Government

Democrat v. Republican, Hypocrite v. Hypocrite

For both sides, you don't get to have it both ways.

By  
on
President Biden Visits Illinois Farm To Discuss Food Supply And Prices

(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Think about politicians for a moment:

“If I win the election, then I accept the result. If I lose the election, then the election was rigged.”

Can anybody honestly think like that? Doesn’t it take a warped mind even to speak that sentence?

In addition to warped, isn’t it also routine — for politicians?

“The Supreme Court ruled in my favor in the presidential immunity case; it’s a great Court and a great day for America! Judge Engoron ruled against me in the business fraud case; he’s a crooked hack!”

I have an idea for politicians: Tell us in advance — before the votes are counted or a court rules — whether the process is fair. Then, when we hear a result, we’ll know whether to believe it. Don’t wait until after you hear the result to pass judgment on the process. That seems a tad biased.

Sponsored

Biased, perhaps, but endless.

“If a jury had ever ruled in my favor, then that would be a wise and sagacious jury. The jury that convicted me of 34 felonies? Biased New York Democrats!”

Hmm. Why didn’t we hear that the jury was biased before the jury handed down its verdict? Maybe because you thought you had a chance of winning and, if you’d won, then the jury would have been a paragon of integrity?

Unfortunately, truth-denialism has now spread to both sides of the aisle.

Four years ago, Joe Biden believed what the political elites had to say. As a writer at “The Bulwark” noted last week, in 2020, Biden had finished fourth in the Iowa caucuses and fifth in the New Hampshire primary. Bernie Sanders was on his way to winning the Democratic nomination. But the political elites convinced Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar to withdraw from the race and throw their support to Biden to ensure that the Democrats nominated a moderate. Buttigieg and Klobuchar sacrificed their own ambitions for the good of the party and the country. Biden was delighted to accept the support of the other candidates, win the South Carolina primary, and then win the general election.

Sponsored

This history reveals two things about Biden. First, when others were asked to make personal sacrifices that helped him, Biden was all in favor: Buttigieg and Klobuchar should naturally sacrifice themselves. But now that Biden himself is being asked to make a sacrifice — leaving the presidency at age 81, which is hardly a sacrifice at all — it’s suddenly unreasonable to make the request.

This is damn near a Republican level of hypocrisy.

But there’s more! When the judgment of the political elites benefited Biden, Biden was only too happy to accept the benefits: Buttigieg and Klobuchar had to go. Now that those same political elites say that it’s Biden’s turn to make a sacrifice for the good of the country, Biden will have none of it. Poor guy: He’s “getting so frustrated by the elites [ …] the elites in the party.”

It took you four years to realize that the elites aren’t trustworthy? Is it conceivable that when the opinion of elites works in your favor, then you think the elites are great, but when the opinion of the elites works against you, then they’re interfering with the process? Sorry Joe, but that kind of disingenuity sounds almost Trumpian.

It’s the same with the polls. When the polls favor Biden, he thinks the polls are accurate. But when the polls are against him, you can’t believe those silly pollsters. To paraphrase what Biden told George Stephanopoulos: “The polls say that I’m losing to Donald Trump by six points? I don’t believe those polls.”

Of course, if the polls had said that you were leading Trump by six points, the polls would be completely accurate.

“The polls say that most Democrats don’t want me to lead the ticket? I don’t think that’s where the majority of Americans are.”

Those damned polls again. You just can’t trust them — when they say things that you don’t like.

I understand that politicians’ relationship with the truth is more a marriage of convenience than fidelity. I also understand why: On December 7, 1941, reporters asked Franklin Roosevelt whether he intended to ask for a declaration of war on Japan in his address to Congress the following day. FDR said that he hadn’t yet made up his mind.

That’s fine: FDR had of course decided that Pearl Harbor required that he ask for a declaration of war, but he didn’t want newspaper headlines to upstage his request to Congress and Congress’s actual declaration of war. That’s politics.

Perhaps we’re currently being told something other than the truth about the war in Ukraine: Maybe the government is delighted to support an ongoing conflict that degrades Russia’s military with no cost in American lives. You could hardly say that publicly, so the government misleads.

But that’s quite different from saying that if the polls favor you, then you believe them, and if the polls are against you, then polls are untrustworthy, or that judges who rule in your favor are wise, but judges who rule against you are corrupt hacks.

Only politicians could believe say things like that.

Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at [email protected].

Topics

, , , ,