Political Outrage is Selective Partisanship
Political Outrage is Selective Partisanship
In our part of the country, we tend to value a person’s word. This is especially true in places like rural Oklahoma. If you say you’re for something it is expected you will stand by it even if it isn’t politically convenient. Our local and state officials are usually pretty good about upholding that Oklahoma culture. Unfortunately, as we look toward Washington, the basic level of consistency seems to have vanished, replaced by selective outrage that depends entirely on which party is in power.
The most recent and glaring example is the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The Biden administration spoke about the threat Maduro posed and placed a multi-million-dollar bounty on him. At the time there was bipartisan agreement, as the man was a dictator and a criminal who needed to face justice.
However, now that the Trump administration acted and brought him to a U.S. courtroom the tune has changed. Suddenly, these same people who wanted him caught are using words like “kidnapping” and “international overreach.” This raises a simple question: If you put out a reward for a person’s capture, how can you be angry when someone actually does it? It seems some leaders are more interested in the appearance of being tough than in actually being effective and completing the job. It is as if the “wrong” person succeeds, the success itself becomes a horrible act.
We see this same pattern closer to home regarding government spending. We are constantly told by those in office that every penny of the federal budget is essential and that any talk of cutting waste is a war on the vulnerable. They claim to be the watchdogs of the taxpayer, yet their silence is deafening when the system is actually robbed.
An example is the recent fraud uncovered in the Somali daycare programs in Minnesota. These were taxpayer dollars that were supposed to feed and care for children, but instead allegedly vanished into a web of shell companies and personal enrichment. This wasn’t just waste, but a total a systemic raid on the taxpayers.
When these scandals come to light, you would expect the self-proclaimed champions of the poor to be the most outraged. Instead, we have seen a defensive crouch. When the Department of Government Efficiency or the current administration moves to audit these programs to prevent such theft, they are met with accusations of hate and not caring for the poor, children, homeless and others. The old familiar rhetoric of “starving the children” and “pushing granny over the cliff” is stated again. It’s a strange logic. These people claim to hate fraud, but they seem to hate the people who expose the fraud even more.
Every politician and person who listens to the political spin doctors should take a hard look in the mirror. For the average American, the hypocrisy has become old and tiring. We see a political class that views “justice” and “accountability” as moving targets and their keyboard warriors and media shills stand ready to join in the fray touting their party’s opinions.
If Americans really want to fix what’s broken in this country, we have to start by holding both sides to the same standard. If someone is a criminal on Tuesday, they are still a criminal on Wednesday, regardless of who brings them to justice. Likewise, if a program is being defrauded of millions, protecting the taxpayer should be more important than protecting a political narrative.
Until we demand consistency over partisanship, we shouldn’t be surprised when the “outrage” we see on the news feels less like a matter of principle and more like a Hollywood script.
Randy D. Gibson is CEO of RDG Communications, LLC.
