ShareThis Page

Jonah Goldberg: Pelosi's double standard reveals shameless partisanship

| Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

It's amazing how complicated simple principles can become when they're inconvenient to your team.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi created a mess for herself by insisting on NBC's “Meet the Press” that Rep. John Conyers deserves “due process” in the face of a series of accusations of improper conduct.

Politically, Pelosi's performance was a gift to her many critics. For liberals who think she's passed her sell-by date as a Democrat leader, her hapless effort will now be Exhibit A in the brief against her, despite her subsequent efforts to clean up the mess.

For populists on the left and right who think the political establishment is rigged to protect members of the club, Pelosi's effort to protect Conyers — and Sen. Al Franken, who has also been accused of several sexual transgressions — while at the same time insisting that we know all we need to know about President Trump and Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore is simply a naked partisan double standard.

This raises the most dismaying gift that Pelosi lobbed to the mob. By circling the wagons around Conyers and Franken, Pelosi is all but guaranteeing the election of Moore.

It is difficult to exaggerate the anger among many Republicans who believe that liberals use the rules selectively, shamelessly invoking standards of conduct to delegitimize and destroy their enemies while exempting their own.

It was this belief — hardly unfounded — that let millions of Republicans dismiss allegations of sexual abuse against Trump and now Moore. Every day, conservatives angry at my opposition to Moore tell me “we” can't “unilaterally disarm.” If they won't play by the rules, why should we?

But as someone who believes pretty much all the accusers so far, I'm not interested in pecking out another column on partisan hypocrisy. Instead, I'd like to point to a possible way out of this mess.

The philosopher John Rawls famously offered a thought experiment he called the “original position.” Imagine you are in some kind of limbo waiting to be born. Hidden behind what he called a “veil of ignorance,” you have no idea what “kind” of person you will be — female, male, gay, straight, sickly, healthy, rich, poor, black, white, etc. What rules would you want for society?

The point of this exercise is to make you think about what fairness looks like. If there's a good chance you're going to be born poor, you might see the point of having certain protections for the poor. If there's a 50 percent chance you'll be born a woman, you'll probably reject the model of society found in “The Handmaid's Tale.” In short, the veil of ignorance allows us see justice through the lens of self-interest.

We live in a moment beset by tribalisms, from partisanship to myriad forms of identity politics. All of them work on the assumption that neutral rules are unfair or unjust because my tribe is somehow especially noble or your tribe is especially evil.

The original position is not as original to Rawls as some believe. In fact, it's embedded in the very idea of classical liberalism, because it presupposes that we should all be equal in the eyes of God and the government, and that therefore the rules of the society should be fair for everybody — and applied to everybody equally. It's a simple principle, but everyone wants to make it complicated these days.

Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.