Seipp Says Conservatives Shouldn't Defend Bad Ethics, Even When Perpetrated by Conservatives

National Review Online columnist Cathy Seipp is catching heat from fellow conservative Michael Fumento. Why? Fumento had engaged in payola, accepting bribes from various corporations for writing puff pieces for companies like Monsanto.

Notes Seipp on her blog:

Fumento says...I should not have cooperated with the NY Times [which investigated payola schemes and had asked Seipp about a time when she had been approached about a payola scheme]. According to his way of thinking, we on the right are all in this together, and should circle the wagons against any attack. But I have no more sympathy for that argument than I do for the notion that [her fellow] Jews should support Jack Abramoff.

One reason I moved from left to right is that over the past 10 to 15 years the right has proved more tolerant of different points of view. You can't remain a member in good standing of the left if, like me, you're against gay marriage or affirmative action, but I can write for National Review even though I think abortion should remain legal -- and for Reason even though I think various libertine activities, like prostitution, should remain illegal.

Another reason, though, is that the right has been less willing than the left to tolerate disreputable ideas and behavior. Michael Moore and Al Sharpton remain liberals in good standing, but when those on the right screw up (like Pat Buchanan, with his many anti-Semitic remarks, and Trent Lott's racial gaffe at Strom Thurmond's birthday party) they get slapped down by their own side, as they should. It's a big tent, and I like to see it kept clean.

If Republicans are to remain a vital and majority force in US politics, they must avoid the tendency to always defend criminal or unethical behavior simply because the people doing it wear the Republican tag.

Read a coulmn in which Seipp gives more details here. I think she's courageous...and right.