The Left Appeals To Passion, Not Reality

Joe Bell

The Times Watch is a project operated by the Media Research Center, which documents the liberal bias of the New York Times. The organization recently released their list of Worst Quotes of the Year and the selection gives one reason to doubt the sincerity of the leadership at the Times to bring to the public “All the news that’s fit to print.” Given the newspaper’s liberal leaning the motto should be altered to: All this bias gives reality fits.

The quotes, from news articles and statements made by policymakers at the Times, reveal a dislike of conservatives that is as unfounded and irrational as their view of the world.

In the July 11 edition of the Times, Mark Leibovich wrote a profile of Congressman James Sensenbrenner, of Wisconsin. He wrote the Republican “has no tolerance for illegal immigrants… A bipartisan irritant from a state nowhere near the Mexican border, he has outsize influence on the fate of the country’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. …Mr. Sensenbrenner has been a feared and vital character in some defining political dramas, like the Clinton impeachment …”

There is much wrong with this passage. First, why should Sensenbrenner, or anyone else, tolerate lawbreaking? America welcomes folks from all corners of the world and has steps in place to ensure the process. Those who circumvent the law do not deserve tolerance anymore than someone who drives a car without a license deserves society’s forbearance. As with immigration, there is a procedure through which an individual can apply for a driver’s license. Those who disregard the law and drive illegally should face justice. The same holds true for immigration.

Second, the writer makes the case that since Sensenbrenner hails from Wisconsin, which is far from the Mexican border, he should not concern himself with the illegal immigration issue. As chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, matters of lawbreaking are very much Sensenbrenner’s business. In addition, securing the nation’s borders should be of interest to every member of Congress. Also, Wisconsin’s proximity to the Canadian border makes it necessary for that state’s representatives to be sensitive to matters of illegal immigration from the north.

As Leibovich chose to exhume the body of the Clinton impeachment mortification so must the matter be revisited here for accuracy’s sake. Sensenbrenner did call for impeachment, declaring, “The president engaged in a conspiracy of crimes to prevent justice from being served. These are impeachable offenses for which the president should be convicted.”

Sensenbrenner was correct in his assessment. On January 19, 2001, CNN reported, “President Clinton will leave office free of the prospect of criminal charges after he admitted Friday that he knowingly gave misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in a 1998 lawsuit. Under an agreement with Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Clinton’s law license will be suspended for five years and he will pay a $25,000 fine to Arkansas bar officials. He also gave up any claim to repayment of his legal fees in the matter. … ‘I tried to walk a fine line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal and am certain my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false,’ Clinton said in a written statement released Friday by the White House.”

Whenever the Clinton impeachment is raised the left blathers on about how “it was only about sex.” They ignore that the law does not allow an individual to commit perjury if the person under oath is deceitful about sexual matters. Sensenbrenner was right.

What kind of publisher would permit this type of reckless journalism to numb the intellect and betray the truth? The type who would make this statement during a commencement speech on May 21, at the State University of New York at New Paltz. During his remarks, New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. said, “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, whether it’s the rights of immigrants to start a new life, or the rights of gays to marry, or the rights of women to choose. You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where oil still drove policy and environmentalists have to fight relentlessly for every gain. …But you are. And for that, I’m sorry.”

Sulzberger’s remarks were a catalog of woe that placed the problems of the nation and the world at the feet of President Bush and the right’s alleged callous indifference to justice. There is no doubt that errors in judgment in Iraq have caused the situation to take unexpected and unwanted turns. That does not mean the removal of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent war to stabilize that nation is “misbegotten.” Those who advance that view should consider whether World War II was “misbegotten” because in December 1944 the German army launched a counter-offensive that took the Allies completely by surprise. On December 16, 250,000 German soldiers broke through the lines of unsuspecting American troops. In “A History of the Twentieth Century,” Sir Martin Gilbert reminds us, “More than 190,000 Americans were killed during the German Ardennes offensive, and tens of thousands taken prisoner.”

One might surmise that, had Sulzberger been publisher of the Times in 1944, he would have demanded President Roosevelt and everyone connected to the war effort beg the nation’s forgiveness for not knowing an enemy offensive was coming, resulting in the loss of the lives of so many American soldiers. Would Sulzberger have castigated Roosevelt for dragging America into a “misbegotten” war? Whether a war is just or not does not depend upon the outcome or the difficulties encountered during the conflict but upon why a nation engaged in the battle in the first place. In World War II and in Iraq, America’s aims were and are just.

War is not akin to constructing a new highway; it is never a smooth undertaking. And we have seen in America’s domestic politics that oftentimes those who harbor resentment towards Bush will engage in political gamesmanship even though it counters America’s best interest. The media has enabled this conduct.

Sulzberger said the students “weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights…” When should the fight for human rights have concluded? In certain parts of the world individuals are persecuted for their religious beliefs and in some corners slavery endures. Sadly, there will always be those who will place their arrogance and lust for power above the rights of others. Sadder still, far too often such individuals will seize leadership posts and enforce their will through fear and violence. Sulzberger, ironically, considers opposition to such individuals and their followers “misbegotten.” Instead he suggests those who oppose the effort to alter the definition of marriage and who oppose abortion are the ones who endanger human rights. In Sulzberger’s Orwellian world, reality is turned upside down.

The publisher bemoans the fact that oil drives policy, as if it is unwholesome for an American government to defend American interests. He implies that environmentalists are right to oppose the responsible use of national resources to lower the dependency on foreign oil. If gasoline prices rose because access to overseas oil sources were denied the Times would be among the first to demand Bush do something about oil prices.

Liberals raise their voices when they should be reexamining their arguments. They tend to believe they are speaking the truth simply because they speak their passions. Passion and policy are two different animals and they do not coexist easily in the same cage. Policy is often an unattractive beast because it scrutinizes the world and advocates a plan that will confront the challenges of reality. Passion can be an appealing critter because it appeases our wants and desires. But mollifying want and desire does not always lead to a wise course in a world where reality will not bend and facts will not yield to the insistence of passion.

###

Joseph Bell has hosted a radio talk show and is a former editorial writer/columnist for several Connecticut newspapers. A former liberal Democrat, Bell has not been on the conservative side of the aisle for very long. He voted for Clinton/Gore in 1992. Abandoning the convictions that he had held and defended through adolescence and into adulthood was not easy. Sincere soul-searching and a commitment to distinguish fact from fiction compelled him to accept that liberal ideology was bankrupt.

jbellopedresponse@hotmail.com