Cotton’s hypocrisy

Submitted by The City Wire Staff on Sun, 01/13/2013 - 8:13am

opinion by Scott Shackelford
Scott Shackelford is a former editorial page editor for a Northwest Arkansas newspaper. He lives in Fayetteville.

Editor's note: Opinions, commentary and other essays posted in this space are wholly the view of the author(s). They may not represent the opinion of the owners of The City Wire.

Is it possible to practice hypocrisy without being a hypocrite?

Answer: Certainly, yes.

For instance, I don’t think U.S. Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Dardanelle, is a hypocrite. But I do think it is very possible for honest people to practice rank hypocrisy in broad daylight. It must be something in the Tidal Basin water that makes the percentages go up.

First, let’s set the stage. Mr. Cotton, you see, is a bit of a rock star in Republican circles.

Not only did the Dardanelle native serve on active duty for several years, he came home from Iraq with the medals to prove his heroism. Toss in a U.S. Court of Appeals clerkship here and a little management consulting there, and you begin to see why the GOP was thrilled to see Cotton return to Arkansas to claim the Fourth District seat vacated by retiring U.S. Rep. Mike Ross – a Democrat – last year.

Backed by wealthy conservative donors sensing a winner in Cotton’s background and personality, it was no surprise to see the Harvard Law School graduate wipe the floor with the competition. Maybe those same donors already sense Cotton has what it takes to eventually (soon, perhaps) graduate to the U.S. Senate. Or the governor’s office.
And who knows: Maybe Cotton agrees with that line of thinking.

So, in an effort to expand his fast-expanding fan base, Cotton appeared opposite Wolf Blitzer on CNN to discuss President Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel to lead the Department of Defense.

Cotton isn’t a fan, to put it lightly. He said U.S. troops deserve better than Hagel’s leadership. He accused the former Nebraska senator of giving up on U.S. efforts in Iraq, of holding dangerous views about Iran and supporting (possibly drastic) cuts to future DOD budgets.

Cotton’s opposition to Hagel is not news. On Dec. 21, he wrote in The Wall Street Journal that Hagel doesn’t deserve the promotion for a host of reasons, from siding against the 2006 “surge” strategy that temporarily stabilized an Iraqi populace on the brink of civil war to supporting an accelerated withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

None of those complaints are much different than anything Senate Republicans (who, unlike Cotton, actually get to vote on Hagel’s nomination) have been stammering about for weeks. But the other thing Cotton did say the other day that so got my attention was this: “I admire Chuck Hagel’s service. I admire the service of all of our veterans. But Vietnam veteran service alone cannot be the sole qualification for serving as Secretary of Defense.”

And that’s when it struck me: Cotton, for all his confidence and enthusiasm, is deaf to the hypocrisy coursing past his own lips.

Although Mr. Cotton strikes me as a nice person with an impressive resume and a genuine wish to serve his country, the stark reality is this: The only thing on his resume that made Cotton such an attractive candidate for voters in 2012 was his impressive military service. As well it should have.

And yet the reality is that Cotton is in Congress today specifically because of his solider service, and of all those campaign commercials that made sure to remind voters of this. So it seems strange for a fellow veteran to say Chuck Hagel has no business serving as Defense Secretary because of his honorable (and highly decorated) service during the Vietnam War. Does Cotton really not get that if military service alone were somehow a disqualifier to holding office, he wouldn’t be in Congress today?

Advertisement:

Incidentally, during that same CNN interview, Cotton showed viewers that he really ought to be talking less and listening more at the outset of life as a politician. Cotton said that he believes going to war against Iraq was the right decision, and called the whole Saddam Hussein, al-Qaeda, 9/11 connection inconclusive – even though most of the thinking world now believes there was no connection.

Is Young Man Cotton going to learn during his time in Washington that viewing international affairs through an absolutist palate of black-and-white hues is fraught with danger for one and all?

I hope so. I also hope someone who honestly believes that going to war in Iraq was the right call never has the opportunity to lead the Department of Defense. Surely Chuck Hagel would agree.

Five Star Votes: 
Average: 3.4 (14 votes)

Like This Article? Share It!

