Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Recent American Political Scandals Are Different – and Terrifying
In a recent post, I tried to make the case that these are not serious times, at least not in Western Civilization. We are not taking serious problems seriously, thus simple problems are turning into enormous messes. I think one symptom of this environment is that political scandals are getting more ambitious and brazen. I haven’t figured out a cause and effect yet, but I think that they are linked somehow.
There were a lot of scandals during the Clinton years, but you’ll recall some of the bigger ones:
- The Waco raid
- Having sex with an intern in the Oval Office
- Whitewater
- Cattle futures
- Presidential pardons
- Use of Lincoln Bedroom for fundraising
- Travel office firings
The Waco raid resulted in the killing of people that Janet Reno found distasteful. That’s pretty serious. Although, if Bill Clinton had any idea that the Branch Davidians would have responded the way they did, I would bet my house that he would have stopped that raid before it even started. He didn’t want a major mess like that. Which helps make my point about the rest of the Clinton scandals: They really were just the Clintons trying to get rich, get sex, or to feel powerful.
Don’t get me wrong – horrible behavior for anyone, despicable behavior for a president. But they weren’t history-changing events and they weren’t intended to be. They were just the Clintons doing whatever they wanted.
But more recent scandals seem more brazen, more significant, and more widespread (involving more people and more layers of government).
- Fast and Furious
- Benghazi
- Clinton Foundation – selling influence for personal gain
- FBI (Comey) finding that Clinton had broken laws, but deciding not to prosecute during campaign
- DOJ and FBI attempting to keep a Republican out of the White House
These scandals seem to me to be fundamentally different than the Clinton scandals. These are intentional efforts to influence policy (Fast and Furious) or even attempts to change the nature of our government and thus the course of history (Comey’s decision not to prosecute obviously illegal behavior and our current headlines of the DOJ and FBI trying to influence an election). If the last two items on that list are anything remotely similar to what they appear to be, I think they might be the most incredible political scandals in US history. Perhaps I’m missing something here, but they are huge. Why is this happening now?
Of the five branches of government in our current system, I think that the media is the most powerful branch. The second most powerful branch is the administrative state. (After that, I would say Judicial, Executive, and Legislative, although those are of similar influence, and so far behind the other two that it probably doesn’t matter much which is on top of the other.) What concerns me about these more recent scandals is that they involve not just some small-time shyster who wants to be serviced in the Oval Office but rather are cooperative efforts (although not necessarily carefully coordinated efforts – they have similar goals and detailed coordination is not generally necessary) of our two most powerful branches of government – the media and the administrative state. This is extremely concerning.
So, three questions:
- Do you agree with my premise that American political scandals are rapidly becoming more ambitious, brazen, and widespread (involving more people of influence)?
- Why is this happening now? Is it due to the non-serious nature of our current society, or is there some other factor?
- What can be done about this? Because if we don’t fix this, the “statists” or leftists will have such an enormous advantage that elections are likely to become a mere formality.
Mark Twain said something like, “If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.” If these scandals continue, he may be right. These modern scandals are influential, powerful, and always on the cause of the left. This is serious stuff. And we are not taking it seriously. This is a serious problem.
Please tell me I’m wrong.
Published in General
Well said and it explains so much about their standard practice of politics.
This is so much like the other things that people always say about politicians but are really only enforced against Republicans. I can’t believe how many people talk about how you have to be careful what you say to the media but we all know that it really only applies heavily to Republicans.
It’s all Obama. He sewed the seeds of authoritarianism with every appointment, every judgement, every official act. He politicized the IRS, the AFT, the Customs service, the FBI. Every action he took was calculated to harm America. His legacy continues, look how much of the sh1t Mr Trump has had to face was derived from Obama’s post-election decisions.
Obama was and is a traitor. He ought to be standing blindfolded in front of a wall with twelve rifles pointing at his heart.
This is exactly right. He’s a wrecker.
You (the OP) make a good point. I hadn’t thougght of it that way. One scandal you didn’t mention was outside of Washington, and that’s the rogue prosecutor in Wisconsin that was going after Scott Walker with his tactics including law enforcement forcing entry into Walker’s campaign doners, and further imposing legal gag orders so they couldn’t talk about how they were treated.
And the media coverage of all the scandals you mentioned was downplayed.
It’s why I disagree with the consensus at National Review about tactics. Our side may not need to be quite as vicious as the Dems have been, but they still need to up their game more than they have.
I am appalled that the press hasn’t covered these outrages more.
First, he had support. So it’s not all Obama. Second, he wanted to transform America and that was the calculation not harm. Any harm that occurred was of the “can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs” variety.
