The Brother of Vercingetorix

I doubt that the capture and return of Vercingetorix in chains to the Capitol caused a greater stir among the populace of Rome than that caused among the populace of Boston by the capture and return of Whitey Bulger to the Hub.

What has interested me as much as all the riveting talk about Whitey's criminality is all the loose talk about the purported criminality of his brother, former Senate President William Bulger.

People on the Left and Right may have (in ascending order of importance) legitimate stylistic, programmatic, ideological, and metaphysical differences with the manner in which Bill Bulger acquitted himself in public life. 

But as someone who knows him and has followed for some time his public career, I am unaware of any activity traceable to Bill Bulger that could even remotely be described as criminal. 

Tough? Yes. Vindictive? Maybe. Corrupt? Never. 

If anybody out there has actual evidence of Bill Bulger's corruption or criminality, then let him adduce it or else forever spare us the unseemly innuendo.

My sense is that most of the defamatory chatter directed at the brother of Vercingetorix originates either from so-called "progressives" or self-styled Republicans, two categories of people whom I should have thought would fastidiously avoid the sin of imputing guilt by association. After all, was not associative guilt the essence of McCarthyism, an "ism" (unlike Communism or Marxism) that "progressives" are meant to hate? And is not guilt by association a technique routinely deployed by the democrat partisans at the Globe to marginalize Republican champions?

Look. Bill Bulger has been under an investigative microscope for his entire public life. Had any evidence of criminality or corruption been uncovered, I doubt that it would have escaped the exploitation of grandstanding prosecutors (of which there have been no shortage in my lifetime) or blindly ambitious reporters (again, no dearth). The fact is that Bill Bulger has never been charged with, much less convicted of, a crime, other than that of being conservative on social issues (anti-forced busing, pro-life, anti "gay marriage", etc.).

Given all this, is it really fair,  for such as Howie Carr and others, no matter how much they might disagree with Bill Bulger's politics or style, to describe him (as opposed to his brother Whitey) as being criminal or corrupt? 

Is it too much to ask that amidst all the hysteria surrounding Whitey, the sins of one brother not be visited upon the other? 

But, it is contended, Bill Bulger's corruption and criminality was proven when he did not do more to assist the FBI in the apprehension of his brother.

Not so fast.

Is it logical that those so critical of the strategy that made Whitey an FBI informant should now be critical of Bill for refusing to become one?   

That view seems especially nutty in circumstances where, as here, Whitey may have been the first criminal in history to be simultaneously in the FBI's witness protection program and also on its Ten Most Wanted List. 

Simply put, Bill Bulger had taken no oath as a law enforcement official. As such, while he could not legally harbor his brother, he was under no legal obligation to assist law enforcement in his brother's apprehension. He should suffer no prejudice for his refusal to do so.  

Only totalitarian regimes, and liberals, routinely countenance such intrusions into that delicate and personal area of family relations and loyalties.