The Moral Equivalence Contest’s New Contenders

When confronted with some foreign evil, the American liberal has a strange impulse to insist something morally equivalent is wrong with his own country in general and its conservatives in particular.
We’ve long noticed this tendency, and for many years having been ranking the most outrageous examples. So far the winner is still a friend of ours who, during a discussion about the old tradition in India of burning a widow alive on her husband’s funeral pyre, insisted that western culture does things to women that are every bit as bad, although she couldn’t quite think of any on the spur of the moment, followed by another a friend, a music-loving hippie who insisted that Afghanistan’s Taliban was no worse than the George W. Bush administration and contended that the Taliban’s complete ban on music was negated by a local college radio station’s cancellation of his favorite program. President Barack Obama sometimes seems intent on winning our competition, and his claim that Americans shouldn’t “get on a high horse” about the Islamic State chopping heads off because many centuries ago the Crusaders did some nasty things in their defensive war against a similarly brutal Islamic imperialism is certainly worth consideration, but this week also saw a couple of new contenders.
One is Samantha Power, Obama’s representative in the United Nations, whose recent commencement address at Barnard College told the women accepting their $250,000 degrees from that elite institution how very bad they have it. She recalled the sexism that once excluded women from colleges, and although she acknowledged that women now earn about 60 percent of all colleges she assumed that her distaff listeners were still troubled by “persistent self-doubt,” “fear of making mistakes,” and letting those doubts “get in the way of your voices being heard.” Our experience of young women is that their self-esteem has been carefully nurtured by modern education and popular culture, they’re no more afraid of making a mistake than your average Obama administration member, and that nothing gets in the way of their voices being heard, and we were entirely unsympathetic to all the personal anecdotes that followed about juggling motherhood and UN diplomacy, but what struck us as especially absurd was Power’s portentous note that there is a higher proportion of women in the Afghanistan parliament than in the United States’ Congress.
It was part of a spiel about how women’s rights have advanced in that formerly Taliban-ruled country to the point that it now has a national women’s cycling team, with no mention that this admittedly positive development is entirely due to an invasion and occupation by American forces that began during a previous administration, or any acknowledgement that those cyclists will almost surely be back in burqas shortly after the Obama administration’s planned retreat, and we suppose it can be taken as an upbeat exhortation to continue the march of women’s rights, but the tendency toward moral equivalence was unmistakable. Powersalso mentioned that young woman who has been carrying a mattress around Columbia University all year to protest its failure to punish the young man she alleges raped her, even though the evidence suggests that the the university and the city police declined to take any action for lack of evidence that she was raped, and the alleged rapist has numerous e-mails and other communications suggesting that she’s the sort of troubled young woman who haul a mattress around a university campus for an entire year, and generally spoke as if womanhood were at least as much a travail in America as in Afghanistan or anyplace else. We can only hope that $250,000 buys enough education at Barnard College that there audience will know better than believe such nonsense.
The other recent contestant in our moral equivalence idiocy contest is someone named William Saletan, who took the digital pages of Slate.com to explain why Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is just like all the Republican candidates for president. He doesn’t allege that any of the Republicans hopefuls have been chopping off heads or doing any of the other deadly things that have brought the Islamic State such notoriety, but he does claim that they sound a lot alike. He notes that al-Baghdadi has said that he is waging a war of Muslims against non-Muslims, just as the Republicans have said that al-Baghdadi is waging a war of Muslims against non-Muslims. As if that weren’t damning enough, Saletan also notes that al-Baghdadi has said that his version is Islam is incompatible with western values, and that there are verses in the Koran and Hadith that urge violent jihad against non-Muslims, and sure enough many of those Republicans agree. He further notes that al-Baghdadi has warned Muslims that America has no respects for their rights, and although he can’t think of anything the Republicans have done to confirm this warning other than some gripes about a mosque being built near the former World Trade Center location and former Sen. Rick Santorum’s complaint that we’re not dropping enough bombs on al-Baghdadi’s Islamic State he still thinks that the IS and the GOP are pretty much the same. Indeed, he concludes that the GOP is “working for Baghdadi” by opposing it, and signs off with a haughty “Remind me again who’s naive.”
Perhaps it’s us who are naive, but to our ears the GOP candidates and al-Baghdadi don’t sound any more alike than Hitler and Roosevelt did when the former said his country was at war with us and the latter agreed that we were indeed at war. Of course, the modern liberal would also find some moral equivalence there.

