Political Hypocrisy Draws Fire

September 18, 2000

Hypocrite, n. One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises.

--Ambrose Bierce, "The Devils Dictionary"

With Dennis Miller off doing "Monday Night Football," I feel justified in stealing his shtick. So I don't want to get off on a rant here, but ...

My pet peeve is ignorance and hypocrisy in politics. I am frequently peeved.

Recent events have not eased my discomfort. I was planning to write about the problems with Attorney General Don Stenberg, but my editors insist I have only 750 words, not 750 pages.

Instead, I'll begin with his assistant, J. Kirk Brown. Recently, Brown applied to the judicial nominating commission for an opening on the Lancaster County District Court.

The commission is charged by state law with the task of selecting qualified applicants and forwarding their names to the governor, who makes the final decision. After the commission found Brown unqualified, he wrote a scathing column attacking it for operating in secrecy and for being biased against him for his work on capital punishment cases. (Interestingly, a secretary in the Attorney General's office wrote a similar piece on the same day for the same newspaper.)

The commission operates in secrecy because the whole point of a merit-based system is to avoid political pressures; this is why we no longer elect judges.

Brown's attack on the commission for being biased against him for his death penalty work holds delicious irony. Stenberg and Brown have done everything in their power to keep judicial and legislative branches from acting on clear and nearly-unanimous research that demonstrates the use of capital punishment as biased against poor and minority defendants.

Brown only loses a job opportunity because of the commission's bias. The men and women he kills have lost their lives because of society's prejudice.

Stenberg and Brown are not alone in the hypocrisy department.

I first met Mike Johanns as he came to Chadron to campaign for governor. I remember asking him, after he gave the usual stump-speech, if he had any rational, secular justifications for being opposed to same-sex marriage.

He mumbled and stumbled and finally admitted that it was for religious reasons. I could at least respect his sincerity; Johanns has often spoken of the importance of his Catholic faith.

But Johanns likes it both ways. He condemns abortion supposedly based on his sincere religious beliefs, but enthusiastically supports the death penalty (a position clearly at odds with the doctrines of Catholicism). Johanns refused to allow a clemency hearing for Randy Reeves, a clear break with tradition.

I guess life is sacred only when in accord with the Republican platform.

Similarly, after signing a state proclamation for a March for Jesus, Johanns responded to criticism that it violated the separation of church and state by promising he would not limit the proclamations to a single faith.

But soon afterward, he refused to sign a similar proclamation for Wiccans because he personally disagreed with it (Omaha World-Herald May 6, 1999). Apparently its OK for government to sponsor religion, if its the kind of religion Johanns agrees with.

Inconsistency I can forgive; blatant hypocrisy I cannot.

Even when some politicians have been clearly proven wrong, they won't admit it. Once, while I was a Chadron State undergrad, Sen. Chuck Hagel spoke to our political science class. When I asked him why he and other senators were blocking the confirmation of openly-gay James Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg, Hagel gave a long spiel about how having a gay ambassador would tarnish our country's great reputation and harm sensitive diplomatic efforts.

No surprise to hear that most Republicans are homophobic; but it's not what they'd want you to believe. The Republican Party's 2000 campaign platform states that gay people shouldn't get special rights but that equal access should "guarantee every person a fair shot based on their potential and merit."

Hagel said the same thing when he spoke. He said he didn't care what sexual preference a person had, so long as they could do their job well.

Yet, when blocking Hormel's confirmation, Hagel and the Republicans didn't speak of his qualifications or lack thereof; they spoke of his being openly gay. This is not a "fair shot based on . . . potential and merit."

It's been slightly over a year now since Hormel first assumed the post. By all accounts, he has been well-received by government officials, fellow diplomats and Luxembourgers in general (Dallas Morning News, Aug. 9, 2000). I'm sure Hagel is surprised to hear that the ever-so-important nation of Luxembourg is pleased, and if our foreign reputation has been tarnished, it cannot be traced to our having a gay ambassador.

Even the best of us make mistakes; only the worst of us will not admit them.

Mr. Brown, please take a few minutes and watch "The Hurricane." And keep your chin up about that whole judgeship thing; I hear Judge Wapner on "Animal Court" might be retiring soon.

Mr. Johanns, when you decide to stop talking out of both sides of your mouth, please let me know - I'm curious to see what you really believe.

And Mr. Hagel, when you have a moment, stop by.

I bake a great humble pie.