It was not so very long ago, the 1980s in fact, that liberals were fond of saying … Those in higher positions of power must be held to a higher standard of conduct. Eschewing legally objective standards of behavior, they employed this political trope to attack officials in the Reagan Administration, and did so with considerable abandon, even glee.
Then came the 1990s, and the Era of Clinton with its abundance of scandalous behavior. That was also when Democrats began suggesting … No one should be above the law, but no one should be below the law either. Quite a change in tune. Liberal media (a.k.a. ‘mainstream’ media) hounds picked up that tune and followed it dutifully, until they had another Republican president, i.e. George W. Bush, to bash.
Now we face the Era of Clinton 2.0, and already liberals entertain the notion that some higher standard is in order, however not as applied to Mrs. Clinton’s behavior; rather to those who might dare hold her accountable for her various indiscretions while Secretary of State. Liberal champion Ron Fournier has suggested, for example, that a “higher bar” must be cleared in order to bring criminal charges against someone, such as Mrs. Clinton, who is running for president.
Meanwhile, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, makes his media ‘perp’ walk. It is a tour of public humiliation, apparently well deserved, as he is held to account for past crimes and indiscretions. If a former Speaker of the House is not above the law, then neither should be a former Secretary of State. Suggestions from the liberal media that those holding Mrs. Clinton accountable must meet a higher standard — while Mrs. Clinton, by implication, is held to a lesser one — take us full circle, in a way that is bizarre and brazenly hypocritical.