The 2024 Presidential election is now over, the new president has announced his choices for Cabinet positions, and members of the U.S. Senate are considering which of those choices they will approve and which they will disapprove.
Theoretically, the senators make their decisions solely on whether the candidates are qualified to hold the respective positions. However, the senators also consider how close the candidates’ political views are to their own. When the views differ, the senators may be tempted to vote against even highly qualified candidates. Conversely, when the views are the same, the senators may be tempted to vote for even unqualified candidates.
The temptation occurs in both political parties for the simple reason that human beings are inclined to feel closer to those who are like them than to those who are unlike them. This inclination does not compel our behavior toward others, but simply tilts us one way or another according to the degree of closeness we feel toward individuals or groups.
However, given the right circumstances, the degree of that tilt can be significant enough to be almost compelling.
Over the last several decades, Democrats gradually moved from liberalism to progressivism, and as a result increasingly distanced themselves from traditional western views and values. This change has made discussion and debate with Republicans considerably more difficult. That difficulty, I believe, has led to increased unfairness in senators’ evaluations of Cabinet and Supreme Court choices.
Though examples of unfair evaluation can be found among both Democrats and Republicans, it has been much more prevalent among Democrats. Examples are the treatment of Clarence Thomas in 1991, Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, Amy Comey Barrett in 2020. (Even worse was the despicable treatment of Robert Bork in 1987.) And the unfairness has worked to Democrats’ political gain for several reasons.
First, they have mastered the practice of accusing Republican nominees of inappropriate and/or immoral behavior with little or no evidence, or in some cases with false evidence, thereby forcing the nominees to the impossible task of arguing a negative.
Secondly, they have managed the neat (though not admirable) trick of using Republicans’ virtues against them. For example, knowing that conservatives (unlike progressives) acknowledge the reality of sin and the need to avoid it, they make a special effort to accuse Republican nominees of sinful behavior, in particular sexual sins, in the hope that Republicans will consider the nominees unfit for office. If actual sins can be found, so much the better; if not, false ones will serve the same purpose. More often than not, Republicans fall for the bait.
Thirdly, they demand that Republicans treat Democrat Cabinet and Supreme Court choices completely differently. For example, if Republicans mention clear evidence that Democrat Cabinet choices behaved immorally or criminally, Democrats excuse such behavior as a “personal matter” or change the subject and blame Republicans of racism, sexism, and so on. Or, they quote Scripture commands they don’t believe in, let alone practice, such as “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” or “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Republicans rarely respond with more applicable passages from Scripture or point out the Democrats’ hypocrisy, but instead choose to be silent.
Finally, and most amazingly, Democrats have managed to persuade the mainstream media to abandon their traditional rule of reporting events fully, fairly, and without bias, and instead side with the Democrats.
Will Democrat advantages be as influential this year as they have been in the past? The answer will depend on whether Republicans respond intelligently to the strategies used against them.
Copyright © 2024 by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero. All rights reserved.
