Liberal Hypocrisy: Chapter 12,186

I’m running out of popcorn watching liberals in a blind rage at Sen. Joe Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema holding up the $3.5 trillion spending blowout bill. And the media is only too happy to go along. This is one of my favorites:

Well, in a 50/50 Senate, “median voter theory” in political science would explain this pretty well, but what do I know: I’m not a columnist for The Week.

The real irony here was that it was only a few years ago that liberals and the media celebrated an Arizona Senator who was a “maverick” who bucked his own party. McCain anyone? He was a hero for the Beltway set. But apparently no Democrat is allowed to be a “maverick,” even if they are also from Arizona, never mind someone from the most Trump-friendly state in the country (West Virginia).

But this is really just the latest example of the “situational principles” of modern liberalism. High on the demands of the left today is abolishing the U.S. Senate, or admitting new (Democratic) states to erase the current Republican strength in the Senate, along with abolishing the filibuster. Funny—I can recall not all that long ago (2010) when Democrats had a filibuster-proof 60 Senators, and yet I don’t recall Democrats saying we needed to get rid of the filibuster or add new states.

Going even further back, I recall that just before the 2000 election, when it was thought for a while that Bush might win the popular vote but lose the electoral college to Gore, and you could find good liberals saying we must respect the electoral college. That didn’t last long.

From this it is easy to deduce the First Law of Liberal Hypocrisy: When liberals don’t get their way, let’s change the rules until they do.

Responses