An Aristocracy of Incompetence

[Geee]

American Thinker:

Today's liberal leaders have divested themselves of the responsibilities of duty and prudence, resulting in an aristocracy of incompetence. Liberal vanity and fondness for central direction, ends justifying means, unbridled experimentation, tactics and the political warfare of cracking eggs for an omelet have resulted in widespread political irresponsibility. The good concept of a duty owed to the electorate no longer underpins the Democrat party, apparently unnecessary to its dreamy march toward technocratic monarchy. As with prior aristocratic governance, the governing liberal has quickly ditched responsibilities, the same responsibilities he adamantly requires of his subjects. Consider these double standards.

The Obama SEC plans to pursue fraud charges against Moody's and S&P for apparently incorrect debt ratings and inadequate investment research, while at the same time the President gets away with a joke about wasting billions of our tax dollars on "shovel ready" opportunities that never existed. Like the rating agencies, Mr. Obama was paid and painted a rosy picture, but assuredly did less research.

Likewise, Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes Oxley required ever higher policing of conflicts of interest by corporate directors and advisors, yet Rep. Frank appointed his boyfriend to a position with a company Frank regulated and Rep.Waters allegedly steered federal funds to a bank her husband owned.

Finally, channeling the unthinking relativism of a public school world cultures teacher, feminists broadly supported Anthony Weiner, reasoning that "progressives and women need Rep. Weiner in the House." Surely feminists don't seek, and in their words "need," a man who casts off marital vows and instrumentalizes women as part of a uniquely weird and apparently hairless narcissism (or nair-cissism). Such a "need" suggests feminists have abandoned love and marital self-giving, and embraced self-loathing and even self-destruction. Although facing only a flimsy accusation, Clarence Thomas would have welcomed kamikaze defenders such as these.

How do research mistakes constitute fraud for the rating agencies but a laughable mistake for the President? Why is corporate America subject to the highest conflict of interest scrutiny and Reps. Frank and Waters can violate the lowest standards of integrity? How can a creepy pervert be glossed over as a "need" for women and private matter, when he would rightly be ostracized in any workplace or neighborhood in America?