Monday, December 18, 2017
To Resign or Not to Resign -- That is the Question...
Friends, I personally was surprised when the acerbic gadfly Al Franken announced his intention to resign from the U.S. Senate. As the world's foremost debating society, the Senate was an ideal platform for Franken, whose delight in mocking conservatives and Republicans was all too evident. How could a blowhard like Franken ever give up the limelight? It seemed inconceivable, even if he had been, because of the sexual harassment and misconduct allegations against him, hoisted on his own petard.
Now, though, it appears my instincts may be proven correct. Recent reports indicate that there is a groundswell of support among Democrats and leftists for the idea that Franken should...un-resign! As you will see in the article below, the argument is that Franken was railroaded, and surely he deserves due process before his political career is forfeited. Quite right, but it is curious that liberals are discovering their fondness for one of the core principles of American justice after the defeat of Roy Moore, whose political life was ended by unproven accusations, which he steadfastly denied. This leads us to ask: was Franken's resignation mere political theater, designed to give Democrats the moral high ground, so as to allow them to deal the deathblow to Moore, and thus pick up a critical seat in the Senate? Or, alternatively, do Democrats simply dismiss the need to give conservatives and Republicans the same due process that they (occasionally) acknowledge is the birthright and constitutional prerogative of most Americans. There was no hand-wringing on the left, after all, about Moore's rights, presumably because the left was happy to assume his guilt -- and they viewed any means that came to hand to destroy him politically to be worth trying. Contrast this to the left's reaction to the innumerable allegations of sexual harassment (and worse) leveled against Bill Clinton. President Clinton was vigorously defended by liberals, and his accusers were viciously attacked, most stridently of all by avowed feminists like Hillary Clinton. The only consistency to the leftist line on sexual harassment and impropriety that I can detect, therefore, is this: conservatives who are accused of any crime whatsoever are automatically guilty, end of discussion. (President Trump will know what I am talking about.) Liberals who are similarly accused are entitled to a presumption of innocence and due process, probably (but possibly not, if they are white males and the news cycle is distinctly unfavorable to them). Liberals who are important to the left's political viability, however -- a Democratic President, for instance, or a Democratic Senator in a state with a Republican Governor -- are not only presumed innocent; they must be innocent, because the alternative (of giving conservatives a temporary political advantage) is unacceptable, principles be damned! This is, I think, the only formulation of leftist "justice" that makes any sense, given the evidence at hand...
Am I wrong? Believe me, I wish I was. My gut tells me, though, that the liberal line on sexual harassment and impropriety is the same as their line on everything else: all is relative, in their eyes, and what it is relative to is the overriding assumption that leftist ideology, and leftist ideologues, must not be deflected from their long march to victory. The achievement of a leftist utopia, therefore, justifies the negation of any and all countervailing conventional moralities. It also justifies a scorched earth approach to political combat, according to which whoever gets in their way will be burnt to a cinder. In my opinion, any conservative who does not fear immolation at the hands of these "progressive" zealots is simply not paying attention.
Here, then, is the promised article. Waddy reports, you decide: