Gephardt: Republicans are immoral

In his column today George Will quoted speaker-in-waiting Richard Gephardt calling an ad by South Dakota Republican Senate candidate John Thune “immoral” because it implied his opponent, Tim Johnson, is “unpatriotic” because he voted against missile defense systems 29 times.

Will pointed out that the ad doesn’t do that. “It questions Johnson’s judgment, not his patriotism.” But Gephardt’s reflexive, hair-trigger resort to accusations of immorality is more than indicative of the vitriolic partisanship that now pervades public life. As Democratic leader in the House, as wannabe Speaker, and as someone who sees an appealing future president when he peers into his mirror, Gephardt actually has more than a little responsibility for setting the moral tone in Washington, certainly more than your everyday run-of-the-mill politician.

Insofar as one can judge what Gephardt believes by what he says, he actually believes Republicans are immoral, and has for a long time. Some examples:

Still, Gephardt has harsh words for Republicans, saying: “To pull that kind of issue into a political campaign is in my opinion immoral.” (Wash. Post, 9/26/02, alleging Bush was politicizing Iraq)

Mr. Gephardt has a few stock lines in his stump speech. He uses the word “immoral” to describe Republicans’ cuts in education and what he describes as their threats to Medicare and pensions. (NY Times, 11/2/96)

“Republicans, Democrats, independents know it is immoral to take food from the mouths of our children to pay for a tax cut for the privileged few in this country,” Gephardt said, referring to a Republican tax-cut plan. (Wash. Post, 3/20/95)

“The Social Security fund is building a huge surplus. And it would be wrong and immoral to cut it to compensate for mistakes in other areas of the budget, such as defense spending,” Gephardt said. (Wash. Post, 11/20/87)

The best thing that can be said about Gephardt’s monotonous, self-flattering moralism is that, on rare occasions, he can rise to bi-partisanship, finding immorality even in those of his own party who disagree with him:

Gephardt, 61, made no apology yesterday for breaking with anti-war liberals in his party, saying it would be “immoral” to calculate the political implications of his decision. (Wash. Post, 10/3/02).

Say What? (3)

  1. Christopher Scott October 13, 2002 at 9:45 pm | | Reply

    This is certainly a bipartisan problem. What was it Dick Armey said about Democrats being less smart? I may be wrong on the particulars there.

  2. John Rosenberg October 13, 2002 at 11:35 pm | | Reply

    The vicious partisanship is definitely bi-partisan. Democrats are not the only villains in this story. Still, for one of the highest ranking party leaders in Congress repeatedly to call the other party’s positions immoral — not misguided, wrong, pernicious, dumb, but immoral — is, in my view, a bit over the top.

  3. Sandy P. October 14, 2002 at 10:45 pm | | Reply

    immoral? Bubba, anyone?

Say What?