Thursday, May 05, 2005

Redefining Hypocrisy

The other day I was participating in an online discussion on a chat list that I participate in. The discussion revolved around Republicans in Congress proposing a bill that would exempt pharmacists from having to sell the so-called “Morning After” pill, if doing so violates their personal beliefs. Essentially the discussion evolved into one post after another expressing the hypocrisy of the GOP members of Congress and the “religious right.” Although no specific examples of this hypocrisy were named, the usual, general examples of priests molesting children and/or various preacher and moral people’s indiscretions were cited. This made me think about the merits of these claims.

As I thought about it, and it did not take long, or a lot of thinking to realize that these typical examples of hypocrisy are not truly examples of hypocrisy at all, and that these attacks are really misdirected for a couple of reasons. Let’s look at the so-called examples of hypocrisy cited above; a priest, a pastor, or a typical person of faith failing to live up to the moral standard they preach. They would call this sin, and they would be guilty of violating the very standard they preach. But failing to live up to a moral standard, or any standard is not hypocrisy; it is simply failure or coming up short. This is, in fact, a part of the very message they preach. They simply become tragic examples of the human condition. Hypocrisy, on the other hand, would be if that person were to say that there is a moral standard, but that it does not apply to them. Or, that same person trying to find some loophole, which makes the rule or law apply to others, but not to them. Enter the Democratic Party.

People on the “Left” are quick to point to examples of Newt Gingritch, and a few select others who have had moral failings as supreme examples of the hypocrisy of the GOP. But if we look at every example of a Republican caught in a moral indiscretion from Sen. Robert Packwood, to Illinois Congressman Frank Ryan, who was forced to give up a Senate run against Barak Obama due to a personal matter between himself and his wife, in each case the Republican has paid a price. As mentioned, Bob Packwood, Newt Gingritch, Asa Hutchinson, Frank Ryan, each received swift condemnation from their own Party and supporters. Each also accepted their punishment and left office. Where is the hypocrisy? If one wants to look at true hypocrisy we need look no farther than the Democratic Party, who have refined it, and made it a fine art.

Let’s look at some of the fine examples in that Party. We can go back to the examples of Massachusetts Congressman, Barnie Franks, Hawaiian Sen. Daniel Inouye, and of course who can forget President Clinton. In each case there was a strong defense of the action, a strong denial, or both. In no case was any of the above mentioned punished for their actions.

Basically the difference between the Left & the Right, the GOP and the Democrats, is this: the “right” and the GOP say there is a standard, and even thought we may fail to always uphold it, it is a standard nevertheless. The “Left,” and the Democrats, on the other hand, while wanting to make those on the right live up to a standard, deny that there is a standard when it comes to them. Each of the cases mentioned above involved harassment, with subordinates, and even criminal acts, but were swept aside and ignored by those on the “Left.” Sometimes this is so blatant that it is sad.

In 1996, while the Monica Lewinsky matter was being played out before the American public, there was a lightly reported military courts martial taking place at the same time. This military trial involved 5 African American Army personnel who had had sexual relations with subordinate females. One of the strange parts of this trial was the fact that the Sergeants were being accused of rape, when there was no actual accusation of rape by any of the female subordinates. The females made a very loud protest, in fact, that the consensual acts were being made into something more. After thinking about this for a bit, it became pretty clear why there was a need by some to make the acts appear more severe than they were. There was a need to distinguish these acts from the very same thing the then sitting President had done with a female subordinate. This attempt failed, however, yet the result of the trials was very different. While each of the 5 soldiers were removed from the armed forces, having lost all rank, and retirement benefits, with some doing prison time the President’s, the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, actions were defended as being his personal business and not worthy of disciplinary action of any kind.

Fast forward to 2005 and the cases of Tom Delay, John Bolton or the Senate hearings regarding the nomination of appellate court justices and we see the very same M.O. In each case a very different standard of judgment is being applied to the each of these individuals than is to Democrats and those on the Left. In the case of Republican nominees, we have the Bork or Thomas standard, while with Democrats we have a very different, or no standard.

There is one final and blatant bit of hypocrisy on the part of the Left & the Democrats I want to address. That is the hypocrisy in the use of the words “ Freedom and Choice” by those on the Left. When it is convenient, such as in the case of abortion, the Left lifts the word choice high. Even children are somehow capable of making a “choice” in cases of abortion and sexual orientation without the need to involve parents, or the state. When it comes to the right to protest against or to present any anti-American, anti-religious speech, or to publish any type of sexual pornography, the Left loudly proclaims the right to individual freedoms and decries censorship. However, when it comes to spirituality or questions of creation vs. evolution, the same children are incapable of making a choice and the state is must to make the choice for them. When it comes to saving for retirement, individuals are incapable of making a choice for themselves on how to invest for their retirement. The state must do this for us as well. Yes, there is hypocrisy in abundance, and the Left has taken it to a whole new level. In their world there are only rules for those who try to live by them. For the rest anything goes, it is only win at any cost.

2 Comments:

Blogger DarkStar said...

There was a woman in Texas who was on death row for brutally killing a few people.

Pat Robertson, Fawell, and some other white "Christian Right" types made a big push to have her death sentence changed to life without parole.

Why?

Because she became born again and, while in jail, helped inmates.

When have they done that for other death row inmates who became born again?

How about Pat Robertson's support of Charles Taylor? Was it based on Taylor "being a Christian" as Robertson said, or was it access to diamond mines?

5:36 PM  
Blogger Eddie Huff said...

Ed,

It is within the normal practice of Christianity to give forgiveness, when it is asked for and repentance has been sought.

In the case of Carla Faye Tucker, Robertson, Fallwell, et,al, asked for clemency based upon the numerous visits and testimony of others, including the warden, and even the brother of her victim.

President Bush at that time the Gov. said he believed she had repented, but that the law was the law and he did not have the power, to override the parole board, without testing the Texas costitution. He has been consistant.

I do not know what Pat's deal with Charles Taylor is, but my point was that those who like to point out hypocrisy are guilty of far more of it on their own part.

They need to just shut up and do whatever they are going to do and leave the commentary out of it.

9:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home