The silence is deafening

In the spring of 1998, I interviewed Gray Davis for the Los Angeles PBS affiliate, KCET. I asked the then lieutenant and now ungovernor a very straightforward question: Did he think that O.J. Simpson had murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Davis responded: “That’s not for me to say,” and launched into a lengthy explanation of the jury system. I pointed out that I hadn’t asked him whether he should have been convicted, but whether he thought O.J. Simpson was a murderer. Davis eventually got around to saying that he was happy with the civil verdict – the sort of non-answer he has become famous for throughout his nearly three disastrous years as leader of the Golden State.

A spokesman for Davis announced this week that Davis had not watched the Condit-Chung interview. President Bush said the same thing. I believe the president. I think Davis is lying. Davis has few political allies or friends who are closer to him than Gary Condit. Davis was grooming Condit to succeed him in the big chair in Sacramento, and both of Condit’s children work for the ungovernor. The president’s distaste for Condit – given the congressman’s non-cooperation in the early days of the investigation – may well have rendered the interview irrelevant to Bush, but that cannot be the case with Davis. Davis is the number one Democrat in Sacramento, overseeing the final lines on the redistricting map that affect Condit and all other electeds, and Davis is himself in the early days of a re-election campaign that will be tough. He didn’t watch the interview? Any of it? If he wasn’t lying, then he took the pass in order to be able to say he didn’t see it. That’s what passes for leadership in Davis’ mind.

“It’s not for me to say,” summarizes the Davis way of life, in fact, but he’s not alone in this desire to avoid anything that requires a hard and public choice. He has risen by not risking, and he intends to stay where he is by not risking – not even the non-risk remark that Condit did himself no good, or that Davis was troubled by the interview, or that more candor was called for. All of these stock phrases are equivalents to “It’s not for me to say,” and all of them have been used again and again in the three-plus months prior to the interview and in the immediate aftermath. The three leaders of the Democrats – Davis, Gephardt, and Daschle – have treated their colleague’s incredible collapse with a studied silence. Even Gephardt’s murmurings on the day after the meltdown on national television sounded forced and calculating next to the simple and simply necessary words: “He should resign.”

Many have pointed out that most Republicans, too, have stayed away from the “R word.” The Republicans are well advised to stay out of this. To demand from Condit what his partisan allies have not would be to prepare a last ditch defense for Condit. He could then argue that the assault had come from ideological opponents seeking advantage in the House line-up. Silly, of course, but the memory of the impeachment handicapping by the cable guys is fresh. This job is a Democratic job. But no one is stepping up from the center-left to do it. It’s like a World War II movie gone bad. The colonel asks for a volunteer, and no one steps forward. Not after a minute. Not after 10 minutes. Not after a day, a week, or even months. The moral cowardice of Davis, Daschle and Gephardt is now wholly exposed, but so is the moral cowardice of a lot of Democrats, especially the California variety, who have made a living out of moral posturing.

Diane Feinstein says she’ll never forgive Condit, but there is no shove towards the door. Long-time House colleague of Condit, now higher up in the Senate, Barbara Boxer has nothing to say. Ditto Henry Waxman, the quickest posturer in the Congress. Loretta Sanchez was denounced for wanting to throw a party at the Playboy Mansion, but her colleagues can’t bring themselves to denounce the reality of the playboy lifestyle rather than its appearance, even after a bunch of obstruction of justice is layered on top. Just run down the list of usual suspects from the left quick to assault the GOP for unfeeling callousness on this or that. Where’s Rangel? Where’s Pelosi? Where in the world is Joe Lieberman? Hollywood studio chiefs will be excused if they ignore his and his colleagues phone calls about tawdriness in the movies when these moral posturers cannot denounce this spectacle. I can excuse only Teddy – we all know he cannot address this particular issue.

“It’s not for me to say,” ought to be the new slogan of the new Democrats. No matter how clear the issue, they stay silent and sidelined, even after the polls reach levels never seen before. They might turn back, after all. Or is it deeper than that? Have the Democrats so completely divorced themselves from traditional concepts of right or wrong that they, collectively, can no longer even speak words that come with moral significance attached?

I have begun to hope that Condit hangs around, the worst party guest in history, and that he runs for re-election. The GOP folks can continue to say that this is a Party question and they will support any proposal by Minority Leader Gephardt – and commentators might find it fun to ask each Dem who wanders through their studios the Condit question. Like my O.J. question, a Condit inquiry will produce a lot of non-answers. But those have their uses. Which is why I make a habit of playing the Davis answer to my O.J. question at least weekly on my radio show. Just as most of us know O.J. did it, and most of us know that Condit should quit, most of us also know what to make of those folks who cannot bear to state the obvious.

---

Related offer:

Hugh Hewitt’s book about reviving Christian witness in an age of unbelief, “The Embarrassed Believer.” is available in WorldNetDaily’s online store.