The Excused

G.K. Chesterton observed that, “Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.”

In DC, what is excused depends on who is committing the evil.

The standard of acceptable personal conduct is inversely proportional to one’s partisan value.

Ted Kennedy was indispensable whereas Al Franken was expendable.

Two different eras, yes. But consider, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg drowned a woman, do you think the Left would demand her resignation and give Trump another SCOTUS nomination?

The use of political capital to quantify character lays bare the hypocrisy of ruling elites but, worse, it results in the steady degradation of the rule of law by raising our tolerance level for the excesses of said ruling class.

Thirty years ago, Gary Hart’s POTUS ambitions were felled by an affair and Douglas Ginsburg’s Supreme Court nomination derailed by a history of marijuana usage. Both would be treated as veritable Quakers by today’s standards.

Senator X or Governor Y is to be exempted from the laws we must follow much less any code of common decency we may conceive. He is too important to this or that movement.

Excusing evils to advance political ends steadily supplants the rule of law with the rule of men and the rule of men with no character at that.