Harry Reid and what's wrong with Washington

Andrew Johnson, writing at The Corner:

Harry Reid (D., Nev.) appears to have believed that the ends justified the means when he used the Senate chamber to level unsubstantiated accusations against the Koch brothers and former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. 

In his first television interview since announcing his retirement last week, Reid shrugged off criticism that his infamous claim, without any evidence, that Romney never paid any taxes was “McCarthyite” and a reflection of what is wrong with Washington.

“Well, they can call it whatever they want,” a coy Reid told CNN on Tuesday. “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

This is a but a modest example of the cynical and shameful way Harry Reid does business. He is a liar and a bully, and a particularly loathsome human being. He is, indeed, "a reflection of what is wrong with Washington."

He is a reflection of something else, however, which is far more troubling. He is a reflection of us.

Consider that Reid's lack of character is no secret. There's a reason they call him "Dirty Harry." Yet his Nevada constituents have endorsed his corruption each election for nearly three decades. His Democratic colleagues have repeatedly chosen him as their leader, granting him one of the longest runs as Majority leader in Senate history.

Now, as Reid retires, will come the praise and honorifics. We can look forward to magazine articles, television segments, and even books lauding his effective leadership and unwavering dedication as a public servant. The lies and corruption will be largely be ignored or, worse, lauded as hallmarks of his "tenacity" and "fierce commitment" to fighting for those who couldn't fight for themselves. Good Ol' Harry. He may have been a thug, but that's what it takes to get anything done in Washington!

I'm tempted to document how the vast majority of liars, bullies, and thugs seem to amass on the political Left, and how Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) enable, support, and endorse them. But I don't want to distract from this one, somber point:

Yes, Harry Reid reflects what is wrong with Washington. But who sent him there? Who gave him all that power to corrupt and abuse? The thing is that Harry Reid, and all the other miscreants in Washington are, in every sense of the word, our representatives. They reflect us. And that is what's wrong with Washington.

Bully for the Boy Scouts

Connie Schultz believes that it is "bullying" for the Boy Scouts of America to have a policy that bars homosexuals from being Scouts or serving as leaders. She has this precisely backwards.

According to my dictionary, bullying is "the act of intimidating a weaker person to make them do something." That's a pretty straightforward definition of the word as it's universally understood.

So is it bullying to have a policy that restricts membership? Most organizations have membership restrictions. I assume I need to be a doctor to join the American Medical Association, or that I need to have a law degree to become a member of the American Bar Association. Are those organizations bullying me? If so, I wasn't aware of it.

The Constitution restricts those who can be a member of the Senate:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

If restricting membership is "bullying," we'd have to conclude that every person in the United States is being bullied by our very Constitution, for none of us is permitted to be a Senator of a state in which we don't live. Yet no one considers this bullying -- because merely having a membership requirement doesn't intimidate anyone. It doesn't force anyone to do anything.

So how is the Boy Scout membership policy different? It's different only in who it excludes. Instead of discriminating against those without medical or law degrees, or against young people or outsiders, it discriminates against homosexuals. And why shouldn't it? Why shouldn't a private organization have the right to define itself and determine the makeup of its own membership? Ms. Schultz may not like it -- just as I may not like the fact that I can't represent the state of Hawaii in the United States Senate -- but we don't have an inalienable right to not be offended by others' choices.

But back to Ms. Schultz' bullying charge...

Can it fairly be argued that the Boy Scouts are intimidating anyone simply by restricting their membership? Can it fairly be argued that they are forcing anyone to do anything? As far as I can tell the Scouts aren't on any crusade to combat homosexuality, or to impose behaviors or values on anyone. They're not activists, overtly political, or overtly anything, really. They simply want to be left alone, to do what they've always done, promote traditional values and foster thoughtful, responsible young men -- something America badly needs at this juncture.

And that, I submit, is what this is really all about. It's not that the Boy Scouts have intimidated anyone, or that they are attempting to force anyone to do anything. The Scouts is a voluntary organization. It hasn't bullied anyone. The true source of the conflict is Ms. Schultz, and so many like her on the Left, who hold traditional American values in contempt. The Boy Scouts represent everything they wish do destroy -- traditional families, Judeo-Christian values, personal freedom, individual responsibility.

The Left brand the Boy Scouts as intolerant and bullying. But ask yourself, who is the real aggressor here? Which side is minding its own business, and which side is trying to intimidate and force the other side to do something? Who is the real bully?

The Left -- always the Left.