Republicans in the United States Senate recently proposed an amendment condemning the Moveon.org advertisement that accused General David Petraeus, commander of coalition troops in Iraq, of betraying his country and cooking the books for the White House. The accusations in this ad were baseless and a direct attempt to question the integrity of one of America’s most respected and distinguished generals. Given the outrageousness of the ad, it seemed the amendment condemning it would pass with a unanimous, or nearly unanimous, vote in the Senate. Defying expectations, something much different occurred on the Senate floor.
Democrats, trying to play politics and not offend Moveon.org-one of their most important allies and financial backers-tried to change the subject at hand. In the form of an amendment by liberal Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrats proposed, to condemn the criticisms–issued by Navy veterans of Senator John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign and the criticisms-put forth by Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss-of the homeland security views of Max Cleland (a military veteran and the incumbent Senator that Chambliss defeated in 2002).
The fact that Democrats wanted to compare the criticisms of honorably discharged military veterans who actually served with Senator Kerry to the baseless attacks of a far-left, anti-military group on a four-star military general is laughable. In the Kerry and Cleland cases, the Democrats would have certainly attempted to get the Senate to condemn these attacks much sooner if they were so outrageous and baseless.
The Boxer amendment received only 50 votes, 10 short of the 60 required for passage. Next, the Republican amendment came up for a vote and it received 72 votes, with 25 of the 48 voting Democrats voting against the amendment. Thus, 25 Democrat Senators, including Hillary Clinton, did not have the courage to stand up to their left-wing, special-interest ally and condemn an outrageous attack on the U.S. general leading our troops in Iraq.
This incident illustrated a disturbing and ever-increasing trend in Washington: political parties trying to make excuses for their members and supporters instead of adhering to a strict code of right and wrong. In the Moveon.org case, the Democrats tried to make the case that although the attack on Petraeus was wrong, the attacks on the two Democrats were worse so the current attack should not be addressed unless we also address the past attacks. Instead of stating the obvious and unconditionally condemning this ridiculous Moveon.org attack, Democrats instead tried to improve their political situation by attempting to soften the obvious blow that one of their biggest allies was so radical and extreme in their anti-military views.
Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats of playing politics in these types of situations. A prominent example where some Republicans refused to quickly and unconditionally condemn outrageous actions was the scandal involving Idaho Sen. Larry Craig. Craig was arrested in June for lewd behavior in the Minneapolis airport and plead guilty to the reduced charge of disorderly conduct on Aug. 1. When this story broke in late August, many Republicans did the right thing by calling on Craig to resign from office.
However, a vocal minority of Republicans seemed to somewhat excuse Craig’s behavior by pointing out that Democratic Congressmen Barney Frank of Massachusetts had employed a male prostitute and allowed the man to live in his apartment, from where the man briefly ran a prostitution ring. Not only did Frank not lose his office over this scandal, but the house even voted against officially censuring him. Thus, some Republicans, in their haste to improve the party’s political position, tried to argue that Craig should not have to give up his Senate seat because Frank did not have to give up his House seat.
This is a preposterous argument, given that people could use this argument all the time to avoid personal responsibility and consequences. The standard for dealing with situations should simply be right and wrong, not how wrong something is compared to what other bad things someone else has done.
Unfortunately, Washington political insiders seem to have this philosophy badly mixed up. They see someone on their side of the aisle do something wrong and, instead of speaking out against it, they try to find past transgressions by the other party that may be as bad or worse than the transgression by their fellow party member. It is no wonder that U.S. politicians and political parties have such a bad reputation.
Unfortunately, this culture of excuses, instead of demanding responsibility and adherence to a strict code of moral behavior, has pervaded American society far beyond the political system. It seems that more and more Americans are looking to blame other people for problems they have caused themselves or are making excuses to try to somehow justify inexcusable behavior. Many people seem to have a hard time realizing that many of the problems and bad habits in their lives will never be fixed other than by a personal commitment to a changed lifestyle.
Regrettably, many Americans, instead of doing what is necessary to improve and change their lives, try to reassure themselves by comparing their inappropriate behavior to the even more inappropriate behavior of others. People like to think that what they do may be bad, but it is certainly not as bad as others.
This comparison is frequently made to well-known irresponsible individuals in our society. For example, a person who lives a wild, irresponsible lifestyle may say, “I am not perfect, but I am certainly not as bad or crazy as Britney Spears.” Likewise, someone who does unethical things to make money and gain power may say, “Well, maybe I should not do what I am doing, but at least I am not as unethical as those congressmen who take millions in bribes.”
Instead of judging themselves on a strict moral code that demands good behavior at all times, people judge themselves in comparison to all the immoral and unethical people in our country.
We must create a society where people adhere to inflexible standards of right and wrong, not flexible standards of different degrees of wrongness that seem to make some wrong actions right. As the old adage goes, two wrongs don’t make a right. It seems that many Americans need to rediscover this important principle, and many of those in the direst need of this lesson are those who work in the highly politicized environment of Washington.
John Witt is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences.
