"Snitching" and Moral Reasoning on the Right
Apparently the vanguard of the right has put on its thinking cap and produced the following judgment: Scotty McClellan is a big ol' snitchy-pants.
Seriously. These are the people we have to deal with. Their votes count as much as ours. Their opinions (those of, say, Drudge and MDL) count more than ours, as they are read by a disturbingly large number of wingnuts farther down the wingnut opinion hierarchy.
So let me get this straight: a corrupt and incompetent administration diverts military resources away from retaliating against a terrorist organization that killed 3,000 Americans, takes the country into a different, unjustified war under false pretenses and by means of propaganda, brands all who oppose these actions unpatriotic, abuses the power of the presidency by turning it against its political enemies, tries to turn the country into a surveillance state, illicitly works to expand the power of the office in a way that undermines the co-equality of the three branches of our government, and then apparently begins to "market" another unjustified war...and when someone from inside this cesspool of political filth stands up and points out the wrongness of their actions, the most intelligent thing that the partisan defenders of the administration have to say is: people don't like a snitch?
I don't have the words to express the depth of my contempt for this dreck. The Bush administration has run our beloved country into a ditch, and is rotting it from within, and its right-wing flunkies continue to defend it even when they can muster no response more morally weighty than "tattle-tale'?
So here's the apotheosis of recent wingnut political thinking, and it doesn't rise above school-yard morality.
And, incidentally--this isn't snitching, you shitheads. Snitching is if, oh, say, someone has a joint in his pocket and you run to the teacher or a cop about it. Snitching is gratuitously siding with authorities against the common man, out of obsequiousness or just plain meanness. Testifying at a murder trial is not "snitching." Telling the country of the corruption you've seen in the highest circles of power is not "snitching." It's truth-telling, and it is one's obligation as an American, you unctuous sycophantic toadies.
You know who tries to reduce such acts to snitching? Crooks. Crooks try to assimilate justifiable whistle-blowing to "snitching," and they try to convince others that anyone who opposes them is a "snitch", i.e. someone who obsequiously runs to the authorities. These crooks actually demand obsequiousness, but directed only towards themselves. Allow me to twist moral categories in this way and I can make anything look wrong. Self-defense is just violence, charity is just coddling. Self-sacrifice is mere imprudence. It's an easy game to play.
It's fairly clear, though few ever point it out, that, had Drudge and Magic Dolphin lady and their ilk been around during the Revolution, they'd have been "loyalists," i.e. monarchists. We'd see their screeds against Washington and Monroe and the other dirty hippies nailed to sign posts. And we'd be treated to a cornucopia of tortured arguments about how Jefferson and Madison were barking moonbats who hated England, the One True Greatest Country Ever.
And, of course, they'd regale us with frothy posts about how Paul Revere was a big fat snitch.
So lick away, lickspittles. I suppose you've gone too far down this road to turn back now. After seven years of insisting that Bush was not only adequate but a man of "brilliance approaching genius," who is "Churchillian," I suppose there's little chance of you facing the facts now, no matter how obvious they become. And keep impugning the character of anyone who points out that the emperor has no clothes--even if the person who points it out is the imperial tailer.
After all, no crook likes a whistle-blower--and neither do those who aid and abet crooks.