Posted by
Doctor Demex on Saturday, September 08, 2007 8:51:14 AM
In further reference to the matter of Idaho Senator Larry Craig, who has since announced his resignation from the Senate and has followed-up that announcement with another stating that he is reconsidering his resignation (confirming yet again his long pattern of questionable judgment), I was going to address the issue of hypocrisy, but better columnists beat me to it and deserve the credit for what they said.
From the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby:
A furtive surrender to temptation may indicate lust or stupidity or a failure of will, but it takes more than that to prove hypocrisy. The H-word gets thrown around with abandon these days, but generally what is meant by it is inconsistency—failing to live up to one's words, falling short of the values one espouses.
Thus a politician who calls for more compassion yet rarely gives a dime to charity is inconsistent, but not necessarily hypocritical. A gun-control advocate who shoots an intruder with an unregistered handgun can be faulted for not acting in keeping with his beliefs, but that alone doesn't make him a hypocrite. A woman strongly opposed to abortion who gets one herself when she becomes pregnant hasn't practiced what she preached. But those aren't instances of hypocrisy — not unless they never meant what they preached in the first place.
Hypocrisy isn't merely saying one thing but sometimes doing another. Nor is it simply having a double standard—lionizing Anita Hill, say, but trashing Paula Jones (or vice versa). Hypocrisy is worse than that. It's a form of duplicity. A hypocrite is one who doesn't believe the moral views he proclaims and violates them routinely in his own life.
Hypocrisy is deceit, not weakness; a vice, not a blind spot. Larry Craig has much to atone for. But the charge of hypocrisy seems to me a bum rap.
And this from Ann Coulter:
Liberals don't even know what they mean by "hypocrite" anymore. It's just a word they throw out in a moment of womanly pique, like "extremist"—or, come to think of it, "gay." How is Craig a "hypocrite," much less a "blatant hypocrite"?
Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he's in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk! Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."
If the charges against Craig are true—and that is certainly in doubt— he's a sinner . . . , but he is among the least hypocritical people in America.
It seems hypocrisy is far more demonstrable on the political left, certainly among the leaders of the Democratic Party, who profess certain values publicly but know in their heart of hearts (and admit to their colleagues and assistants) that they would never stoop to live by them privately. This is true hypocrisy and was the professional Democrat's most telling characteristic when I was on Capitol Hill even back in the late1960s. Republicans and conservatives are much more likely than liberals to hold privately and publicly beliefs and standards that are more demanding. If a politician falls short of the standards and values he professes publicly and believes privately, then he might be a failure or a sinner or both, but he's not a hypocrite. On the other hand, if he pretends to believe something or to profess standards in order to get votes, he is a hypocrite whether he gets caught or not.