"Hillary Has Been Completely Cleared"

During our recent cruise to the Baltic, my wife and I sat next to a couple from New Jersey.  Despite the taboo about getting too serious on a vacation, the conversation turned to politics.  It quickly developed that our companions were very liberal.

It was at this point that I was informed, “Hillary has been completely cleared.”  There were no caveats—no nuanced explanations—just a flat-out assertion of her total innocence.  The whole brouhaha was merely a concoction of her political enemies.

When I responded that she had, in fact, used a private server and lied about it, this was dismissed with irrelevant.  The Watergate scandal immediately came to mind.  I was struck by the difference between Republican and Democratic responses.

When the Watergate story first broke, most conservatives rallied around their president.  They could not believe that he had been involved in a third-rate break-in.  Nevertheless, when evidence of a cover-up came out, they were appalled.  It was thus Howard Baker, a Republican senator, who asked, “What did the president know and when did he know it?”

Has any congressional Democrat asked similar questions of Hillary?  Have any done anything other than blame Republicans for looking into Benghazi or the server affair?  The bald truth is that liberals are enablers.  They are prepared to overlook any indiscretion—as long as it is that of an ally.

When our shipboard discussion turned to Nixon, my tablemate accused him of ordering the Watergate break-in.  He had conveniently forgotten that the investigation demonstrated Nixon participated in the cover-up, not that he initiated the burglary.  Historical revision is therefore also part of the pattern.

Liberals are not, however, the only one’s who engage in selective perception.  We all do.  Yet progressives have turned it into an art form.  They are so intent on promoting their programs that many retain not a shred of integrity.  Prepared, as they are, to defend every misstep of their confederates, they never acknowledge hard truths.

Yes, FBI director James Comey, Jr. failed to recommend an indictment for Hillary.  But he did not pronounce her completely cleared.  He simply said that he didn’t think he could convict her, not that she never broke the law.  Other legal observers have obviously arrived at a less generous conclusion.

My guess is that Comey’s motives paralleled those of Gerald Ford.  Ford pardoned Nixon because he wanted to spare the nation a political circus.  I assume that the FBI director wanted the same.  Although I am reluctant to admit it, he was probably right.

Most liberals, indeed most of Hillary’s supporters, know that she is a dishonest person.  In their heart of hearts, they realize that she endangered national security in an effort to maintain political secrecy.  They just don’t care!   Because they are willing to put ideology before morality, they place us all in danger.

Sadly, when, as richly confirmed during the Democratic convention, a national party is willing to bend over backwards to excuse misbehavior; our moral fabric is in jeopardy. 

Benjamin Franklin told a questioner that the new constitution gave us a Republic—if we could keep it.  As many analysts have since commented, this depends on maintaining our shared veracity.  If we are ready to lie for the sake of retaining power, then our laws will mean as little as those of the Soviet Union.  Although on paper its constitution looked democratic, in practice it was a sham.

Is this where we are headed?  Has the thinking of those on the left been so corrupted that they can no longer distinguish fact from fiction?  Sure, conservatives also indulge in exaggeration and selective perception.  But don’t we, at least, need to try to be honest?

Hillary told us that she never transmitted secrets on her server.  This was untrue.  She said she received permission to operate a private apparatus.  This too was untrue.  Just a couple of weeks ago, Barack Obama claimed that the world has never been safer.  When such egregious fabrications become the norm, can we, as a nation, survive?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University