The Double Standard

In ancient times, the official standard for the length of a foot was determined by the size of the king's foot, or so the legend goes. This had the effect of different standards being applied based on the size of the sovereign. That process seems to have continued to this day, although it is not really a measurement of the leaders foot that is responsible.

George W. Bush, the Connecticut Texan, who got everywhere because of his daddy's name, rose to the top despite his obvious limitations. Failed in business, accused of being a deserter from the Guard during Vietnam, convicted of a DUI, and an accomplished torturer of the English language, Bush got a pass on 9/11 occurring on his watch apparently because he had only been in office for eight MONTHS when it occurred. This, despite a briefing labeled, "Bin Laden determined to strike with airplanes in the U.S." Bush even gets credit for no further attacks. Excuse me, what were the anthrax mailings.

Barack H. Obama, on the other hand, is the child of an interracial marriage who got to where he was in spite of his father's name. An accomplished author, former head of the Harvard Law Review and a dynamic speaker, is currently being skewered over the economic crisis. This, despite the fact that he has only been in office a few weeks.

Is it that the standard being applied relates to intelligence? Did Bush get a pass because he was seen as the village idiot? Is Obama being more closely scrutinized because he is intelligent? Or is it something else? Could it be that the reason Bush got the pass was that he was viewed as part of the entitled elite? Sure he was dumb, but there was never a doubt as to who he represented, his base, "the haves and the have mores." Obama, by contrast, is an intellectual without a doubt, but the attacks are more related to his former status as a community organizer and a people based populism.

Let us extend this beyond the Oval office.

The contracts of rich bankers are sacrosanct and they are awarded large bonuses for failure. Blue collar, middle-class auto workers have renegotiated contracts shoved down their throats because their bosses failed. They are told they should do this for the good of the country.

Conservative politicians and right wing bloviators decry raising the marginal income tax rate on the highest rate from 35 to 39.5 per cent. The super wealthy, you see, must have the country do for them and then their largess will trickle on the rest of us.

The real double standard is that if you want to do something to help the poor or the weak, you're accused of being a bleeding heart liberal who just wants to throw good money away, but if you crush unions and destroy the livelihoods of everyone in the world, you're a hard nosed businessman. Average people are expected to pay their taxes, transnational corporations hide out in off shore tax havens. Corporate bankers, creating a financial crisis to enrich themselves, claim they are too big to fail and ask for even more money. Meanwhile, average people who never miss a payment are seeing credit card rates adjusted upward because the bank has "reevaluated" their credit.

Will we continue to accept this double standard or will we demand that a new standard, one that applies the same to everyone, finally be adopted? Right now, the wealthy are giving us all the finger. For their own good, they need to remember what happened the last time they told the masses to eat cake.