Bandying about the “traitor” word is eye rolling to me. And if we’re going to execute our political enemies, we might as well secede and go through the civil war that would result.
I’m for being vicious towards our political enemies, but not that vicious.
Ya, it’s almost like they are in the tank for Obama or something.
You mean, of course, unless they actually are anti-American — right?
Ummm….bonds are money borrowed to be repaid at a later date. In other words, pretty much the definition of debt.
The examples the OP gave were more deliberate or proactive acts by an administration determined to play hardball politics The examples you gave were a failure to react well. Even Waco occurred in the begining of Clinton’s administration, and seemed to be an example of incompetence than deliberate. At the time, I remember thinking what’s taking so long to resolve this. There was pressure to do so.
And you did call Clinton an idiot. The OP is implying that Obama is an evil genius, not an idiot.
Except for not taking it seriously, that also describes the Reagan Administration. And it resulted in Iran Contra.
And try as I might, I can’t come up with a good answer; and just as clearly, neither could the GOPe in 2016.
nice
I’m not convinced that Trump is being attacked more viciously than previous Republican presidents.
That is a fascinating thought, @misthiocracy. It sure feels like it, so why? Possibly because in other Republican administrations the attacks were scattered over the cabinet, not just the president, while under the Trump administration the attacks are almost exclusively on Trump himself. I think Trump has made it so, to all our benefit.
Because it’s happening in the present, rather than in the past. It’s immediate. It’s fresh.
If one needs a reminder that viciousness is bestowed upon all Republican presidents, simply search google for “Bush is Hitler”.
trai·tor
ˈtrādər/
noun
“they see me as a traitor, a sellout to the enemy”
I don’t know, @AlSparks, Obama seems to me to fit the definition. Iran is one of America’s enemies, by their own admission and vastly different world view. If deliberate interference with US law enforcement trying to slow Hezbollah cocaine from flowing into America and killing Americans in order to appease Iran isn’t a sellout to the enemy, it’s hard to imagine what is.
Barack Obama not only failed himself to protect Americans from all enemies, foreign and domestic, he kept others duly sworn to protect them from doing so.
I once thought Obama a decent family man with political views different from mine. As his actions (which differ markedly from his smooth words,) have unfolded the past year, and after reading this week’s piece in Politico, I now think he must be one of the most vile human beings to ever hold the office of President of the United States. He’ll never be executed, but I cannot deny him guilty of the worst sort of betrayal if he consigned Americans to addiction and death for the sake of a worthless deal with one of the most evil governments on the planet.
Yes. It always grated me a bit when Bill O’Reilly referred to Obama as a “patriot”. Of course, O’Reilly made that the default position until proven otherwise, which is fair enough. But I thought that his apology tour and bowing in 2009 was quite instructive with regard to his sense (or lack thereof) of patriotism.
The scandals are not getting worse. It’s our reactions to them.
Watergate was the ultimate scandal with the ultimate result, the resignation of the President of the United States. Nixon payed the political price and his subordinates went to jail. Even the sainted Reagan saw a major scandal that resulted in members of his Administration being charged and found guilty of crimes.
Then, starting with Bill Clinton, heightened by Obama and then Mrs. Clinton, came the “protected class of felons.” With the Republican Party reinvigorated and renewed as a national force in the Congress, Bill needed to be protected at all costs. Everyone now in Congress worrying about the integrity of Robert Mueller’s investigation was trashing Ken Starr on a daily basis.
As the first of their protected classes to secure a major party nomination, both Obama and Mrs. Clinton were beyond reproach. While innocent people died in Operation Fast and Furious and in Benghazi the press insisted on giving them a pass. As for Mrs. Clinton’s and her staff’s mishandling of classified documents the high profile cases of US military members being prosecuted and their lives destroyed for doing something as simple (and stupid) as taking a selfie in a classified area cemented the idea that there were now people identifiable through race, gender and party affiliation who were greater than and beyond the law. Once you accept this you must accept the heightened level of corruption that comes with it.
I dislike thinking so badly of a POTUS; you want to be able to respect them even if you don’t like their policies. In Obama’s case, there aren’t enough words to describe how awful I view these latest actions coming to light and motives behind them.
The whole Progressive think pattern is not only wrong but dangerous. They mistreat fellow citizens who disagree with a club while bowing and scraping in appeasement, even admiration in some cases, to criminals and terrorists who would kill them (and all in the vicinity) in a second should they fail to be useful.
Where in the world did he, Rhodes, Kerry, et al get the idea they could manipulate/control terrorists once those terrorists were given what they were after and had nothing with teeth to halt further bad acts?
