A Bogus Evenhandedness

The Department of Justice (DOJ) logo is pictured on a wall after a news conference in a file photo. (Carlo Allegri/Reuters)

Commentary

A recent column by National Review editor Rich Lowry reminded me of a recurrent theme in Jean-Francois Revel’s “How Democracies Perish,” a brilliant, scathing attack on journalists and academics who were squishy soft on the communists at the height of the Cold War.

What I found particularly delicious about Revel’s attacks on progressive intellectuals of his time was the relentless sarcasm that laced his prose. In the original French edition, Revel describes bitingly how Western elites would treat the conflicting statements of communists and their opponents, including victims of Soviet persecution, in what we were made to believe was an equally critical manner.

Revel compares this to having the same judge non-suiting the same sides again and again (on renvoie les plaideurs dos à dos), dismissing the contending parties back-to-back, without assigning greater guilt to one side or the other. Of course, this dismissal is a pretense because the critics under consideration, as Revel reminds us, engage in bogus evenhandedness to disarm anyone who might notice their bias.

That’s exactly how Lowry treats Trump and his supporters and those who are now howling for Trump’s blood. Lowry is scrupulously careful never to suggest that Trump has been manhandled by Attorney General Merrick Garland or the FBI without assigning at least equal and usually more blame to the hated ex-president.

Garland, who is reportedly being pushed by Biden and his party base to bring indictment charges against Trump for his role in the Jan. 6 disturbances, is depicted as bending to partisan pressure. He must therefore avoid giving evidence of a “glaring conflict of interest.” This “mild-mannered former judge” should desist from following his present course not least because of “the public interest,” even if the price Garland must pay is to “enrage his side.”

Lowry also dwells on the high bar for proving in a court of law as a “legal matter” that Trump came close “to crossing the line of incitement, which has very specific and high standards under law.” He underlines his belief, however, that this legal standard in no way detracts from Trump’s moral guilt.

While urging the attorney general perhaps pro forma to “err on the side of statesmanship,” Lowry nonetheless steers his argument in a very different direction. He presents such an abhorrent picture of Trump that if I knew nothing else about this scoundrel, I might wish to see him exiled to the South Pole. He is “inflammatory and mendacious as a matter of course” and may fully deserve the treatment that the Biden administration plans to mete out to him because of his “moral blameworthiness for January 6,” which is “not in doubt.” It just seems that Garland may have a problem proving Trump’s “legal culpability” in a court of law—and the attempt to do so may agitate further “an environment of ever-spiraling political conflict.”

Although Lowry refers to this widening political divide in this country, it’s maybe just something he feels obliged to note. He most certainly doesn’t want to suggest that the Biden administration and the corporate media have done anything to create this volatile situation.

Nor need we consider the merits of those complaints coming from those who are enraged that Trump has endured for the last six years dishonest FBI investigations and flagrantly dishonest media charges. It is in fact Trump, we are led to believe, who caused these animosities, but unfortunately, we can’t punish him in the manner he deserves without opening a larger can of worms.

Presumably, in a fairer world, we, the virtuous, would be able to make Trump suffer for his “moral blameworthiness,” a characteristic that Garland, the Jan. 6 Committee, and the FBI have been supposedly justified in calling to our attention.

By the way, I have no idea why the Biden administration won’t succeed in finding Trump guilty after indicting him, particularly if they arrange to have a trial take place in D.C. As Julie Kelly argues on American Greatness, finding Trump guilty on any charges that the Democrats decide to bring against him should be a slam-dunk in the proper partisan location. Those previously indicted for participation in the events of Jan. 6 have been uniformly found guilty, however overblown the charges may be, by having trials take place in our nation’s very Democratic capital. The problem with unfairly trying Trump, as Kelly observes, is the firestorm that his less-than-impartial trial and conviction would release.

Finally, the games played by Never Trump members of the conservative establishment have become inexpressibly tiresome. Contrary to what they want us to believe, these Never Trumpers are hardly above the fray. Like the anti-anti-communist literati so graphically portrayed by Revel, these Trump-haters do have their favorite side. Quite revealingly, they run to make common cause with the Left even while feasting at the table of a richly endowed conservative movement. Unfortunately, they may go on playing this game as long as they like without consequences.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.