We cover this from time to time, but one of the more frequent questions we get or see others asking relates to liberal Democrat hypocrisy. You already know the formula: “it was horrible when Republicans did X, but okay when Democrats do it.” Another formulation of the same idea: “Imagine if George W. Bush did X,” where X is whatever President Obama is doing now.

For the most recent example, we are asked to imagine if George W. Bush okayed the use of drone strikes against domestic Americans—the hue and cry from the Left would be apoplectic. And so on.

Yes, it is important to document these disconnects: history should have a record of cases where Republicans were attacked on a topic only to see the Democrats doing exactly the same thing (penalty free) later. After all, everything the Democrats do in this regard sets precedent for future Republicans. That’s clearly not a good thing for either party.

But pointing out all of these examples on the Internet, in print, and on radio has no effect on the offenders. Not only will liberal Democrats (and is there any other kind these last few years?) continue to betray their own previous principles, but they do not even see the problem.

In fact, do you know how this looks to most liberals? You have no doubt experienced this during a professional sports game: you see the other team complaining like little babies because the referee or umpire is not calling things fair for them. Maybe they’re right, but maybe they aren’t: the point is their guys are losing and keep demanding fouls and penalties be called against everything. Sucks to be you; sorry you aren’t winning, you laugh, and enjoy seeing your team go up another couple of points over these cry babies.

That’s how the Republican-right looks when these hypocrisies are called out. Like nit-picking crybabies, sore because they keep losing their battles.

Further—and this is the important part—what hypocrisy?

Those of us on the right tend to see morality as a black-and-white printed issue: if we agree that X is wrong, then it doesn’t matter who does it; it’s wrong. Wrong for him, wrong for her, wrong for you.

Lefties, who often pretend to see things in nuanced shades of gray, disagree. It was wrong when you were doing it because you are either (a) evil, (b) stupid, or (c) racist (i.e., both evil and stupid). When we do it, you see, we are nuanced.

This stems of course from the classic theology of liberalism: we are the good; anything that does not agree with the good is therefore evil. Or misinformed. Or racist. If George W. Bush proposed using drones to attack American citizens here at home, it’s because he was either evil—you just know he would attack understandably frustrated minority groups with them because they want fairness—or just plain stupid—he never really understood the Constitution anyway, what with all those big words in it.

On the other hand, if Barack Obama proposed using drones to attack American citizens here at home, we all know perfectly well he would only do it when he absolutely had to, and had no other choice—probably because Republicans did something to make him. Like defending an abortion clinic from an attack. See? He would do it only for good reasons.

Thus, to the liberal, there is a huge difference here that the Right is either alternatively too evil or and too stupid to understand: the liberals only do these things for good reasons. And that’s why you can’t call foul on this.

To flip it the other way, a Republican argument that the Left is demonstrating hypocrisy is as sensible to liberals as this type of argument: if it’s wrong to kill a person, why do we have armies and bombs and planes and stuff? Um, because the armies and bombs and planes are there to protect us; we don’t kill people because we want to, the Left would explain. “Hypocrisy!” screams the Right. And the liberals shake their enlightened heads at how stupid the Right is with their simplistic morality.

Seeing the picture? The Czar extends this dogma all the way down. When Joe Biden makes a stupid bonehead comment, he’s just over-worked and tired. Everybody knows Old Joe didn’t mean what he said, so cut him some slack. Of course, when Mitt Romney makes a verbal slip, it’s because he’s a stupid bonehead. Ha! Run that comment all over the internet and on the news cycle. Edit it, if you have to, just so it’s clear.

Because Mitt Romney is Not One of Us. He is not of The Good, therefore he is of The Evil. Or Stupid. Or Both.

See? No hypocrisy. And the next time the Republicans catch President Obama doing something he excoriated Bush over, you will understand why the President is okay doing it. Because he isn’t evil or stupid or both. He is just looking out for everybody’s interests.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.