Never Amazed

I was going to note that I'll never cease to be amazed at the hypocrisy of politicians, but then I realized that for them that it was business as usual. And they have very short memories. Like the media.

The particular origin of my concern is the brouhaha around Attorney General Jeff Sessions. There seems to be grave concern about his meetings with Russians last year, and about his failure to acknowledge them during his confirmation hearings. Afterward it came out that such meetings actually occurred, although he claims that they had nothing to do with election politics.

I don't know the truth of the allegations, and they are not the subject of this essay. I'm far more interested in the reactions to it. I'm not surprised by them – more amused by their predictability.

There are demands by Democrats for his recusal from any investigation of Russian interference with the presidential election of 2016 (and he has recused himself – a wise move – under pressure both from members of the Democratic Party and from his own) and for his resignation from office. There are demands as well for a special prosecutor to determine the legality of his actions and of the situation that precipitated it since the election won't be overturned – the view that the Russians tipped it in favor of the Republicans. The truth of such assertions is irrelevant – only the publicity it can garner.

President Trump has labeled the rhetoric of the Democrats a “witch-hunt,” and blames its origin on the loss last year of Secretary Clinton. He is opposed to the very idea of a special prosecutor and he defends his Attorney General.

But it should not be forgotten that he favored a special prosecutor, and, indeed, indictment, when it was learned that Secretary Clinton had lied to Congress and to the American people about her private e-mail server and about the situation in Benghazi.

On the other hand, those demanding action against Attorney General Sessions are, by and large, those who pooh-poohed any investigation of Secretary Clinton for illegal acts. They deemed such suggestions as political. Now, when the accusations are against the other party rather than their own, the are righteously indignant at the violation of trust of public officials. They seem to have very selective memories and reactions.

And they're aided – both sides – by media that favor one party or the other, and by popular figures in other fields who have relatively little knowledge (nor interest in the realities), but strong political opinions. Responses are predictable irrespective of the facts. Publicity is “the name of the game.” Only it's not a game, and the “players” are playing for keeps.

A similar situation pertains in the actions of political figures in other controversies. Each party opposes the candidates of the other; each belittles – indeed they're “horrified” – at the actions of their opponents, never acknowledging that they did the same things when it was in their interests. When they did it it was justified. When the other party does it it's an abuse of power.

The same applies to legislation. Compromise is impossible because whatever the other party proposes – even if it's a carbon copy (remember carbon paper?) of what they demanded before – is contrary to common sense and to American values. “The loyal opposition” doesn't exist. Hypocrisy and obstruction are more important political tools than truth and progress. There's nothing new in the recognition that those involved in the political process prefer to “spin” rather than act directly to advance our agenda. There are very few “good guys” any more. “Winning is the only thing.” Hence all the negative political ads and statements, and their publications in the media.

So what's new? Everyone's in it for himself (or herself) and there's no tool like decrying the actions of others irrespective of what they are. And a short memory helps in that regard. If you don't love it, ignore it. Change is unlikely.