A candidate charged with hypocrisy.
MSN's Slate webzine had an article (oct 28) entitled,
Clark's hypocritical obstructionism on Iraq.
By William Saletan
the website of the post is: http://slate.msn.com/id/2090437/
The upshot of the article (written by an individual who doesn't like President Bush) was that in 1999, General Wesley Clark defended the military action in Bosnia by saying that if we display weakness in Bosnia, the dictators will survive to ruin more lives and a whole region of Europe. In 2003, General Clark is (at least lately) saying we should leave Iraq asap and spend as little as possible to rebuild Iraq. This, in the writer's eye, makes General Clark a hypocrite.
The article is recent and General Clark deserves some time to defend himself so I'll wait until then to do analysis. General Clark could assert that there are key differences between the Bosnian and the Iraq situation (although the only one I can see easily is that in Bosnia, the American action was almost all air power and also in Bosnia the dictator's forces were less evil). He could also assert that he has learned things from Bosnia and changed his mind (although politicians rarely do that). General Clark could also say that leaving Iraq asap with as little reconstruction as possible is not showing weakness because we did remove Saddam's government from power. I would predict General Clark tries the 'there is a big difference between Bosnia and Iraq' defense but we'll see.
Thursday, October 23, 2003
The unintentional hypocrisy of the Easterblogg.
In addition to all the previous exceptions and nuances, there is another one I've discovered recently. It comes about when you imply something you don't mean to imply. Thus even though you are saying something you don't believe in (nominal hypocrisy), it was unintentional. Certainly if you correct your error soon enough, it ought not to count as hypocrisy.
Here is what happened recently.
A well known writer named Greg Easterbrook writes for a number of companies. One of his venues is a blog hosted by the New Republic (which also hosted the a discussion of the hatred President Bush among the left - discussed in my post below of Oct 13, 2003).
In his blog (called the Easterblogg), Mr Easterbrook uses language that evokes the antisemitism of the medieval variety. This use of language is considered, by nearly everyone, to have been an error and unintended. The causes of the error include the haste with which it was written as well as the attempt to convey too many thoughts with too few words.
The New Republic apologized for the error at this site: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=editorial102003.
Gregg Easterbrook apologized for the error on the October 16 entry of his blog: http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml.
The original offensive language appears on the October 13 entry of his blog
It seems he basically said that Jews were moneygrubbers while not meaning what he said. This, as noted, is nominal hypocrisy. However, he clearly and unabiguously apologized (while leaving the original language appear - many people just remove mistakes and pretend they never happened). The vast majority of people believe his apology. He ended up losing money since the Disney Corporation, which didn't like him for other reasons, used the mistake to fire him from ESPN (a Disney owned subsidiary).
In addition to all the previous exceptions and nuances, there is another one I've discovered recently. It comes about when you imply something you don't mean to imply. Thus even though you are saying something you don't believe in (nominal hypocrisy), it was unintentional. Certainly if you correct your error soon enough, it ought not to count as hypocrisy.
Here is what happened recently.
A well known writer named Greg Easterbrook writes for a number of companies. One of his venues is a blog hosted by the New Republic (which also hosted the a discussion of the hatred President Bush among the left - discussed in my post below of Oct 13, 2003).
In his blog (called the Easterblogg), Mr Easterbrook uses language that evokes the antisemitism of the medieval variety. This use of language is considered, by nearly everyone, to have been an error and unintended. The causes of the error include the haste with which it was written as well as the attempt to convey too many thoughts with too few words.
The New Republic apologized for the error at this site: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=editorial102003.
Gregg Easterbrook apologized for the error on the October 16 entry of his blog: http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml.
The original offensive language appears on the October 13 entry of his blog
It seems he basically said that Jews were moneygrubbers while not meaning what he said. This, as noted, is nominal hypocrisy. However, he clearly and unabiguously apologized (while leaving the original language appear - many people just remove mistakes and pretend they never happened). The vast majority of people believe his apology. He ended up losing money since the Disney Corporation, which didn't like him for other reasons, used the mistake to fire him from ESPN (a Disney owned subsidiary).
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Today, the Washington Post has an article quoting, at length, the Sept article in the New Republic that I discussed on Oct 13.
The post article is at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46805-2003Oct18?language=printer
The word 'hypocrisy' doesn't occur in the article. There is also considerable discussion about the difference between Clinton hatred, Nixon hatred and Bush hatred.
The post article is at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46805-2003Oct18?language=printer
The word 'hypocrisy' doesn't occur in the article. There is also considerable discussion about the difference between Clinton hatred, Nixon hatred and Bush hatred.
