Them "R" Fightin' Words

Here we go again. The "again" to which I'm referring is of course the Double Standard by which conservatives and liberals are publicly judged. (See my January post, "Reid's Comment and the Double Standard.") In the current case of Obama Administration Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's use of the words, "f***ing retarded", when referring to some fellow liberal activists, we simply have to ask the obvious first question: Can you imagine the public consequences of any conservative uttering exactly the same words in exactly the same context? We all know the answer to this. But it's the answer to the second question of which we are less sure. That is, how do we respond?

Sarah Palin, very prominently the mother of a child with Down Syndrome, made up her mind about how to respond quite quickly. She expressed public outrage over Emanuel's comment and called for his immediate dismissal. Did the Left, the proud authors of political correctness after all, rally to her cause? Of course not. Instead, already on the alert to diminish her standing in any way possible, they set about dismissing her outrage as selective and political. They insisted that she was merely posturing, cynically using this minor indiscretion as a blunt weapon with which to inflict injury on one of their own very loyal soldiers. (There is a strong temptation to dwell here on the always delicious irony of liberals being, as they say, hoisted on their own petard. But I'll resist.)

Sadly, but not surprisingly, the Left found a tentative ally over at the conservative The American Spectator online. Jay D. Homnick, no fan of Rahm Emanuel and a self-confessed Sarah Palin supporter, nevertheless mildly chastised the former Governor for her over-reaction and more or less forgave Emanuel for his transgression.(http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/05/the-politics-of-personal-decon) He concluded with the very measured, the very temperamentally conservative, "So we forgive you, Rahm, even if we have to forfeit a political advantage." High minded, to be sure, but is it wise?

To come to the point, frankly, I don't care if Sarah Palin's response in this controversy is overwrought. In fact, I don't really care if, truth be told, she is feigning outrage simply for political advantage. At this point all I care is that she wins. I know, I know, this goes against the grain of almost everything it means to be a conservative. It sticks in my craw. It leaves a foul taste in my mouth. But is Homnick, and any of you inclined to agree with him, really so naive as to think that in the future when some fellow conservative sticks his foot in his mouth the favor will be returned? Whether we like it or not, we're in a fight. Our ideological opponents have made clear their willingness, if necessary, to duke it out in the mire. Should we concede the bout simply because we insist it more properly take place in a ring? Should we, on principle, demand strict observance to Marquis of Queensbury rules when our antagonists wear brass knuckles underneath their gloves, and hide a knife in their shoe just in case?

As I see it, there are two ways of dealing with the Double Standard. First, we must call loud attention to it whenever it's employed against us. Over time it will lose its effectiveness as people simply grow cynical about it. "Yea, yea, yea, she's a racist, he's a sexist. We've heard it all before." The second way is to use it as Palin does in this instance, against them. Effectively done, it just might achieve something like political Mutually Assured Destruction. If it succeeds in that, then they'll have to come up out of the pit and into the ring. And in a fair fight, we'll never lose.