The reluctance to criticize egregious misbehavior such as this week’s Supreme Court leak is awful politics and even worse civics.
The reluctance to criticize egregious misbehavior such as this week's Supreme Court leak is awful politics and even worse civics.
A sked about this week’s extraordinary breach of security at the Supreme Court, Jen Psaki explained that, “I don’t think we have a particular view on that other than to say that we certainly note the unprecedented nature of it.”
Really? That’s the White House’s answer? That it doesn’t have a “particular view” beyond noting that such a leak hadn’t happened before? Strewth.
Naturally, the important thing here isn’t that the leak was “unprecedented.” The important thing here is that the leak was destructive and dishonest and wrong. This wasn’t one of those “We’re proud to announce the first ever Supreme Court leak performed by a one-legged lesbian!” moments of which this administration is so fond. This was an attack on a key American institution. The White House ought by rights to have a “particular view” of such an attack, and its “particular view” ought to be unalloyed disgust.
Alas, that is evidently not the case. In his long statement on the matter, President Biden said nothing at all about the leak, and, somewhat unusually, Jen Psaki has declined to clean up after him. Asked, “Why not criticize this leak?” by NBC’s Peter Alexander, Psaki said, “I think what is happening here and what we think is happening here is there’s an effort to distract from what the actual issue is here, which is fundamental rights.”
This sort of deflection has become a habit within the Biden administration. Pushed yesterday to comment on the news that a left-wing activist group had published the home addresses of six Supreme Court justices, Psaki said:
The president’s view is that there’s a lot of passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness from many, many people across this country about what they saw in that leaked document. We obviously want people’s privacy to be respected. We want people to protest peacefully if they want to protest. That is certainly what the president’s view would be. But I think we shouldn’t lose the point here. The reason people are protesting is because women across the country are worried about their fundamental rights that had been law for 50 years — their rights to make choices about their own bodies and their own health care — are at risk. That’s why people are protesting. They’re unhappy. They’re scared.
This is more justification than condemnation. When discussing unacceptable behavior, it is a given that the perpetrators will be “passionate” or “scared” or “sad” or “worried” or “unhappy.” That part is obvious. The material question is whether those people are to be forgiven for indulging their strong emotions and damaging our political order in the process. Because the maintenance of our civilization demands that they not be, the answer to the question, “Should these passionate, scared, sad, worried, unhappy people break the rules?” must be “No” — especially when the person answering speaks for the president of the United States. The important thing about the rioters of January 6 was not that they were passionate or scared or sad or worried or unhappy; the important thing about the rioters of January 6 was that they attacked our system of government and put other people’s lives in danger. There is no place for a response to January 6 that starts with a recitation of grievances and ends with a “but,” and there is no place for such a response to this leak, either.
Does President Biden understand the position he currently occupies? I wonder. Last year, after an activist followed Senator Kyrsten Sinema into a bathroom in Arizona, Biden said only that, “I don’t think they’re appropriate tactics, but it happens to everybody.” Then he added that “it’s part of the process.” But this was nonsense. Following people into bathrooms to harangue them is not “part of the process”; it is a violation of “the process.” That the president of the United States was unwilling to say as much was extraordinary in and of itself. That he was unable to say as much when the person being harassed carried the fate of his entire legislative agenda on her shoulders was inexplicable.
Why wouldn’t Biden do it? There are a handful of plausible answers to this question. One is that this administration is so scared of being dragged on Twitter that it is willing to sell out its friends to avoid that fate. Another is that, despite occupying the highest executive office in the land, Biden and his team have convinced themselves that they are plucky outsiders. Yet another is that Biden is no good at his job. Whatever the real answer is, the administration’s reluctance to condemn when condemnation is called for is awful politics and even worse civics. Sure, the loudest online voices like to shout about “burning down the system,” to complain about “tone policing,” and to insist that they “don’t give a f*** about your respectability politics.” But the thing is: Everyone hates those people. Of all the people in America, Joe Biden should know this. In 2020, his opponent in the presidential election was a man with an inability to flatly condemn bad behavior — a flaw from which Biden made a great deal of hay. Today, Biden has become what he claimed to hate.
Perhaps — just perhaps — he was full of it all along.