I am confused by the liberal media. Until yesterday's revelation that Mark Felt was Deep Throat, I was pretty sure that liberals disapproved when a top official of the FBI gathered information from the Bureau's formidable investigative apparatus, and then used that information to accomplish a personal agenda, by threatening to use it to discredit top politicians, or even, in rare cases, using it to bring down someone.

That was the rap against J. Edgar Hoover. Supposedly, he kept detailed dossiers on all the top officials in Washington, and his careful use of the occasionally compromising information his agents developed accounted for his unprecedented tenure in office, ample budgets, and positive press (as long as he was alive).

Wasn't it liberal gospel that J. Edgar Hoover, who built the FBI into our pre—eminent law enforcement agency, was an Evil Man? Didn't liberals consider Hoover such an abuser of democracy that any tactics were justified to smear him?

For example, it is now an established mass media meme that Hoover was a cross—dresser, despite the fact that the allegation he ever wore dresses was a highly questionable one, made by someone not in a direct position to know. Not to mention that liberals seem to think cross—dressing, gender identity switches, and even radical sex change operations, are nothing particular worrisome, and indeed, may well be a Liberating experience, and something to be celebrated in the name of diversity and tolerance. Not in the case of Hoover, though.

So I don't necessarily expect liberals to think clearly and be consistent when dealing with issues related to the FBI. But aren't at least a few of them worried about what lionization of Mark Felt will mean for the future?

Mark Felt used confidential law enforcement data, the product of an ongoing criminal investigation, to get Richard Nixon out of office. Ever since he rose to national prominence fighting hidden domestic Communists like Alger Hiss, Richard Nixon was anathema to the liberals. Getting Nixon out of office was such a priority that maybe all sins can be forgiven. But there is the little matter of precedent.

Felt is being hailed by liberals as a Hero of Our Time because he actually drove Nixon from office with his abuse of his high position in law enforcement. Can you imagine the reactions these same folk would have had if someone in law enforcement or the Secret Service had leaked information about Bill Clinton during the period when he was being impeached and tried?

For the moment, liberals cannot help themselves. Nixon's resignation was the absolute high point of liberal self—congratulatory righteousness in the last half century. Like paunchy, bald former frat boys at a thirtieth reunion remembering beer blasts and comely coeds, those days are surrounded by the glow treasured memories assume when current circumstances are less favorable. 'Those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end.'

But they have ended. The last Democrat to win a convincing majority of the popular vote for President was Jimmy Carter, who rode into office in the wake of Watergate. The Democrats have spent more than a decade without a majority in the House, and are not positioned to get a Senate majority in the foreseeable future. The red states are growing in population and electoral clout, while the blues have the population and economic blues.

In this environment, do the liberals really want to celebrate a man whose career was built in the shadow of J. Edgar Hoover? A man who took the opportunity to use confidential law enforcement data to get revenge on an elected official by whom he felt slighted?

I don't think there will be many statues of Mark Felt. Once they get over their nostalgia bash, I think the liberals are going to sober up and realize that they tactics they now celebrate could be used against them. At least I hope so.

Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of The American Thinker.