GOP 101

This is a lesson in hypocrisy. You won't see it being taught in class and it certainly won't be illuminated in the "liberal" media. However, its truth pervades contemporary American politics. This is the story of the true Republican Party.

While there is an almost unending list of exemplary hypocrisy the GOP has displayed on a plethora of issues, the one that most recently provoked my ire was the conflict over federal judges. In their 39 hour anti-filibuster marathon, Senate Republicans pandered to the media in an attempt to provoke public sympathy for their failure to promote several judges to lifetime appointments on the federal appellate and circuit courts. Senators such as Rick Santorum complained that Democrats were being, well, anti-democratic by using the oft-admonished filibuster to torpedo the nomination of 4 Bush appointees (with 2 more added to the list on Monday).

What the GOP failed to mention is that they used similar tactics during the Clinton presidency to kill the nominations of 63 different federal circuit and appeals court nominees. Filibusters were used, as well as the largely unknown blue slip process that allows Senators to single-handedly halt the nomination of anyone from their home state (CNN Online, 11/14/03). In fact, Senator Santorum, the ringleader of last week's Republican sponsored circus, himself tanked the nominations of several judges from his home state of Pennsylvania during the Clinton administration. When combined with the various nominees that were outright rejected by the Senate, Bill Clinton saw just over 60% of his nominees confirmed as compared to over 90% of George W. Bush's submissions. This blatant disregard for the truth on the part of Senate Republicans is both disheartening and shameful. If Republicans want anti-choice (Priscilla Owen), anti-gay rights (Jay Bybee) and anti-civil rights (Charles Pickering) judges they should at least be willing to make the case as to why these people deserve to be appointed to federal and circuit court benches, rather than complaining about Senate procedure.

This continuing conflict over judges is only part of a larger Republican hypocrisy present in American politics today. Anyone who pays even the slightest attention to party politics knows that the GOP frames itself as the party of "freedom." They want less taxes, smaller more localized government and a bigger military because they want all American citizens to have more "freedom."

However, I question what conservatives define as freedom. The overwhelming majority of Bush's tax cuts have gone to the richest one percent in this country. In the mean time poverty, unemployment and the percentage of people without health insurance in this country have all increased. Tax cuts have not made these people more "free." To the contrary, the poor and unemployed in this country find that their choices in life are undeniably restricted and oftentimes also find themselves increasingly reliant on the government, rather than the other way around. Socially, Republican conservatives would like you to believe that they believe in personal empowerment and choice. Yet, they subscribe to a Christian morality which, coming from the perspective of a Christian, is the antithesis of choice. For better or for worse, it is a prescription for how one ought to live their life. However, the Republicans in power today believe the government should be in the business of forcing everyone to follow this same morality. In fact, many self-proclaimed neo-conservatives on this campus and across the US question the legitimacy of the separation of church and state altogether. Such a disposition is what guides conservative viewpoints on everything from what a woman can do with her body to who a person is allowed to marry. From this perspective the "freedom" calls of Republicans are only a convenient smokescreen that shields the public from the reality: Conservatives seek only to shrink the government to a size small enough to fit inside your bedroom.

The last issue that I believe deserves some attention is the almost unquestioned belief in the bias of America's "liberal" media. Entire books have been written about this supposed institution in American politics, however a recent event has brought this debate back to the surface.

Last week the CBS television network decided to bow to pressure from conservative organizations and opted not to air a new miniseries or docu-drama on Ronald Reagan. Among other things, conservative organizations threatened a massive advertising and viewership boycott of CBS if the docu-drama went to air. What were conservatives so upset about? They believed the documentary was, you guessed it, too liberal. Conservatives were outraged about references to Reagan's record as California Governor (where he actually raised taxes) and the stories of womanizing that reside in Reagan's past (such as the accusation that Ronald Reagan raped a young actress named Selene Walters while he was President of the Screen Actors Guild in the 1950s). Yet, Republicans in Congress and across the nation had no qualms about discussing President Clinton's sex life in public.

Why this unequal coverage? Under the guise of a constant barrage of "liberal media" accusations conservative media personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and moguls such as Rupert Murdoch have taken over both the content and form of America's media. Commentators such as Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly spout off largely unsubstantiated conservative claims while giants such as Murdoch consolidate Conservatives' power over the media. This is accomplished through pushing for laws, such as the recent rule passed by the FCC, which would have allowed media mergers to create an environment where a few, Republican owned, super-media organizations control all of our information. While this rule was thankfully overturned by the US Congress, it is a clear example of the amount of control conservatives exact over the parts of American media that matter. The question then must be re-asked: is there really a liberal bias in America's media or do you believe that this bias exists because people have told you it is true?

This is the unfortunate lesson of GOP 101. Republican hypocrisy runs deep and distant. From advocacy of small government and cries of liberal media bias, to specific issues such as judicial appointees and abortion rights, Republicans are found to say one thing while doing something entirely different. I never expect to agree with Republicans on many issues, but that's the virtue of a democracy, informed debate. I just hope that in the future the Republican party will be willing to tell us the truth, rather than feeding us more hypocrisy.

Justin Krypel is a senior majoring in political science.