Yes, Obama is rated as one of the biggest financers of terrorism in the world with his giving money to the Iranians. That is the work of a traitor to this country. He might justify it as being in line with his pretend position as the president of the world but this and the latest business with helping them sell drugs here show that he considers America as far down on his list of important countries. And we know that he dismisses regular Americans (the ones who refused to vote for abortion rights and redefining marriage so they had to exercise the left’s hegemonic power in this country through the courts) with notions of clinging to God and guns — in other words regular and normal and traditional Americans. These are the ones that he is anti-American about. And about our country’s history, too. Remember that all progressives think America is a bad country.
LIKE so much
BINGO. See: Harvey Silverglate’s THREE FELONIES A DAY.
This is a central point, I think. In one sense, a bad act is a bad act. If, however, you accept there are gradations to bad actions, then some are worse than others.
Bill Clinton (and HRC) knew they were doing wrong, and developed telling bald faced lies into an art form. They deny until they can’t deny any further, then hope to make whatever the issue go away or become a non-issue.
Obama ushered in an era where now doing wrong is actually a virtue if it is done in pursuit of what Progressives consider a higher goal or purpose. Clintons lie and say they did/didn’t do something; Obama and his ilk do the same, and have added a twist by saying that some bad ideas/acts are actually a good thing.
Also, the way in which Progressives as a group attempt to force their views on the general populace and punish all those who don’t submit, the demeaning of non-conformists to the point they can lose not only their dignity but their livelihood, is something I don’t recall from Clinton or Watergate days. It truly is fascist in its “forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism”. They want power centralized to govt, with a regimented populace guided by group think.
Looking at things now from these standpoints, our reactions are greater and they should be.
Obama is only the symptom. There was a time when he would never have been nominated, much less elected and re-elected. The willing suspension of disbelief doesn’t explain it all. Some didn’t care what he did as long as they benefited, even if at the expense of others. Many were too ignorant of civics and current events to recognize the corruption of our principles. Others dislike this country because of its founding principles and wanted those erased, or transformed, as Obama said. They also hate those of us who don’t agree with them. Obama didn’t operate in a vacuum. I am no longer tied to fellow countrymen by a common culture. Rather, we are only related by government fiat, and this doesn’t bode well for the future, sadly. I will always fly the Stars and Stripes but wonder if some of those 50 stars will always be there. Even patriotism is maligned as some sort of evil nationalism.
Yup, we’ve been Balkanized by the Left’s identity politicking. Divide and conquer.
This is a real red alert to me; was part of why I was so upset about NFL players refusing to stand for the national anthem, one of the few things we had left that united Americans.
Obama’s appeal as the first African American president was huge. I didn’t vote for him either time, but I recall becoming misty-eyed watching him take his first oath of office and hoping he could accomplish the unifying vision he described. There’s an element of people not realizing what they were voting for the first time, not understanding what he meant by hope and change. And he flat out lied about some of his intentions IMO. There was also the problem that it was difficult to criticize the President’s actions without some Americans (genuinely so in some personal anecdotal cases) feeling you were criticizing because of his race.
I still think America is a center, center/right, center/left country, but as more people graduate from increasingly Progressive schools (K-graduate school), the deck stacks farther left. Although, on the bright side I am noticing some Americans increasingly turned off by Progressive strong arm tactics. Trick is to give them something they feel they can vote for (not merely against,) without adopting Progressive tactics or positions.
So far the ‘multi-culturists’ are winning. Even among those WGAS about multiculturism because they are indifferent to the civilizational poison it represents.
It is widespread. I salute during the National Anthem at sports events. You see it all, other salutes, hands on the heart, people just standing there, people standing but not participating, and people going about their business. That is why so many support the athletes…and also why so many are tuning them out. They don’t get it. Those they offend will never come around to their way. They lost them right out of the gate.
I don’t think that’s it.
I think it’s because Trump fights back. Other Presidents who have been called Hitler or worse – and that includes Reagan, incidentally – but they have never responded to the criticisms, at least not in any way that expresses emotion and fights back against the complainers. Trump fights personal remarks with personal remarks of his own. He makes everything more vivid. It’s a kind of judo, it reflects their negative energy back on them.
Because there is a debate of sorts, in other words, we are more likely to listen to both sides, and see our own as under attack.
As authoritarians themselves, they are all the more afraid of seeing an authoritarian who is not their authoritarian. They fear having the State’s own enormous firepower, which they have built up themselves at great cost of time, effort and treasure, turned on themselves.
To tell the truth, I don’t think Trump is as authoritarian as they do. But he is determined to use every bit of leverage he has to turn back the Administrative State and if I were them, I’d be scared too.
I love Trump as President because the guy is fearless. I don’t always agree with what he wants, but his methods are astonishingly effective. He’s a great man to have on our side even if we don’t always agree.