Comments

Grandstanding

Submitted by PartisanHack on Sun, 01/13/2013 - 12:12pm.

Assuming none of this circus is simply self-promotional grandstanding via numerous media talk show appearances and a self-serving effort to bolster his conservative activist accolades assuring a lifetime job at some cushy Washington policy institute the moment he leaves office: Being such a simple, rational idealist with pure motives, what would the 4th District voters think should Cotton vote against disaster relief the next time the Arkansas River floods its banks or Mena or Arkadelphia are wiped out by a tornado because the money wasn't offset with some social spending cut, a cut which would almost certainly impact the economically poor 4th district? Would they praise his principled stand against spending or would he actually break with his own rigid ideology and vote for aid? Regardless, after less than two weeks on the job, he will find few friends on either side of the aisle after voting against Hurricane Sandy aid to the fury of the few remaining northeast Republicans, reportedly conspiring to oust John Boenher as House Speaker, attacking the war veteran Republican Secretary of Defense nominee (a nomination in which he has no vote), claim women are physically unfit for combat and continue the absolutely absurd notion that Iraq may have had some role in the September 11, 2001 attack. What a bottomless treat for political commentators. But it's not his fault, blame the evil media, the same media he flocks to for attention. Then run for re-election the same way he ran the first time: answer every question with "Barack Obama", a very reductionist yet proven strategy in south Arkansas.
Assuming none of this circus is simply self-promotional grandstanding via numerous media talk show appearances and a self-serving effort to bolster his conservative activist accolades assuring a lifetime job at some cushy Washington policy institute the moment he leaves office: Being such a simple, rational idealist with pure motives, what would the 4th District voters think should Cotton vote against disaster relief the next time the Arkansas River floods its banks or Mena or Arkadelphia are wiped out by a tornado because the money wasn't offset with some social spending cut, a cut which would almost certainly impact the economically poor 4th district? Would ...>> Read the entire comment.
  • reply

Poli-Talk

Submitted by arnold fudpucker on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 11:40am.

If Cotton is grandstanding then he is copying from the grandmaster of grandstanding, one Barak Obama. Remember Obama's "get them rich folks" grandstanding. Seriously all these politicians use the same techniques to please whatever immediate crowd is at hand. One thing you can't deny is the country has a spending problem and Cotton's attempt to address that in curtailing spending by finding cuts to offset the Sandy pay-off is desparately needed. And yes if it were to happen in AR then we should hope the same rules apply. What we really need is term limits at the federal level. That would curtail most of the same old B.S. antics we get from these political pukes.
  • reply

Term Limits

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 2:04pm.

I think term-limits is the worst thing that ever happened to AR. Many good politicians have been forced to leave office b/c they cant' run again. I'd wager to say 75% of AR would prefer Beebe to stay in office as we did many other poeple. Experienced people that are great politians should not be forced to retire simply b/c they have been there for years. If they are doing a good job we elect them again, if they are underperforming we get rid of them.
  • reply

Fair enough, Mr. Pucker

Submitted by PartisanHack on Tue, 01/15/2013 - 9:49pm.

Although you'll almost certainly disagree, while the President has made use of over the top rhetoric, by most accounts from level-headed people, he and Speaker Boehner have worked for compromise solutions behind closed doors only to have it blown up primarily by ideologues in the House of Representatives who (in my eyes, at least) seem to view every issue as a black-and-white, good vs. evil battle. Our system of government was designed to work via compromise. Until people figure that out and start legislating like it, we'll keep having one unnecessary crisis after another that go down to last minute resulting in kicking-the-can status quo or watered down solutions at best. Enough with the puritan ideologues. Neither side is going to get everything they want, ever. There will never be a Marx socialist utopia nor will there be a Ayn Rand libertarian utopia. Now maybe Cotton really is just a rhetorical firebrand who actually would come to reasonable compromise, but the first two weeks look a lot like the ideologues who keep stomping their feet at the sight of compromise as if it is a sign of weakness and won't say "yes" until they get answers strictly on their terms.
Although you'll almost certainly disagree, while the President has made use of over the top rhetoric, by most accounts from level-headed people, he and Speaker Boehner have worked for compromise solutions behind closed doors only to have it blown up primarily by ideologues in the House of Representatives who (in my eyes, at least) seem to view every issue as a black-and-white, good vs. evil battle. Our system of government was designed to work via compromise. Until people figure that out and start legislating like it, we'll keep having one unnecessary crisis after another that go down to last minute resulting in kicking-the-can status quo or watered down solutions ...>> Read the entire comment.
  • reply

Mr. Ack

Submitted by arnold fudpucker on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 1:26pm.

