Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Is politics as usual doomed?

Probably not. But it's fun to watch as all of the negative campaigning takes place in the Democratic Presidential race and bomb-thrower after bomb-thrower goes down in flames. A lot of really outrageous claims have been made by political "operatives" who then are either fired or asked to resign.

It almost seems like a new twist on an old tactic. It used to be if you had something negative to say about your opponent, you just came out and said it. Then you'd say it through surrogates so that if it backfired you could say that you didn't support it. Now, you can have someone say it and before it gets you in trouble get rid of them.

It doesn't change the fact that someone said it, but you can pretend to be above all of that. I don't think that anyone is really fooled by it all though. There have been way too many of these convenient firings or disavowals of the support of bomb-throwers for it to be anything else but another political ploy.

Look at the character of some of the negative campaign remarks while we're on the topic. Remember, that we're talking about purely Democratic Party politics. The campaign in question is between two Democratic candidates that differ only marginally in their politics. There hasn't been much need for Republicans to step into the fray, because they aren't running against one — yet.

The negative campaigning has touched on the alleged religion of one of the candidates. Is he or isn't he a Muslim, as if that really matters. Why should it matter? It would seem that the campaign that raised the issue, and then got rid of their bomb-thrower thinks that it matters to Democratic voters. Does this imply that the oh-so-tolerant Democratic party might have a problem with religious discrimination?

The negative campaigning has touched on the race of one of the candidates, in more than one way, and from more than one side of the issue. Is Barack Obama getting a pass because he's a black man as failed Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro seemed to imply? Is he "not black enough" as Al Sharpton implied? Could it be that the Democratic party, which relies so heavily upon the black vote and is quick to condemn even a hint of white racism (ala Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond, the longest serving Senator in history), has a problem with racism in its own ranks?

The negative campaigning has touched on the gender of one of the candidates as well, but not so much from the males in the campaign. Rather the female candidate has complained about the men ganging up on her and picking on her because of her gender, as if it should give her a pass. Again, Geraldine Ferraro made a point of gender as being important to the campaign as well. Aren't feminists claiming that it's about equality? So why should gender matter in the race at all?

As much as I detest both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I wish they'd campaign on the issues. The "go negative without going negative" approach to this campaign is insulting to Democratic voters, and damaging to the Democratic party (not that that last is such a bad thing in my view).

It also points to the "power at any price" mentality of politicians today, particularly that of Hillary Clinton, whose campaign has been responsible for most of the negative campaigning. There's a long way to go yet before November. The negative campaigning is dividing the Democratic party quite nicely.

Perhaps if Hillary's campaign goes down in flames we'll see an abatement of the politics of personal destruction.

Somehow though, I doubt it.

Cross posted at Bloggers for Civil Discourse.

Time to move on

This morning, I was awakened by my wife, who brought me coffee. As I was rousing from my groggy slumber my clock radio turned itself on, and I heard Mr. Spitzer's resignation speech.

New York governor Eliot Spitzer has resigned, purportedly over a sex scandal. It seems the governor, who spent his career as an attorney general and politician has been visiting high-priced hookers for the past ten or so years. He's right to resign.

After all, prostitution is illegal in New York. It's illegal in Washington D.C. It's also illegal in both places to solicit prosecution. As a former attorney general, Mr. Spitzer knew this, and in fact probably prosecuted people for it.

Democratic calls for his resignation that I've heard have touched on his hypocrisy. Democratic support for Mr. Spitzer has ranged from condemnation of America because of our backward value system to the it's just about sex argument. After all, more enlightened and culturally advanced Europeans think there's nothing wrong with a man acting on his base animal instincts, or cheating on his wife.

The fact remains that what Mr. Spitzer did was illegal. If he hadn't resigned, the New York legislature should have impeached him.

Conservative and Republican reactions have been varied. I first heard about this scandal on the Sean Hannity show a couple of days ago. On that day Sean was talking to J.C. Watts. It seemed to me that they struck the right tone. Eliot Spitzer was a man, subject to the failings of all men. What he did was wrong, and should have a price, but we shouldn't be quick to condemn him. After all, all men have moral failings.

We don't know for a fact that Mr. Spitzer actually engaged the services of a prostitute, but there's a lot of evidence that he did. Mr. Spitzer's apologies to his family and constituents never mentioned what he actually did. His resignation was short and to the point, again never mentioning his specific failing.

As I was listening to his speech I was grateful, because this was yet another scandal that really doesn't need to be all over the news. And then I heard the commentary from Glenn Beck. Frankly it was disgraceful. They replayed his resignation speech, interspersed with mocking commentary by Glenn. The schadenfreude was obvious.

It's always a shame to see a man fall to disgrace, particularly a man in a position of power. Regardless of his politics lives are often destroyed by it. Things aren't going to change in New York because Mr. Spitzer is leaving politics. The Democratic party still has a lock on power in the state. The lieutenant governor is just as liberal as the governor was.

Comparisons have been made between the treatment of Eliot Spitzer and Mark Foley, or Larry Craig. I even considered making one myself. After all, toe-tapping in a public restroom hardly compares with spending a thousand dollars for an hour with a prostitute. I thought better of it though.

The political parties and opposing ideologies are indeed different when it comes to this. Democratic politicians with moral failings that don't quite rise to provable violations of law are often lauded for those failings, while Republican politicians in the same circumstances are often hounded out of office by both parties for it. It doesn't seem fair.

Men, and women elected to public office ought to be held to a high standard. It doesn't matter which party they are from. When they are given the responsibility for crafting and enforcing our laws they should not be above them. If they violate those laws they should and must be removed from power.

But it's not a cause for great rejoicing.

Eliot Spitzer is leaving politics. The public will benefit by this in a small way, because a man who violated the laws he was sworn to uphold is no longer in office. Eliot Spitzer and his family will also benefit, because now that his sin is in the open he has the chance to repent and to repair his relationships.

We should take the opportunity to look to ourselves. Eliot Spitzer succumbed to his moral failings and was caught, but we all have moral failings (maybe not the same ones, but we have them anyway). This is an opportunity for us to consider them and hopefully do something about it.

Cross posted at NW Bloggers and Bloggers for Civil Discourse.