Wampum

Quick to Charge, Slow to Prove

In the law, there is a type of charge that is known as “easy to plead, hard to prove.” Typing up a complaint that makes serious allegations against someone and then filing it in the courthouse is easy. The hard part comes when it is time to prove those allegations in a fair forum in an adversarial proceeding.

One of the differences between practicing law and being a right wing pundit is that for the pundit, the time to actually prove the charges never occurs. A charge is made in a column or on TV and the accuser is never called upon to produce the supporting evidence. If challenged, the pundit ignores the charges previously made and simply makes new, even more outrageous charges.

Take Gary Aldrich for example. Aldrich made his chops as a right wing pundit in a book in which he charged that the Clintons decorated the White House Christmas Tree with “sex toys and self-mutilation devices.”

Instead of being required to produce some evidence to support such a ludicrous claim, he was accepted into the ranks of right wing punditry. Now, in his latest Town Hall column, he charges Bill and Hilary Clinton with being communists out to destroy both capitalism and democracy. No, really, he does:

Nothing I have discovered has discouraged me from concluding that Hillary Clinton and her sometimes brilliant, sometimes useful-dupe husband are less than dedicated Marxists…

They support an ideology that will eventually destroy Democracy and Capitalism, if not stopped now.

To those of us born shortly after the middle of the twentieth century, a charge of being a communist is pretty serious. The McCarthy era taught us that such a charge should not be made without proof. Of course Aldrich has no evidence to support his allegation. He simply asks us to take is word for it.

Let others hint and imply, I worked in “the nest,” and I know. I was there, met their friends and saw their backgrounds. I heard them talk and express a visceral hatred toward Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and anyone who ever worked for them.

Now perhaps one would think that having a “dedicated Marxist” as President for eight years would have a negative effect on the economy. Under Mr. Clinton, we had the longest period of economic growth in history. Unemployment, inflation, interest rates and poverty were down. Wages, corporate earnings, the stock market and jobs were up. Not much evidence there for Mr. Aldrich's charge.

Maybe we can help Mr. Aldrich produce some evidence of Marxist policies in the White House. A Marxist president would, perhaps, support a command and control economy by having the central government control the price at which goods and labor can be sold. Unfortunately for Mr. Aldrich’s argument, that president was Richard Nixon not Bill Clinton.

Perhaps one might think that a dedicated Marxist would increase social spending as measured by increases in non-defense discretionary spending. In Clinton’s first three years non-defense discretionary outlays fell 0.7% while under George W. Bush such spending rose more than 20%.

Mr. Aldrich says that Mr. Clinton’s ideology would destroy capitalism. Free trade is at the heart of capitalism. Clinton pushed and passed both NAFTA and GATT. George W. Bush has imposed tariffs on a number of items ranging from steel to women’s undergarments.

One might expect a Marxist President to establish new government departments. Mr. Clinton created no new cabinet level agencies. The Environmental Protection agency was created under Richard Nixon. The Departments of Energy and Education were created under Jimmy Carter. The Department of Homeland Security was created under George W. Bush.

Perhaps Mr. Aldrich thinks that Bill Clinton intended to destroy democracy by not taking action against those who attack us. It was not Bill Clinton who cut and ran after terrorists attacked and killed more than 200 American soldiers. It was Ronald Reagan. It was not Bill Clinton but George W. Bush who, before 9/11, failed to continue flights of the Predator drone aircraft armed with Hellfire missiles in Afghanistan. The purpose of the flights was to locate and kill Osama bin Laden.

One of the hallmarks of a communist government is the suspension civil liberties. Many people of Mr. Aldrich’s ilk point to the deaths of the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, Idaho as an example of government suppression of the rights of individuals. Ruby Ridge occurred in 1992 when Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas and George H.W. Bush was President.

It was not Bill Clinton but George W. Bush who claims the power to arrest any American citizen he cares to designate and indefinitely hold that citizen without charges, without a right to a trial, without access to a lawyer and without any other legal process.

Gary Aldrich is quick to make accusations. It would be nice if at some point he could actually marshal a few facts to support those allegations. In the world of right wing punditry, any charge, no matter how outlandish, requires no proof whatsoever as long is it is leveled at Bill Clinton or other Democrats. During the 1990s I often heard from right wing pundits that Bill Clinton did not have any principles. Now we are told that he is a “dedicated Marxist.” I do wish they would make up their mind.

Posted by Dwight Meredith at December 4, 2003 11:10 PM | TrackBack