Friday, October 17, 2003
Somebody asks himself the hypocrisy question
In an online column Oct 15, 2003, David Frum who writes on political issues in books (one book made the best seller list) and articles titles an hotlink “Am I a Hypocrite”. The link directed article (available at: http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum-diary.asp - see the Oct 15, 2003 entry) seems to be a response to an article by a columnist from the Chicago Tribune. Frum feels the Tribune article calls Frum a hypocrite.
The basis of the hypocrisy charge is that Frum, a Republican, did not condemn Governor Elect Arnold Schwartzenegger on sex abuse but that in the past Frum had done so with former President Clinton. Embedded in this is the assumption that Frum must either believe that sex abuse makes one disqualified from serving in high office (in which case his silence on Schwartzenegger is a case of hypocrisy by silence) or must believe that sex abuse does not disqualify one in which case his condemnation of Clinton is a case of hypocrisy.
I don’t have a comprehensive list of all of Frum’s statements about Clinton, nor Frum’s statements about Schwartzenegger, however, Frum defends himself citing the differences between the two cases. Examples follow:
1.Clinton was an elected official when the sex abuse took place, Arnold was an actor when the sex abuse took place
2. Clinton used government personnel to cover up or facilitate the abuse.
3. In one case (in Arkansas), rape and battery have been alleged.
4. In Clinton’s case, there was false testimony to a grand jury
Now, personally, I’m confused about the charge itself. Condemnation of anyone, be it a President, a governor, an actor, can be over a wide range. Condemning someone does not mean saying they are necessarily unfit for office. Furthermore, condemning an act is somewhat different than condemning a person. Finally, condemnation is frequently based on more than one incident.
In short, I can’t make sense out of either the charge against Frum nor Frum’s defense of himself.
In an online column Oct 15, 2003, David Frum who writes on political issues in books (one book made the best seller list) and articles titles an hotlink “Am I a Hypocrite”. The link directed article (available at: http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum-diary.asp - see the Oct 15, 2003 entry) seems to be a response to an article by a columnist from the Chicago Tribune. Frum feels the Tribune article calls Frum a hypocrite.
The basis of the hypocrisy charge is that Frum, a Republican, did not condemn Governor Elect Arnold Schwartzenegger on sex abuse but that in the past Frum had done so with former President Clinton. Embedded in this is the assumption that Frum must either believe that sex abuse makes one disqualified from serving in high office (in which case his silence on Schwartzenegger is a case of hypocrisy by silence) or must believe that sex abuse does not disqualify one in which case his condemnation of Clinton is a case of hypocrisy.
I don’t have a comprehensive list of all of Frum’s statements about Clinton, nor Frum’s statements about Schwartzenegger, however, Frum defends himself citing the differences between the two cases. Examples follow:
1.Clinton was an elected official when the sex abuse took place, Arnold was an actor when the sex abuse took place
2. Clinton used government personnel to cover up or facilitate the abuse.
3. In one case (in Arkansas), rape and battery have been alleged.
4. In Clinton’s case, there was false testimony to a grand jury
Now, personally, I’m confused about the charge itself. Condemnation of anyone, be it a President, a governor, an actor, can be over a wide range. Condemning someone does not mean saying they are necessarily unfit for office. Furthermore, condemning an act is somewhat different than condemning a person. Finally, condemnation is frequently based on more than one incident.
In short, I can’t make sense out of either the charge against Frum nor Frum’s defense of himself.
Monday, October 13, 2003
Another case of non hypocrisy because of creeping insanity
A remarkable case of self confessed creeping insanity was published by the left wing weekly "The New Republic" in its Sept 18 edition. The e-version is available at:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=gfI/vvY5VZirXupcsQoN5m
In a fairly long article, the well known, highly knowledgeable and highly analytic Jonathan Chait tells why he hates President George Bush. Here is a section which includes a quote indicating that this hatred is not uncommon:
".... I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks--blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.
There seem to be quite a few of us Bush haters. I have friends who have a viscerally hostile reaction to the sound of his voice or describe his existence as a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche. Nor is this phenomenon limited to my personal experience: Pollster Geoff Garin, speaking to The New York Times, called Bush hatred "as strong as anything I've experienced in 25 years now of polling."..."
now here is an apparent example of hypocrisy
"...Combined with his stated desire to eliminate virtually all taxes on capital income and to privatize Medicare and Social Security, it's not much of an exaggeration to say that Bush would like to roll back the federal government to something resembling its pre-New Deal state...."
