Russian meddling were much greater than they are now). Liberals were so invested in the
idea that the political Right made too big a deal about Soviet Communism and
that we used our hawkishness as an unfair wedge issue against Democrats that
when Mitt Romney said an incandescently true thing about Putin’s Russia,
liberals rolled their eyes and then laughed uproariously at Obama’s “the 1980s
called” quip. In other words, they were so married to the myth of their moral
and intellectual superiority, liberals preferred to stick with the punch-line
than even imagine that reality wasn’t on their side.
Which brings me to another Mitt Romney debate comment
that received similar mockery and self-flattering giggling. During the second
presidential debate in 2012, Romney was asked about pay equity. In the course
of his answer, he said:
I had the chance to pull together a
cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men . . . I went to a number of
women’s groups and said, “Can you help us find folks?” and they brought us
whole binders full of women.
Now, I’ll happily grant that the phrase “binders full of
women” is an awkward one. It sounds like the menus they bring out on Jeffrey
Epstein’s plane when Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein settle in for a weekend
getaway.
But here’s the thing: What Romney did was exactly what feminist groups insist
elected politicians should do. He saw
that there were “too many” men in the applicant pool, so he reached out to some
feminist groups and asked for help. Some feminist groups reached out to him —
and he listened to them, too. And then he hired more women.
The monster!
Here’s Jon
Stewart mocking him for it. Here’s Ronan Farrow.
And here’s Bill
Maher, a man who must be sweating like a hooker in church over Hollywood’s
post-Weinstein zero-tolerance for piggishness toward women.
Blinded by the
Might
“Virtue signaling” is an over-used term these days. One
problem with the concept is that it often implies a touch of cynicism to the
signaler: “I want people to believe that I’m as righteous as this symbolic
gesture suggests.”
To be sure, there often is cynicism involved. For instance, people who drive Teslas in
states in which electricity is predominately coal-generated signal a lot of
virtue — but they do nothing about greenhouse-gas emissions because their cars
essentially run on coal and condescension. More relevant, Harvey Weinstein,
that bloated carbuncle of hormones and insecurity, virtue signaled with cash
quite a lot. In his initial statement after the scandal broke, Weinstein tried
it again, offering to atone for his transgressions by going after the NRA. Even
for Hollywood liberals, that was too pathetic. It wasn’t virtue signaling so
much as an attempt to buy an indulgence from the Church of Liberalism.
Speaking of indulgences, we should note that Weinstein is
no fool. He had good reason to believe it might work. Ten years ago, Republican
senator Larry Craig was caught using airport men’s rooms like a Greek
gymnasium. At the time, I wrote a cheeky column on how if we have carbon
offsets to atone for sinful fossil-fuel use, we should also have gay-sex
offsets:
The same market-based approach is
used by environmentally crapulent liberal celebrities all the time. They use
private jets, drive around with big entourages and own numerous energy-sucking
homes. To make amends, they purchase an indulgence in the form of “carbon
offsets” — a contract whereby the equivalent amount of greenhouse gases are
soaked up by newly planted trees and the like.
So why not do the same thing with
gay sex? Cruise the bus station, cut a check to the heterosexuality-promoting
organization of your choice.
You laugh (I hope), but this is how much of liberalism —
and, alas, conservatism — operates today. Public piety, support for the right
causes, and old-fashioned power and celebrity can buy a lot of indulgence from
your “side.” That was true of Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, Roger Ailes, Bill
O’Reilly, Harvey Weinstein, and, of course, Donald Trump.
Not all their sins were equal, but the patterns were
mostly the same. The only one in that list, by the way, who “got away with it”
in the end was Bill Clinton. The Big He was too big to fail.
But here’s the thing: What we call virtue-signaling isn’t
always cynical. Some people actually become convinced of their — or their
side’s — inherent virtue. The flipside of that coin is their equal conviction
that the other side is inherently un-virtuous.
Mitt Romney is a perfect case-in-point. Romney is by no
means a perfect man — he’d be the first to admit that. But he is, by any
reasonable standard (particularly for rich politicians), a deeply virtuous man.
But liberals were working off their dogma, and so they assumed that he simply
must be sexist or racist or a nostalgic, irrational anti-Communist, because
that is what conservatives are. They leapt on the binders and Russia comments
and turned their myopia into proof of Romney’s falsehood and ran with it.
