How many people out there are somewhat put off by the idea of a man secretly taping George W. Bush's private conversations without his consent? Most of you, I bet. I am. It seems like a monumental invasion of privacy, and something that our culture should not generally tolerate. I do not mean to say that NY Times shouldn't go public with this stuff, just that the taper's conduct is disgusting and should be roundly renounced.
I bring this up to bring up a broader thing I can't help but notice lately (especially as it relates to the Gannon story): The major difference between Republicans and Democrats is not the stands on issues like taxes, the death penalty, social security, or even Iraq. It is that we have shame, and they don't.
Specifically, I can already see the cries from the righty blogosphere about the invasion of privacy this is as to W. Yet this comes from the same people who supported Linda Tripp and Lucienne Goldberg's horrific crime against Monica Lewinsky. We on the Democratic side of the aisle have shame you see, so we will probably agree at heart that taping a man without his consent (even if we deplore the man) is wrong. The righties however will denounce this without saying a word about Tripp (or coming up with some transparently absurd justification). No shame.
Take this and apply to any issue. Gannon: How many feel in their heart of hearts a little sorry for that pitiful man? How many here feel this even though he was a hooker and has no legitimate claim to calling his conduct "private"? I bet most of us do. Because we have shame. Because we have feelings and can see a little of ourselves in all human beings. Now look at the right: They are all falling over themselves to denounce the lefty blogs for invading this poor dude's privacy. But when Monica Lewinsky's privacy was horribly invaded, the right loved it, and I don't recall any of them even expressing any regret over the fact that a young woman clearly got caught up in something much bigger than herself. No shame.
If Iraq had turned out to be a success and the Bush administration's claims all turned out to be true, I bet most Dems who opposed the war would admit that they were wrong at least as to some issues, and that a lot of good came out of the adventure. But look at what is happening on the other side. Shit, Instahack can't even admit that anything is wrong in Iraq. He now is pushing the meme that WMD was not the primary reason we went there (one could search his archives and find otherwise -- yet why does he care? Just keep saying it and it will be true). No shame.
No shame. That's the difference, and that's why they win. And you know what? We probably cannot give up our values (yes values) completely just for power. Makes me pessimistic when I am generally an optimist.
Update [2005-2-20 17:32:16 by NewDem]: After finishing this diary, I see this from Matt Ygelsias:
"Representative Chris Cox (R-CA) [at CPAC:] "We continue to discover biological and chemical weapons and facilities to make them inside Iraq" . . . . Is Rep. Cox just up there lying? Is there a member of congress who's managed not to familiarize himself at all with the basic facts about the Iraq War? It's honestly a bit baffling. This particular policy-relevant piece of empirical knowledge is not especially complicated, hard to understand, or difficult to locate. Cox isn't the most important House member out there, but he's certainly not a nobody."
Matt, why are you even asking the question. The answer is obvious: Cox is lying. He knows he is lying. His audience knows he is lying. But they do not care. They just have no shame. See how easy it would be if we were like them. . . . .