Soros, the Swift Boat Veterans, and Moral Equivalency

One of the most destructive habits of the mainstream media is their ingrained assumption of moral equivalence--that the precisely 2.0 viewpoints they recognize in regard to any issue are almost always roughly equivalent in terms of honesty and proximity to the truth. Today's WaPo column by David Broder exemplifies the problem. Writing about an effort led by Trent Lott (of all people) to "reform" political campaigns by restricting 527 groups, Broder summarizes the activities of such groups in the 2004 campaign this way:

Democrats were the main abusers, with billionaire George Soros and friends financing a network of groups run by longtime party and labor activists. But Republicans drew even more blood, thanks to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads questioning John Kerry's service in Vietnam.

Hold on a minute, David. It may be true that 527s aligned with the Democrats spent more money and ran more ads than their Republican counterparts. That doesn't make them "abusers"--unless you assume that any exercise of free-speech rights during a campaign by an unaligned group constitutes "abuse." I don't know of any pro-Kerry/anti-Bush groups that were ever accused of the sheer dishonesty practiced by the Swift Boat Veterans. Tough, negative campaigning--yes. Outright lies--no.

It's hard to avoid feeling that MSM pundits like Broder are so resentful of outsider interlopers (i.e. citizens) inserting themselves into the political process that they automatically tend to tar them all with the same brush, when by any objective standard it's clear that only a few, concentrated on one side of the battle, are actually responsible for degrading the level of national discourse.