The Perils of
Hypocrisy Witch Hunts
I weary of all the “this is why we got Trump” hot takes,
but I think it’s appropriate here.
When the media and Hollywood insist that anyone they
dislike must be a villainous bigot, the all-too-natural political and
psychological response is to discount such claims as vacuous knee-jerk ad
hominem wolf-crying. And when it seems like the standards of good conduct are
only used as weapons against conservatives, it should not be shocking when
conservatives say, “To Hell with it” and play the same game.
Back to that column on Senator Craig’s toe-tapping
adventures:
Since most on the Left think
Craig’s alleged sexual liaisons are perfectly benign, they shouldn’t object.
“Who are we to judge?” and all that. Rather, the Left claims it hates Craig’s
hypocrisy, not his behavior . . .
. . . The Left claims to hate “moralizers.” So
any failure to live like Jesus while telling others to follow his example is an
outrage, even the defining challenge of our lives. (In 2005, Democratic
National Committee Chairman Howard Dean pledged, “I will use whatever position
I have in order to root out hypocrisy.”) One solution to the hypocrisy
epidemic, of course, is to have no morals at all. You can’t violate your
principles if you don’t have any. Another solution: simply define down your
principles until they are conveniently consistent with your preferred
lifestyle.
This is what has happened to vast swathes of the Right.
Because too many right-wing celebrities are guilty of boorish behavior (or
worse), including the president, the only thing left to argue about is how
liberals “have no right to judge” Trump. In other words, they’re playing the
same game liberals have played for decades. Moral behavior isn’t the issue,
only the hypocrisy of your enemies. Take segments about liberal hypocrisy out of
Sean Hannity’s show and all you’d have left is reports about the heroic wheat
harvests under Comrade Trump’s heroic guidance concluded by some lady rappers
doing extended cuts to fill in the other 48 minutes.
Lost in the bilious argle-bargle is the value of the
virtues being betrayed. In the wake of my column earlier this week, I’ve been
inundated with charges of RINOism, treachery, weak-kneeism, both-sidism, and
moral superiority from “conservatives” — all for saying that harassing and
assaulting women is bad when conservatives do it too. Failing to acknowledge
that is itself hypocritical. From liberals, I’ve gotten reams of whataboutist
rage. “Did you condemn Roger Ailes?” (Yes, but not enough.) “Did you condemn
Donald “grab them by the p*ssy” Trump?” (Uh, yeah.)
(Some conservatives even hit me with, “What about
Clinton? Did you complain about Bill Clinton!?” I laughed pretty hard at that.)
But let’s assume I am hypocritical for having failed to
unleash as much ire on Trump, Ailes, and O’Reilly as I have on Weinstein and
Clinton. That is no exoneration of Weinstein or Clinton. There is no transitive
property at work here. Weinstein and Clinton’s sins don’t absolve the sins of
Trump or Ailes. The basic rules of decency are meaningless if they change depending
on whether or not the accused has an R or a D after his name.
What a thin and pathetic moral bunker “whataboutism” is,
if it lets you hide from the truth that morality and sin aren’t monopolized by
a party.
Of course, sexual harassment is just one facet of the
larger trend. If Barack Obama talked about revoking Fox News’ “license,”
conservatives would rightly be furious. But when Donald Trump does it, the smart Trumpist response is, “LOL! Look
at the liberal butt hurt!” “More trolling please,” and “Finally a president who
fights!” The dumb Trumpist response is, “Yeah! Take away their licenses!”
Vanity Fair, WAPO, NYTimes, CNN,
NBC – they all just make stuff up and report it as news. Yes, they should have
their licenses evaluated.
— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii)
October 12, 2017
Again, it is not shocking that some conservatives, weary
of being held to a higher standard than liberals, grew weary of those standards
in favor of the new idols of “winning” and “fighting.” What has been shocking,
however, is the scale of conservative surrender.
It’s war, fight fire with fire; if you can’t beat ’em,
join ’em; what about X,Y, and Z?: These are the new rallying cries on much of
the right.
And as much as that breaks my heart, I can’t help but
want to shout leftward, “You stupid f**ks, look at you now.”
No comments:
Post a Comment