Just the latest example of how empty the outrage from the left actually is when analyzed.
This week we were delivered some rather pedestrian information about the continued formation of the new Biden administration. CNN calmly described how the Department of Justice was issuing requests to a number of attorneys that they submit their resignations. While this news itself is not particularly jarring, based on past precedent it feels like we should be in a state of blaring histrionics.
As we have come to learn about the left and the media complex, they are blessed with twice as many standards as those of us on the right who adhere to a belief in the definition of the term. This has long been a truism but the obviousness of the concept has become greatly accentuated with the arrival of a new Biden administration. Items ignored months ago are suddenly of high import and last year’s outrages are now everyday occurrences.
This latest example of the second case surrounds the Joe Biden approach to the DOJ. With any administration changeover comes a high number of people in positions becoming switched out to chosen names. While this is completely normal and expected the reaction in the press is where we see a difference in behavior. It becomes more proof that outrage is not based on the action and activity but on the political makeup of the individuals involved.
In 2017 the media went into a collective rage over the firing of New York attorney Preet Bharara. President Trump had dismissed Bharara in March, and the press and Democrats were dismayed. Elizabeth Warren delivered a list of scornful tweets over the firing. Despite the reality that there are always these firings the Bharara episode was noted as extreme…for some reason. He was deemed some sort of legal martyr — even in September of that year he was still being invoked — and he landed a professorship, began his own podcast, and was hired on as a new CNN legal analyst.
One detail we never saw explained: why we were supposed to care. For all the hyperventilating reporting and the way Bharara was positioned as a victim, there was never a cogent explanation for the outrage, beyond the fact that Trump was behind the firing. Even by that September report Bharara himself was saying he was still not sure why he had been let go. So why were we expected to feel a sense of outrage or disgust over it?
The closest anyone came to detailing what was behind the furor was an interview the dismissed attorney gave to the New York Times, where he described his impressions as ‘’chaos’’, and that the firings were a sign of ‘’helter-skelter incompetence’’. Lending his impression to the announcement we were told ‘’that was in people’s minds when this out-of-the-blue call for everyone’s resignation letter came.” The Times ran with this portrayal, even as the paper itself reported on how this decision was not especially unusual and Presidents commonly clean house in this fashion.
This was President Trump, after all, and as we have been conditioned his commonplace actions and quotidian decisions were always elevated to panic-inducing declarations. Take a look at this reality we see today; the media casually reports that Biden is seeking the compelled resignations, to the tune of FIFTY SIX Senate-appointed attorneys. This is a total exceeding the number of Trump’s firings, and arriving one month earlier than he had delivered. There are no details of an administration in chaos, no insinuations of partisan intolerance behind the moves, and no attorney is singled out as a pariah to represent intolerance from the White House.
In truth, more likely these attorneys could find it difficult to secure work, as anyone attached to the Trump administration is being smeared as complicit to social crimes and deserving of being professionally blackballed, according to some news outlets. CNN’s Chris Cillizza is roundly ridiculed for saying he has said a billion times, ‘’There is no media bias’’. Too bad for Chris his industry constantly finds ways to prove him incorrect.