No one thinks Bush wants to privatize Medicare and Social Security. It is true that Bush has advocated that people have the option of privately managing part of their Social security account (it is also true that there are many problems with this concept) but that is hardly the same thing as privatizing it. As for the rolling back the federal government to pre New Deal, the idea is laughable. One of the signature efforts of the Bush administration is a prescription drug benefit program which would be an enormous increase in the size and cost of government. Now there are many problems with this idea but none of them relates to a decrease in the roll of the federal government. Similarly, Bush does not advocate a significant decrease in the major role the federal government has taken in the past 70 years in education, health care, welfare, law enforcement, etc. Indeed, with respect to the latter issue the Bush administration proposes an increase in the role of the federal government in law enforcement (amendments to the Patriot Act). Now these amendments may be a good idea, they may be a bad idea, but they are certainly not a roll back in the federal government. Mr. Chait surely knows this with part of his brain. Now apparently because the rest of his brain is slowing becoming infected with hatred, I think this knowledge is being drowned out (although several months ago it would not have been drowned out).
Thus Mr. Chait has to be considered innocent of hypocrisy by virtue of the creeping insanity of his hatred of President Bush.
A remarkable case of self confessed creeping insanity was published by the left wing weekly "The New Republic" in its Sept 18 edition. The e-version is available at:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=gfI/vvY5VZirXupcsQoN5m
In a fairly long article, the well known, highly knowledgeable and highly analytic Jonathan Chait tells why he hates President George Bush. Here is a section which includes a quote indicating that this hatred is not uncommon:
".... I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks--blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.
There seem to be quite a few of us Bush haters. I have friends who have a viscerally hostile reaction to the sound of his voice or describe his existence as a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche. Nor is this phenomenon limited to my personal experience: Pollster Geoff Garin, speaking to The New York Times, called Bush hatred "as strong as anything I've experienced in 25 years now of polling."..."
now here is an apparent example of hypocrisy
"...Combined with his stated desire to eliminate virtually all taxes on capital income and to privatize Medicare and Social Security, it's not much of an exaggeration to say that Bush would like to roll back the federal government to something resembling its pre-New Deal state...."
No one thinks Bush wants to privatize Medicare and Social Security. It is true that Bush has advocated that people have the option of privately managing part of their Social security account (it is also true that there are many problems with this concept) but that is hardly the same thing as privatizing it. As for the rolling back the federal government to pre New Deal, the idea is laughable. One of the signature efforts of the Bush administration is a prescription drug benefit program which would be an enormous increase in the size and cost of government. Now there are many problems with this idea but none of them relates to a decrease in the roll of the federal government. Similarly, Bush does not advocate a significant decrease in the major role the federal government has taken in the past 70 years in education, health care, welfare, law enforcement, etc. Indeed, with respect to the latter issue the Bush administration proposes an increase in the role of the federal government in law enforcement (amendments to the Patriot Act). Now these amendments may be a good idea, they may be a bad idea, but they are certainly not a roll back in the federal government. Mr. Chait surely knows this with part of his brain. Now apparently because the rest of his brain is slowing becoming infected with hatred, I think this knowledge is being drowned out (although several months ago it would not have been drowned out).
Thus Mr. Chait has to be considered innocent of hypocrisy by virtue of the creeping insanity of his hatred of President Bush.
Saturday, October 04, 2003
Not hypocrisy by reason of emotion
Just a few hours ago, there was another suicide bomber in Haifa. About 20 people were murdered. In the wake of this, lots of Israelis say to expel Arafat. Others say that expelling Arafat will lead to more murders of this kind. Both groups are seemingly sure of themselves.
The IDF, which has a large knowledge base says that expelling Arafat would likely do little to reduce these murders in the short term and might or might not increase them in the longer term.
The people (in the first paragraph) who say they are sure know about the IDF opinion. So how can they say what they don't believe or at least don't have a rational belief. I think the answer is that their emotions are interfering with their cognition. Anger has a way of doing that and I have had personnal experience with it. In fact when I read about the suicide bombing my first reaction was anger.
Once, at work, I strongly advocated (for a week) policy that I knew would be useless and would actually negatively impact my own interests because of an emotional issue. It took me a weekend to realize what I was doing.
Just a few hours ago, there was another suicide bomber in Haifa. About 20 people were murdered. In the wake of this, lots of Israelis say to expel Arafat. Others say that expelling Arafat will lead to more murders of this kind. Both groups are seemingly sure of themselves.
The IDF, which has a large knowledge base says that expelling Arafat would likely do little to reduce these murders in the short term and might or might not increase them in the longer term.
The people (in the first paragraph) who say they are sure know about the IDF opinion. So how can they say what they don't believe or at least don't have a rational belief. I think the answer is that their emotions are interfering with their cognition. Anger has a way of doing that and I have had personnal experience with it. In fact when I read about the suicide bombing my first reaction was anger.
Once, at work, I strongly advocated (for a week) policy that I knew would be useless and would actually negatively impact my own interests because of an emotional issue. It took me a weekend to realize what I was doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)