The American Spectator

If we told you that America has evolved into a hypocritical society, would you believe it? If we told you that, while we pretend to be a moral people, we actually accept and practice corruption as a way of life, would you believe it?

Since it is not nice to call people names without first proving your point, here is a simple question: Would all of these charlatans, liars, and lowlifes be representing you in our government if you were not their partner in crime? How did they get there? Obviously, you voted for them. If corruption offended you as much as you think it does then why do you think of politicians generally as crooks? Would they be holding office if not for you?

When President Nixon was accused of running the most corrupt government since Ulysses S. Grant, all the polls showed that a huge percentage of the people never doubted it but he won the next election more easily than an elephant eating peanuts. If you think that he was corrupt, and you believe that you are somehow different, you owe it to ask yourself to ask: Did any of the crimes of Bill Clinton stop you from voting for him? Somehow, it is inconceivable to think of ourselves as morally corrupt; however, when something serves our self-interest, our moral conscience somehow gets lost in space. If a person is great for the economy, who cares if he is corrupt or even raped one girl! We all live in a collective lie preaching and espousing a morality that we never practice. This is why, in the highest offices of our government, we accept the lowest behavior.

As an employer, you would not hire a waiter for a restaurant if you found one lie on his application. However, Al Gore, while campaigning for president, created more fantasies than the Wizard of Oz. He had faith in our corruptibility. President Carter, America’s symbol of the highest moral values and the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, makes personal speaking appearances for the paltry sum of a hamburger and a bottle of beer. With this, they include an apology to him for having to speak in an empty building. On the other hand, President Clinton, whose total lack of morality resulted in his impeachment while in office and his subsequent disbarment from the practice of law (because he is too big of a liar to be a lawyer), is paid $150,000 per speaking appearance. His popularity is not an accident! While we absolve ourselves of responsibility, the truth is that we are actually the enablers of public corruption. We not only accept it, but actually idolize it, glorify it, and envy it.

But there is no shortage of examples of our partnership with corrupt behavior. Take Senator Lieberman, for instance. This great man of principle and morality sees nothing immoral about having no principle. He was celebrated for his bravery in taking to the Senate floor to denounce President Clinton for reprehensible and obscene behavior and desecrating the high office of the President of the United States. But when asked if this meant that Clinton should be thrown out of office Lieberman responded, “No, what does one thing have to do with another?” His obsequious followers in the press immediately hailed him as the new moral conscience of the United States Senate. The truth is that he really should have been hailed as the biggest hypocrite of this century. The press is not alone in this irresponsible charade. It also proved again that the American people are just as easily corruptible. That is why Senator Lieberman is now among the front in line for his party’s nomination for the presidency. In reality, if we practiced morality instead of preaching it, Senator Lieberman should be in front of the line at the unemployment office.

It is hard to believe that there are examples of hypocrisy that are worse than this, except when you mention the name Clinton. But this time we are referring to Senator Hillary Clinton, who makes President Clinton look like an honest man. For instance, after the Special Prosecutor completed his investigation of Mrs. Clinton, he concluded that she was guilty of committing perjury and obstruction of justice. However, he decided not to indict her. He publicly stated that she was much too popular among the American people to expect a jury to find her guilty. He felt he could not get a verdict against Mrs. Clinton, but, at the same time, he unintentionally delivered a devastating verdict against the morality of the American people.