You are correct I do disagree. Please recall how healthcare was jammed down our throats. By all the accounts the media has shown and written the past two weeks Obama has taken an extremely hard line stand on just about everything. My way or the highway I believe is the tactic he is employing. Obama came very close to getting politically clipped during this gun control issue, and may yet be. If he had tried to overstep his constitutional authority, which many believe he was going to do, the roar would have been loud and long from the people in opposition. I really believe the "art of compromise" with the libs over the last four decades has gotten us in deep trouble. The libs keep pecking away a little at a time. A bite here a bite there until we wake up one day and realize what a mess we are in now. I don't blame many of the conservatives for wanting to take a firm and unyielding stand given the trouble we have. It's either that or get blown out by Obama and his ilk.
You are correct I do disagree. Please recall how healthcare was jammed down our throats. By all the accounts the media has shown and written the past two weeks Obama has taken an extremely hard line stand on just about everything. My way or the highway I believe is the tactic he is employing. Obama came very close to getting politically clipped during this gun control issue, and may yet be. If he had tried to overstep his constitutional authority, which many believe he was going to do, the roar would have been loud and long from the people in opposition. I really believe the "art of compromise" with the libs over the last four decades has gotten us in deep ...>> Read the entire comment.
  • reply

Hurricane Sandy Disaster Package

Submitted by Anon12 (not verified) on Tue, 01/15/2013 - 12:30am.

Just a clarification point...not a politico myself but from what I have seen, the disaster package itself had far more in it that disaster relief for Sandy areas...in fine fashion, the pork was piled on and that is what caused the "nay" votes as much as the spending cuts.
  • reply

Going to War

Submitted by Wes (not verified) on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 8:06pm.

The writer wrote: "I also hope someone who honestly believes that going to war in Iraq was the right call never has the opportunity to lead the Department of Defense." People shouldn't try to second guess or Monday morning quarterback going to war. It isn't just the Iraq War, but also other wars such as the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the Afghanistan War which we happen to still be fighting. Now the conduct of those wars is another story, and that should be vigorously debated. No matter what somebody may have thought about going to war in Iraq, nobody can deny that the surge in Iraq worked. Unless they are blinded by partisan and/or ideological interests, which would include both Hagel and Obama. The writer wrote: "So it seems strange for a fellow veteran to say Chuck Hagel has no business serving as Defense Secretary because of his honorable (and highly decorated) service during the Vietnam War." That's not at all what Tom Cotton said. He said that "Vietnam veteran service alone cannot be the sole qualification for serving as Secretary of Defense." Some of Hagel's supporters are using his combat service as cover for his controversial positions and statements over the years. In both the 2004 and the 2008 presidential elections, one of the major party nominees was a Vietnam War combat vet. Both Kerry and McCain campaigned on their combat service. But their political opponents didn't care and neither one of them was elected. And look at George McGovern. He was a decorated bomber pilot during World War II. But he ran for president as an anti-war dove and rarely ever talked about his combat service.
  • reply

Surge equals payoff

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 01/17/2013 - 11:14pm.

Pay-off the terrorists, then they change sides. That's like paying-off protection racketeers. Stop the money, then the attacks return. Fancy labels, like "surge", shouldn't fool the taxpayer. Bring our men and women home. Exercise energy conservation at home and bankrupt the petro-narco-terrorist countries.
  • reply

Not a second guess

Submitted by NumberSix on Fri, 01/18/2013 - 9:36am.

Hopefully you realize that it isn't monday morning quarterbacking when a great deal of Americans thought going to war with Iraq was a bad idea BEFORE we invaded. Remember it took known false information presented to the UN general council to convince even the slim margin of folks that approved it.
  • reply