A cup of Joe, with a dash of hypocrisy

The urge to smear manifests itself in strange ways.

In 1920, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion appeared in English. At first, the notorious anti-Semitic hoax fooled many prominent people -- including, I am sorry to say, Winston Churchill. A year later, London Times correspondent Philip Graves revealed that large chunks of the text were lifted from a nearly-forgotten book called The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, a satire written in 1864 by one Maurice Joly. That work had nothing to do with Jews: Joly had targeted that glorious scalawag, Napoleon III.

How did the anti-Semites react to Graves' work? By smearing Maurice Joly! They scurried through the archives in search of dirt on a sad footnote figure who had committed suicide in the 1870s.

Needless to say, that tactic didn't make a whole lot of sense. Listing Joly's personal shortcomings did not make the Protocols one whit more authentic.

The illogical strategies of fanaticism remain constant. Consider the reaction to Joe the Plumber.

On October 11, 2008, Ohio resident (and former Marine) Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a., Joe the Plumber) encountered Barack Obama, who happened to be campaigning in the neighborhood. Approached by the candidate, Joe asked: "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan's going to tax me more, isn't it?"

The Democratic nominee answered that, yes, under his tax plan, Joe would enter a somewhat higher tax bracket if he earned more than $250,000, though the rate would be no worse than in Clinton's day. Joe suggested a flat tax. Obama answered that a flat tax plan would make the situation even worse.

Obama then added: "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too… And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

That "spread the wealth" wording gave the McCain camp an opportunity to paint Obama as a socialist.

Let me be clear: I do not consider Obama a socialist, and I disagree with Joe's ideas on taxation. Our country had its most progressive tax structure under Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican. Ike gave this nation prosperity.

At present, fully one-third (soon, perhaps, one-half) of Joe's tax burden goes to pay the interest on the huge amounts of money borrowed by Reagan, Poppy and Dubya. Although the Republicans talked about fiscal responsibility, they ran up massive deficits. Bill Clinton, by contrast, ran a government in the black and began to pay back the debt incurred by his predecessors.

If I were Obama, I would have cited that history in order to explain to Joe why he should blame Republicans for his tax burden. If this country did not have to pay those interest payments, Joe's tax bill would shrink by a third or more. That's the way to cut taxes.

(Although Obama's wording was was not felicitous, my problem with his response to Joe has nothing to do with the Democrat's stated tax policy. I simply do not believe a word that man says on anything. See NAFTA; see FISA; see campaign finance.)

In the paragraphs above, I have outlined what I consider a reasonable response to Joe's questions.

But were the progressives reasonable? Were the Obot faithful reasonable? No, they were not.

They went in for the smear. In so doing, they helped to give Joe a folk hero status which he probably does not deserve.

The progs scried conspiracy in the fact that "Joe" is not Joe the Plumber's real first name. They accused him of not having his plumber's license. (He doesn't need one.) They screamed that he stands no chance of buying that company and entering a higher tax bracket. They dug into the man's records and discovered that he had a lien against him. They rooted and snorted through his personal life. They accused him of voter registration fraud. They called him a racist. I would not be surprised to learn that some prog somewhere accused him of blowing up Building 7.

Needless to say, these inane personal attacks have nothing to do with the question of whether or not this country should adopt a flat tax.

As I watched this nonsense pile up on the Obama-friendly sites, my mind kept flashing back to poor Maurice Joly.

Same shit, different century: As with Mo, so with Joe. The anti-Semites illogically thought that by smearing Joly they could credibilize their beloved forgery. The Obots illogically thought that by smearing Wurzelbacher, they could undo the political damage inflicted by the Lightbringer's poorly-worded response.

The lowest of the low points occurred when Markos Moulitsas allowed a diarist to post Joe's home address on Daily Kos.

Unconscionable. Inexcusable.

My mind raced back to the case of actress and liberal blogger Lydia Cornell, whose address and phone number were published by Ann Coulter. As a result of that deed, Lydia and her family underwent frightening and disgusting forms of harassment. I played a small part in the resultant debate when I wrote a piece in Lydia's defense. As a result of that piece, Lydia and I began an occasional friendly correspondence.

Naturally, the Kos attack on Joe the Plumber prompted me to write to Lydia (now a strong supporter of Obama), asking if she would issue a statement condemning the publication of Joe Wurzelbacher's home address. I reasoned that the progs are more likely to be shamed by her words than by mine, if they are not now beyond shame altogether.

Normally prompt to reply, she ignored my first message. After I sent a somewhat less courteous second message, she begged off from the duty of composing a formal public response, claiming that she had to deal with a family emergency.

So I waited.

A week and a half later, I am still waiting.

Of course, I hope that the emergency has been resolved and that all is well. However, I must note that -- judging from the evidence of her blog -- Lydia has somehow found plenty of time to write at length about politics. Surely, she could have written one small paragraph for public quotation. Something along these lines: "I condemn Daily Kos for publishing the home address of a perceived enemy. That was done to me; it should not be done to anyone."

Lydia could have written those words, or similar words. But she did not.

Apparently, publication of personal information is a very bad thing when the victim is the liberal and lovely Lydia Cornell. When the victim is a Republican guy named Joe -- well that, as Hatlo used to say, is diffo.

Unconscionable. Inexcusable. Hypocritical.