— Bud Norman

Obama vs. the Darned Media

One of the recurring themes here at The Central Standard Times — we were grousing about it again just yesterday, as a matter of fact — is the exasperatingly liberal bias of the national media. The leftward leanings of most of the old-line newspapers and all the broadcasters save one are widely known, and rarely denied, but we nonetheless find it useful to occasionally examine the latest of the abundant examples of press malfeasance and search for whatever truth they are trying to obscure.

You can imagine our annoyance, then, to see that Barack Obama is now muscling in on our media criticism turf. The president has lately been disparaging the media with a gusto that even we cannot bring to the effort, and making a complaint that cannot be heard elsewhere. Obama now asserts, and seems to truly believe, that the media are out to get him. The accusation will surely sound absurd to anyone who has read a newspaper or watched a network news broadcast during the past four years or so, but Obama and his spokespeople have hurled it twice in just the past week.

Obama’s first salvo came on Monday, during a commencement address at Barnard College in New York City. The all-woman college had originally scheduled a commencement address by Jill Abramson, the first woman to be named executive editor of the New York Times, but Obama personally requested that she be bumped so he could demonstrate that he is more friendly to womankind than the Republicans, who of course are currently at war with women. The speech included the usual commencement address balderdash about stepping forward boldly into the future and all that, some Oprah-esque advice that “You can be stylish and powerful, too,” and an unexpected warning to not listen to the media.

“No wonder that faith in our institutions has never been lower, particularly when good news doesn’t get the same kind of ratings as bad news anymore,” the president said. “Every day you receive a steady stream of sensationalism and scandal, and stories with a message that suggests change isn’t possible, that you can’t make a difference, that you won’t be able to close that gap between life as it is and life as it should be.”

The Barnard graduates seemed to fall for it, which suggests that perhaps we’ve been hitting on the wrong college girls, but inhabitants of the so-called real world will be left wondering what Obama could possibly be talking about. There are indeed a surfeit of stories out there about high unemployment, sluggish economic growth, rising deficits, botched gun-running schemes, and other revelations that might tend to undermine faith in institutions such as the presidency, but Obama must understand that they cannot be ignored without destroying the last vestiges of faith in the press, and it’s clear that most reporters and editors would much rather be writing about the Republicans’ war on women or Mitt Romney’s high school days or whatever other cheerier topic they might come up with.

The administration lodged a more specific complaint on Tuesday after The New York Times released a poll indicating that 67 percent of the public believes Obama’s much-ballyhooed statement in favor of same-sex marriage was made for political rather than personal reasons. Stephanie Cutter, a deputy manager for the Obama campaign, went to the friendly confines of MSNBC to say that the poll was methodologically biased against her boss. Although the poll did require that respondents call back to the pollsters, an unusual and questionable feature, it nonetheless demonstrates where the most motivated respondents stand. Had the pollsters used the same method back in 2008, when Obama’s supporters were chanting his name and swelled pride with about being the ones they’d been waiting for, he likely would have gotten more favorable results.

Besides, it’s impossible to believe that The New York Times is deliberately trying to cook up poll results hurtful to Obama. We’ve known several Timesmen and Timeswomen over the years, journalism being such a small pond, and we’re quite sure that all of them voted for Obama and plan to do so again. Even the putative conservatives at the paper voted for Obama. Given the paper’s personnel and readership, Obama should be able to count on the continued support of The New York Times.

Unless the new executive editor is sufficiently miffed about the cancelled speaking engagement at Barnard College, that is, or the reporters and editors decide they don’t like being the target of a president’s rhetoric as if they were oil producers or corporate jet owners. That probably won’t happen, but it’s a nice pipe dream.

— Bud Norman