Dem vs. Rep Hypocrisy
Michelle Cottle had an article in the on line version (June 18, 2004)of the New Republic back in June. I have just gotten to it and today I can't find it on line.
The article states that people in the D and R parties have different ways of looking at hypocrisy. Democrats think of it as the worst of crimes, i.e., Rush Limbaugh can not be criticized for doing oxycontin; instead he must be criticized for preaching against drug abuse on the radio while abusing drugs in his own life. Republicans don't care as much about hypocrisy; they care more about people's views on sin.
The article is well reasoned and well written but I think wrongly premised.
The premise that democrats think hypocrisy the worst of crimes would lead to a criticism of Ralph Nader for violation of campaign finance rules. Cottle notes this and says 'it will be interesting to see... will cause him any lingering grief. Now, after more than a month, it is clear that it hasn't caused Nader any grief whatsoever. It seems the premise, namely, that Democrats think hypocrisy the worst of crimes, is not true.
What seems more likely is that Democrats think hypocrisy in Republicans is the worst that they can be charged with but think hypocrisy in Democrats, unless it is obvious, is unimportant.
For example (this is in Demthink), George Bush's budget busting actions are horrible while John Kerry's views on abortion, while I think obviously hypocritical are unimportant.
Similarly, Republicans think hypocrisy in Democrats is a serious crime (maybe not as serious as sin itself), but that hypocrisy in Republicans is unimportant.
For example (this is in Repthink), John Kerry's views on abortion are hypocritical and awful, but even worse is his support for abortion. George Bush's budget busting actions were necessary and the dems would have done it anyway.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Kerry and Abortion
Senator, and presidential candidate, John Kerry announced that he believes that life begins at conception.
see the Washington Post story on this at:
http://is1.websearch.com/websrch.iepan.full/search/inc/results/web/framed.htm?display-url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA27920-2004Jul4%3Flanguage%3Dprinter&qkw=kerry+conception&nextid=di13:1089749489368&frame=http%3A%2F%2Fclickit.go2net.com%2Fsearch%3Fpos%3D11%26ppos%3D10%26plnks%3D10%26uplnks%3D20%26cat%3Dweb%26cid%3D239170%26site%3Dsrch%26area%3Dsrch.noncomm.inktomi%26shape%3Dtextlink%26cp%3Dwebsrch.iepan.full%26cluster-click%3D0%26pd%3D0%26coll%3D0%26query%3Dkerry%2Bconception%26rawto%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA27920-2004Jul4%3Flanguage%3Dprinter
Senator Kerry has a record of support for abortion rights and choice groups. He has made numerous speeches to such groups harshly criticizing people who support restrictions on reproduction rights, harshly criticized restrictions on federal funding of abortions, etc. He hasn't once announced that he believes life begins at conception prior to this year.
I think everyone in the abortion rights movement thinks that Kerry is lying when he says that he believes that life begins at birth. I also think he is lying.
So, this is a case of hypocrisy - saying something one doesn't believe in.
The question becomes what type of hypocrisy is it.
Well, the law on the subject is quite stable. The Supreme Court decision prevents States from infringing on a woman's right to an abortion in the first 6 months of pregnancy and the Partial Birth law (Kerry voted against this; at the time he says he thought it punitive; he now says he would have voted for a softer version of the bill with a clause about woman's health) effectively prevents States from funding abortions in the last 2 months and makes such persons performing such abortions prosecutable.
I think Kerry's hypocrisy on this issue is pretty inconsequential from a legal standpoint. I worry however. Many of the people supporting Kerry on this are doing so because they believe he is lying. What else might he be lying about?
Senator, and presidential candidate, John Kerry announced that he believes that life begins at conception.
see the Washington Post story on this at:
http://is1.websearch.com/websrch.iepan.full/search/inc/results/web/framed.htm?display-url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA27920-2004Jul4%3Flanguage%3Dprinter&qkw=kerry+conception&nextid=di13:1089749489368&frame=http%3A%2F%2Fclickit.go2net.com%2Fsearch%3Fpos%3D11%26ppos%3D10%26plnks%3D10%26uplnks%3D20%26cat%3Dweb%26cid%3D239170%26site%3Dsrch%26area%3Dsrch.noncomm.inktomi%26shape%3Dtextlink%26cp%3Dwebsrch.iepan.full%26cluster-click%3D0%26pd%3D0%26coll%3D0%26query%3Dkerry%2Bconception%26rawto%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fac2%2Fwp-dyn%2FA27920-2004Jul4%3Flanguage%3Dprinter
Senator Kerry has a record of support for abortion rights and choice groups. He has made numerous speeches to such groups harshly criticizing people who support restrictions on reproduction rights, harshly criticized restrictions on federal funding of abortions, etc. He hasn't once announced that he believes life begins at conception prior to this year.
I think everyone in the abortion rights movement thinks that Kerry is lying when he says that he believes that life begins at birth. I also think he is lying.
So, this is a case of hypocrisy - saying something one doesn't believe in.
The question becomes what type of hypocrisy is it.
Well, the law on the subject is quite stable. The Supreme Court decision prevents States from infringing on a woman's right to an abortion in the first 6 months of pregnancy and the Partial Birth law (Kerry voted against this; at the time he says he thought it punitive; he now says he would have voted for a softer version of the bill with a clause about woman's health) effectively prevents States from funding abortions in the last 2 months and makes such persons performing such abortions prosecutable.
I think Kerry's hypocrisy on this issue is pretty inconsequential from a legal standpoint. I worry however. Many of the people supporting Kerry on this are doing so because they believe he is lying. What else might he be lying about?
Monday, July 05, 2004
Bad AQ today
Today, I called a friend of ours. We shop for her some since she is in a wheelchair.
She said that she was thinking of going to a store near her today but the air quality was too bad.
She smokes cigarettes.
I almost responded with a sarcastic quip but didn't.
Is this hypocrisy (surely she realizes that the air outside is much better for her than apartment air with cigarette smoke - and btw, the air quality was actually pretty good today)dangerous at all.
No. She probably just wanted to justify to herself a decision. Definitely a type 1.
Today, I called a friend of ours. We shop for her some since she is in a wheelchair.
She said that she was thinking of going to a store near her today but the air quality was too bad.
She smokes cigarettes.
I almost responded with a sarcastic quip but didn't.
Is this hypocrisy (surely she realizes that the air outside is much better for her than apartment air with cigarette smoke - and btw, the air quality was actually pretty good today)dangerous at all.
No. She probably just wanted to justify to herself a decision. Definitely a type 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)