A General Hypocrisy Complaint Against the Left

The Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece by Joe Scarborough. Mr. Scarborough was a congressman during much of the 1990s (and I dealt with his office and it was actually an experience with a good outcome). He is currently the host of an opinion/news program on MSNBC.

The opinion piece is called, "The hypocrisy of the American left".

The general point is that the 'left' criticized Bush and lefts Obama off the hook for doing the same thing and the secondary point is that the 'left' says 'yes' to the Libyan action and 'no' to a Syrian action.

Unfortunately, Scarborough wants to blame an entity called the 'left' without defining it. The only 'left' group that he identifies by name as having policies on both the Bush actions and the Obama actions is "Code Pink". He fails to quote their policy or give a hotlink.

Sorry. The hypocrisy charge is too mushy to evaluate.


The WSJ piece is here. The image was taken from the opinion piece.

Obama and Libya: Is it hypocrisy?

Back in 2007, then Senator Obama said (in response to a question which is also below):

In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."

However, a few days ago, now President Obama announced that he had ordered military action against Libya. Within a few days, this action included over a hundred tomahawk missiles and other strikes.

Is Obama a hypocrite?

Frankly, I would say he has instead, in the four years between his "President does not...." statement and the present, changed his mind without telling anyone. I think this because his statement back in 2007 was based on a reading of the War Powers Act which some in Congress (and some law school Professors) think is constitutional but which Presidents typically do not.

The Constitution (article 2, section 2) give the President broad powers. The War Powers Act has a lot of language in it but, as I understand it, probably 90% of the legal scholars in the country think the latter is unconstitutional since it limits a constitutional enumerated power of the President (and does so to empower a the branch of government that passed the act over a Presidential veto back in 1973).

No hypocrisy but Obama should have admitted that he changed his mind on the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.

Interestingly, then Senator Clinton and then Senator Biden had essentially the same position as then Senator Obama in 2007.

Also interestingly, the Washington Post has an editorial today not only agreeing with Senator Obama's 2011 position and also claiming the two positions are not in conflict (they do this by pretending the 2007 Obama position was about war rather than military action).

The quote of Obama's 2007 remark is here.
Text of Obama's 2011 statement is here.
Article 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution is here.
War Powers Act information is here.
A site comparing Obama's and HRClinton's 2007 statements on this subject is here.
Biden's 2007 comments on the subject here. Biden's statement is the most definitive (and pompous) of the three.
WaPo editorial here.
Dept of Justice April 1, 2011 Memo (although it is obviously not an April 1 joke) here determining that the Use of Military Force in Libya was legal (yes, it directly contradicts Obama's 2007 position but of course it is the DOJ, not Obama).

The Hypocrisy of Some Intellectuals.

Tariq Alhomayed (shown to the left) is the editor in chief of Asharq Al-Awsat (The Middle East). This publication comes out in English and Arabic and possibly other languages. It is owned by the Saudi Government and sometimes has opinion pieces by westerners (e.g., David Ignatius of the Washington Post). It is presumed to be read by the upper class in the Arab world.

This is a good example of the word hypocrisy being used just because it sounds good. I can't figure out which intellectuals are being accused of hypocrisy. In fact, in the editorial it actually accuses the street (I think this means the Arab underclass) of hypocrisy, not intellectuals. Of course I also can't figure out what the hypocrisy actually is. The editorial begins by explaining a government funding scandal, then criticizes people who generalize and then discusses a number of other loosely related issues.

The whole thing is so incomprehensible, I can't even analyze it at all.


Here is the editorial.

Obama vs Leakers vs Promise of Openness

The website Politico has a piece today that, while not using the word 'hypocrisy', seems to accuse President Obama of hypocrisy. The piece has the following,

"The Obama administration, which famously pledged to be the most transparent in American history, is pursuing an unexpectedly aggressive legal offensive against federal workers who leak secret information to expose wrongdoing, highlight national security threats or pursue a personal agenda.

In just over two years since President Barack Obama took office, prosecutors have filed criminal charges in five separate cases involving unauthorized distribution of classified national security information to the media....That’s a sharp break from recent history, when the U.S. government brought such cases on three occasions in roughly 40 years."

The campaign promise of openness is, I think, embedded in Obama's, Jan 21, 2009 memo to heads of departments. Here is what I think is the key part of that memo (the Politico piece did not link to a 'promise' so this is the best I could do),

"...All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA...."

However, it should be clear to anyone that when Obama was promising openness, he wasn't giving up the option of prosecuting people who leaked government secrets. FOIA and protection of classified information are simply different topics.

No hypocrisy.

BTW, This is an area in which I've had some experience. I'm not in favor of the presumption of disclosure in FOIA (as Obama proclaimed) because of the burden it places on the government and the fact that it encourages frivolous FOIA requests. I think his memo shows either naivety or deceit. This, however, is irrelevant to the hypocrisy implication of the Politico piece.

Also, I think the claim by Obama supporters circa 2008, that the Bush administration was hiding information, persecuting whistle blowers, etc. was grossly exaggerated and used deceitfully to raise campaign funds (and votes) for Obama. This, is similarly irrelevant to analysis of the Politico piece.

Here is the Politico piece. The image I used is the one in that article.
Here is Obama's Jan 21, 2009 memo on openess.

