Political Profiling

The Dems love to accuse Republicans of politicizing science, which, when you think about it, is kinda funny. Republicans don’t put politically correct science projects on the ballot, nor single out one problematic area of research for referenda, purely for partisan purposes. (If it were for scientific purposes, it would rise of fall on its own merits in the normal course of scientific research) Remember that Democrats asserted that 1,200 psychiatrists thought Goldwater was crazy. Some wacky leftist "scientists" – with taxpayer money, no less – aver that conservatism constitutes a mental disorder.

And does politicized science have a more prominent example that our esteemed Nobel laureate, His Hysterical Majesty, Al Gore?

Indeed, even so much as the slightest – truly scientific – dissent from received leftist orthodoxy gets branded as "political".

Comes now a particularly interesting crank, one "Professor" Donald Shields, late of the University of Missouri, claiming that, based upon a statistical analysis, the Department of Justice must be political, because it investigates so many more Democrats than Republicans.

If anyone wonders at the ever increasing cost of college education, it’s because people like this dimwit "teach". A quick search of election records reveals the erstwhile Prof to be a consistent Democratic Party donor. What a surprise.

Referring to the process as "political profiling", akin to "racial profiling", the good Perfessor avers that the Justice Department investigates 7 times as many Democrats as it does Republicans, with baleful consequences to the investigated parties.

Consider the following claim:

"Political profiling makes Democratic officials look like they are more corrupt than Republicans, just as racial minorities are made to look more corrupt than whites by the practice of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies. However, the data on state-wide, U.S. Congress, and U.S. Senate elected officials do not support this claim."

Uh-huh. Lessee. Sharpe James. Wayne Bryant. Mims Hackett. Al Steele. Joe Coniglio. John Lynch. Tony Impreveduto. I get it. These folks are only in trouble because they’re Democrats. Presumably, the Tom Keans, Joe Pennacchios, and Mike Dohertys only escape indictment because they’re Republicans. That must be it. Heck, maybe the only reason that Assemblywoman Evelyn Williams got accused of shoplifting was because some partisan Republican hack politically profiled her.

How ‘bout a slightly different possibility: more Democrats face indictment and investigation because, all other things considered, they’re more likely to be crooks.

Corruption is not an exclusively Democratic problem, but it tends to hang around in urban areas, which tend to be represented by Democrats. Every party and every profession will have its share of rotten apples – witness Monmouth County for a Republican version – but cities tend to breed opportunities for corruption, and that’s where Democrats live.

Too, Democratic voters don’t care much about corruption. Witness the difference in voter reaction between Monmouth and Essex Counties. People in the burbs object strenuously to corruption, or even the hint thereof. Ellen Karcher owes her job to the fact that her opponent walked some fine ethical lines, and the voters of Monmouth acted accordingly. If Jon Bennett toed some lines, James and Bryant planted both feet squarely on the sleazy (if not necessarily criminal) side of that line, and both Hackett and Steele went much further. Is there the slightest possibility that the voters in those districts will react by electing Republicans?

Corruption is simply not a viable electoral weapon against Democrats, because Democratic voters expect their pols to be slimy – if not actually criminal – and don’t hold it against them.

Put another way, can you imagine how Morris County voters would react if our local Sheriff appointed Rick Merkt and Michael Carroll as undersheriffs? The electorate would evict us in a New York minute. But such passes as routine in Democratic Counties. Democratic voters expect their elected officials to use their power for personal profit, and really don’t care if they do so criminally.

Back to the report of this nutcase professor. The recommended solution to the perceived problem amounts to something akin to "political party norming" criminal investigations: for every Democratic crook one finds, one must scare up a Republican crook to indict. For every James or Bryant we indict, we need to find a Kean or a Whitman. Just to ensure balance. Just to ensure that the public doesn’t come away with the impression that the Dems are more corrupt.

Except that they are.

The long litany of NJ Dems frogmarched out of elected office in cuffs resulted not from any "political profiling", but because they see government as a food source and power as something to be exploited for personal profit. Republicans – occasional rogues notwithstanding – do not. Even when a particular undertaking is technically legal, Republicans shy away from walking those lines, lest they be punished by their own voters. Quite obviously, Democrats entertain no like anxiety. Absent indictment – sometimes even in the teeth of an indictment – a sleazy, if not crooked Dem office holder has nothing to fear from the electorate. The electorate expects no better.