Written By: Anton Sawyer
In an attempt to maintain complete transparency, all research and statistical fact-checking for this article, and all articles, can be found at our site's bibliography linked here.
There is a very definite reason as to why the Democratic Party is consistently labeled as "elitists" in a derogatory way by their detractors. Over time it has shown that those who are college-educated, and those who view college positively with a 2 to 1 ratio, tend to be Democrats.
This article is going to look at the different levels of hypocrisy that the Democratic National Committee and its members have done over the last 40 years. From those with national consequences to those that just left a bit of egg on the face of the party, all culminate into how these snapshots will impact the future of the organization.
It's these factors, also combined with the more extreme ends of the party in the Social Justice Warriors, which have given a certain air of heightened moral correctness that has drawn the ire of nearly everyone on the Republican side. For those who are not behind the scenes (a.k.a. most of America), the negatives to this intellectual stature are that it has made them more wily, more sophisticated in many cases as to the level of illusion they have to perpetuate to keep what's really going on under lock and key.
We could spend all day picking out the hypocrisies over the last few decades, but I condensed it down to a "greatest hits" package.
Nancy Pelosi and the Hair Salon.
This falls under the "egg on the face." There was no legislation involved, and it only impacted a few people. It could have been a setup, maybe not.
The way she responded to it, as a person of leadership, was incredibly petty. My favorite statement was when her spokesman Drew Hammill said, "This business offered for the Speaker to come in on Monday and told her they were allowed by the city to have one customer at a time in the business." "I trusted that," Pelosi added. With the excuse of not knowing the legality, it fell flat with many.
Though we know the police aren't required to know the law at all, Senators, House Members, etc. should as they are the ones that typically have a hand in constructing them. Plus, she could have had one of her assistants call to double-check. When you are espousing everything the doctors and scientists say (especially when it comes to wearing a mask indoors), and then your actions deliver the opposite, it doesn't sit well.
Not all of their actions over the last 40 years have been as innocent, unfortunately.
There have been some levels of hypocrisy from the DNC that has greatly impacted the lives of millions through laws and misdirection. There are two elements to all of this that you're going to notice pretty quickly; the number of times they use "save the children" (or any of its offshoots), and the volume of unintended consequences.
An example of this real-life monte game that made huge headway during the 1980s was the Parents Resource Music Center (PMRC). Founded by the future Second Lady of the United States Tipper Gore in 1985, the then-Senator's wife was on a crusade to stop offensive and other questionable lyrics and subject matter from appearing on any kind of mainstream music.
There were 15 songs they chose—dubbed the "Filthy 15"— to use as examples as to how far our morality in arts had fallen and wanted legislation that would force record companies to rate albums like in the movie industry. After testimony during Senate hearings, it was found that their rating system would come too close to violating the First Amendment.
In a compromise, the PMRC accepted that there would be a little sticker on album covers saying "Parental Advisory: Explicit Content." The biggest unintended consequence was that it not only shot record sales of albums with the sticker through the roof, but it also gave mainstream attention to bands that may never have gotten it—metal vocalist King Diamond on the cover of USA Today comes to mind. Overall, it helped the bands it was trying to stop in several different ways.
Thankfully the PMRC fizzled out and has long since passed. But we still have the stickers ...
Fast forward nine years and we get the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, authored by Joe Biden. Over the decades, it has been studied and shown to be the primary cause of a disproportionate amount of black citizens being the target of mass incarceration in the 1990s. At that time the Democrats had been seen as incredibly weak on crime and were jockeying for position with the Republicans. Of course, they used the safety of the family, children, and society as a whole for their reasoning of the law. Once the bill was passed, Biden bragged about it saying, "The liberal wing of the Democratic Party” supported “60 new death penalties,” “70 enhanced penalties,” “100,000 cops,” and “125,000 new state prison cells.” Because of the racial disparities, and thousands of people losing their freedom under dubious circumstances, it was seen as a scar on the face of freedom. In fact, Biden had made it a point to apologize about it on the campaign trail in 2020, saying "It was a big mistake that was made. We were told by the experts that 'With crack, you can never go back.' It's trapped an entire generation." The thing that was most exemplified in its failure is the fact that the Democrats were more concerned about optics over following their moral beacon with disastrously unintended consequences. I will say that it is this attitude towards personal liberties versus laws that really cements as to why the DNC picked Kamala Harris for the role of Vice President.
The most recent—and one I feel exemplifies the greatest publicly illustrated lack of self-awareness—would be the impeachment of Donald J. Trump.
I'm not going to speculate as to his innocence or guilt. I'm not going into any kind of specific viewpoint as to what I think should or should not have happened—the ruling is over, the process did what it was supposed to, it's done. Rather, I'm going to focus on the vote itself and Democratic responses to it all.
The thing that was so striking about the Trump impeachment is how long-standing Democrats changed their tune on what was best for the republic. Both sides completely flip-flopped and backed their candidate when comparing the Trump and Clinton impeachments, which we kind of expected.
I'm not going to say that Republicans don't point fingers or shift blame either, but when you have established yourself as the party designed to progress the human race into the future politically, your bar is a little higher.
What was so galling was with how much certainty Democratic leadership professed that they would do what was right by the American people. In December 1998 Pelosi attacked the charges against Clinton themselves, trying to almost put a victimization slant towards the acting President. “Today the Republican majority is not judging the president with fairness but impeaching him with a vengeance. In the investigation of the president, fundamental principles that Americans hold dear—privacy, fairness, checks and balances—have been seriously violated, and why? Because we are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton, and until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer.” At the time of the Clinton trial, House Judiciary Committee chairman, Democrat Jerry Nadler of New York—a congressman supporting the Trump impeachment—said "We're lowering the standard of impeachment. What the president has done is not a great and dangerous offense to the safety of the republic." For Pelosi, this is a far cry from her reasoning for pursuing the impeachment of Trump years later. With Trump, she felt that what she was doing was nothing short of her civil duties to her constituents and country. When asked about why she was pursuing the hearings she made her feelings clear, "That’s my responsibility: to protect the Constitution of the United States." And impeaching Trump was doing just that.
None of the talking points brought up by Pelosi or Nadler in 1998 were the core issue on trial. When it comes to the Trump trial, we can debate the authenticity of the evidence brought up against him. We can argue both the actual and perceived illegalities that he had been involved with both as a candidate and president. But the Clinton impeachment was much more cut and dried.
He lied under oath in a federal court of law.
He said he had no sexual relations with Monica Lewinski, yet there is a blue dress that contains actual evidence of this fact.
Much like after watching the Rodney King beatings from earlier that decade, the evidence was pretty clear. Sure, we could talk about the 4th amendment, privacy issues, and the presidential office all day, but the charge was perjury, which he clearly committed. These statements, votes, support, all show that there is no core as to what the Democrats' actual American values are.
In one breath you can't conflate privacy issues with lying in court and then combine them into some weird hybrid morality to base your judgments on.
As we all know, there are going to be members of each political party who will toe the line no matter what. But the one thing that the DNC has against it, is the number of those who fact-check, research, number crunch and find out the core of the facts. This has got to be a challenge for the leadership.
One piece of advice to Pelosi and the others in charge; you can't outrun your past. You can try to shift its focus. You can try to change the narrative. But, it will never go away.
Or maybe, just maybe someday, you should try something new by actually staying true North on your moral compass instead of reaching for power, or doing inauthentic things to try and swing a couple of conservative voters your way.
Follow us on Twitter to remain informed