Mike Huckabee, Natalie Portman and Hypocrisy The DemocraticUnderground (DU) explicitly charged former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee with hypocrisy. The contention is that Huckabee criticized Portman's pregnancy outside of wedlock while taking a forgiving position on Bristol Palin's pregnancy out of wedlock. The DU post says that this is what Huckabee said about the out of wedlock pregnancy of Bristol Palin,
" The way the media went after the daughter is the most shameful thing I’ve ever seen in my life. If anything, it just caused to run to her. Everyone understands that the basis of being a Christian is that everyone has fallen short of God’s ideal. Everyone understands that....We all mess up, the issue is how we respond to it. What she showed us is exactly what we wanted to see in terms of a witness."
A commenter on the DU site provides the following comment that Huckabee made regarding the out of wedlock pregnancy of Jamie Spears (younger sister of Brittany),

" "It's a tragedy when a 16-year-old who is not really prepared for all the responsibilities of adult life is going to be now faced with all the responsibilities of honest-to-goodness adult life. I respect it."

"Apparently, she's going to have the child and I think that is the right decision, a good decision, and I respect that and appreciate it. I hope it is not an encouragement to other 16-year-olds who think that is the best course of action."

"But at the same time I'm not going to condem her. There'll be plenty of people in line to do that and I always look for the shortest lines. I just hope that she will make another right decision and that's to give that child all the love and kindness and care that she can."
The DU gives what seems a link to Huckabee's comment about Portman but the link is broken. However, I found the following at a DC area Fox News site,


"You know Michael, one of the things that's troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, 'Hey look, you know, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having these children, and they're doing just fine.' But there aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie."

"Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job," he continued, "and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that's the story that we're not seeing."

"You know, right now, 75 percent of black kids in this country are born out of wedlock, 61 percent of Hispanic kids — across the board, 41 percent of all live births in America are out of wedlock births. And the cost of that is simply staggering."

I don't see this as a criticism of Portman but of the imaging of a pregnant Portman sans spouse as glamorous. However, some people took it to mean that Huckabee said that Portman should not have attended the Hollywood Event. Huckabee must have heard or seen this and posted the following on his own Huckabee Political Action Committee site,

"However, contrary to what the Hollywood media reported, I did not "slam" or "attack" Natalie Portman, nor did I criticize the hard-working single mothers in our country. My comments were about the statistical reality that most single moms are very poor, under-educated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death. That's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that society often glorifies and glamorizes the idea of having children out of wedlock."
Certainly I would agree that the thrust of Huckabee's comments about Bristol Palin and Jamie Spears is different that the thrust of his comment about Portman. However, neither Palin nor the younger Spears was dressed in evening wear attending the Oscars. Huckabee could also have said that since Palin was 19 and Spears 17 when they became pregnant outside of marriage, Portman was 29. Portman also had a college degree (she got a degree in 2003 majoring in Psychology from Harvard U) at the time she became pregnant. Clearly the two younger women are a different case although one could have sympathy for Portman based on her (Portman's) hypothetical biological clock fears. However, this is small potatoes given the fact that Huckabee specifically said he did not mean to criticize her.
No hypocrisy.
Btw, I worked with Huckabee's office in 2006 when I was chairing an international conference in Little Rock, Arkansas (he was Governor then). I found his office to be incompetent. They gave me incorrect information several times and couldn't meet their own self established deadlines for giving me a response on several items.

Btw, Bristol Palin is part of what I consider to be one of the most astoundingly stupid conspiracy theories of all time. It comes from Andrew Sullivan, who was with The Atlantic at the time he came up with it. The theory is that Trig Palin is not the child of Sarah Palin but the child of Bristol Palin.


Here is the DUndergound 'discuss' kick off.
Here is the Fox New article with the Huckabee quote.
Here is the post at the Huckabee PA Committee site.
Here is a discussion of Sullivan's 'Trig' theory.
Here is Sullivan in 2009 discussing his (the Sullivan) theory.
Here is a piece from 2008 claiming photographic proof that Sarah Palin was not the mother of Trig
Here is a piece by a professor at Cornell listing all the people who would have had to be in on the conspiracy to have it work.

Is ABC's "Made in America' Series Hypocritical?

An accusation is within the title of a post on the FAIR blog (FAIR = "Facts and Accuracy in Reporting).

As I understand this, FAIR contends that one of the ABC episodes in the "Made in America" series, focused on consumer products and 'discovered' that a large amount (at least in one home) were made overseas, mostly in China (I'm going to pass over the obvious problem here that a sample of one home isn't very scientific and, in fact, I'm willing to bet most of the products used in the building of that house were made in this county. Yes, the whole ABC program is merely infotainment as far as I'm concerned).

FAIR contends, again, as I understand this, that the series should focus also (or possibly mainly) on corporate purchasing and further that the Disney Corporation (which has owned ABC since the mid 1990s) should be singled out for investigation and exposure and that not doing so is hypocritical. There is also a series of statements to the effect that Disney is a 'outsourcer'.

I'm going to list just some of the reasons why I don't think this is hypocrisy.

1. The ABC program's thrust is to encourage future actions (i.e., buy US products in the future) and thus Disney's prior purchases of foreign products is not 'undoable'.

2. Just how much of Disney's purchases are foreign anyway? Is it 20%, 30%, 40% and how did this compare with the aggregate of consumer purchases? Maybe, in a quantitative sense, Disney's purchases are more "US-centric" than the average consumer.

3. Suppose Disney purchased only US made products and those products were more expensive and required Disney to reduce its US work force. Wouldn't that be counter productive?

4. Granted the choice of what to cover in the ABC program is subjective. So what. Isn't that the nature of infotainment. Wouldn't the ABC program have a difficult time investigating the Disney Corp.'s use of 'foreign products' given the complexity of the supply chain (Disney buys products from China but some of those products use US parts or were designed in the US).

5. This entire argument shows ignorance of the principle of comparative advantage. If the US produces ' creative content' better than China and China produces toys better that the US, both countries benefit by the US concentrating on the former and China concentrating on the latter.


FAIR blog post is here and an action alert here. My brother relayed a request from a friend of his to me to analyze this.