We’re a mere 26 days into 2017, and there’s already a lot that I’m tiring of. But of all of the things that grind my gears the most, I think hypocrisy probably reigns supreme. That being said, I just have one question to ask Trump supporters:
Why the selective outrage?
When you were railing against Hillary Clinton for deleting 30,000 e-mails from a private server, were you also railing against George W. Bush for “losing” 22 million e-mails from a private server, too? After all, the latter ran in direct contravention of the Presidential Records Act and involved scores of chief advisers using the RNC’s private domain. At a time when transparency was paramount (as we were investigating that small Iraq/WMD matter, as well as the politically motivated firings of several U.S. attorneys), George W. Bush was refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas, and a bipartisan vote found his aides to be in contempt of Congress. In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee would later say, “[T]his subversion of the justice system has included lying, misleading, stonewalling and ignoring the Congress in our attempts to find out precisely what happened. The reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover-up, and the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort.”
Where was the outrage then?
When you were demonizing Hillary Clinton for the “cold-blooded murder” of the Americans lost in Benghazi, were you similarly demonizing George W. Bush for the diplomatic personnel who died in the 13 embassy/consular attacks under his watch? Were you vilifying Ronald Reagan for the 17 U.S. citizens lost in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut? Better yet, were you spreading blame for Benghazi to the Republican-led House, who agreed to $330 million less in embassy security funding than the Obama administration requested?
And if not, where was the outrage then?
Since you criticized the Clinton Foundation’s charitable worth and giving, are you now criticizing the Trump Foundation as well? After all, it is the latter that was ordered to cease operations by the New York attorney general. It is the latter that admitted to improper self-dealing on its 2015 tax return. It is the latter that was forced to pay a penalty for violating tax law, after improperly gifting charitable funds to the political campaign of an attorney general set to investigate Trump University for fraud (an attorney general who then declined to investigate him and went on to serve on his transition team).
So where is the outrage now?
And since we’re on the subject of pay-for-play, I’m waiting for your outrage over Trump’s cabinet picks and executive actions, since you expressed so much outrage over the potential for conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation. After all, it is Trump who received $12 million towards his campaign from six generous individuals, and it is Trump who then turned around and appointed those six individuals to his cabinet. It is Trump who benefited from contributions made by Energy Transfer Partners’ CEO, and it is Trump who then advanced Energy Transfer Partners’ interests through one of his very first executive actions.
I thought that we were upset that donors to the Clinton Foundation were considered for governmental positions. I thought that we were upset that the foundation accepted monies from individuals or corporations whose interests Clinton could potentially advance or hinder through the powers of her position.
So where is the outrage now?
Oh, and on the topic of executive orders, I just know that you all remember the flack Obama received for “executive overreach,” despite the fact that he averaged fewer executive orders than any president since Grover Cleveland. But I can see where the criticism stemmed from. After all, by February 1st of his first year, Obama had already issued nine executive orders. Horrifying, right? Well, in less than a week, Trump has issued twelve, with “no end in sight,” according to White House Counselor, Kellyanne Conway.
So where is the outrage now?
See, I didn’t express outrage over Clinton’s e-mails, because I didn’t express outrage over George W. Bush’s. I didn’t express outrage over Benghazi, because I understood that there was plenty of “blame” to go around and that blame often isn’t even appropriate in circumstances of such intricate nuance. I didn’t care that Hillary Clinton’s aides were soliciting suggestions for administration personnel, nor do I care that Donald Trump’s donors sat atop the list of his. Because in the end, I don’t care how these public servants are found, I only care that they’re qualified (spoiler alert: they’re not).
Maybe it’s just easier being an independent, because I’m able to reserve my outrage for those events actually deserving. I don’t need to invent controversy where controversy needn’t exist, because I have no political loyalties that would motivate such theatrics. There is not one single part of me that wants Republicans to look bad, simply because they’re Republican. Nor is there a part of me that wants Democrats to look bad, simply because they’re Democrats. We, in this country, need to stop treating each other as the enemy and reserving our selective outrage only for those events that mar the “opposing” side. We need to stop viewing advocacy through the prism of red vs. blue, choosing instead to view it as “we the people” vs. the government that has been tasked with representing us. We need to start treating people with the respect that they deserve, until they are no longer deserving. And if they are found to be undeserving based on some perceived sin, we need to hold all people accountable for that sin, even (and maybe especially) if they occupy our side of the aisle. Because, in the end, I think America greatly benefits from that.
And shouldn’t that be what this is all about?