Posted on 06/25/2009 1:07:22 PM PDT by Michael Eden
The left are falling all over themselves to not only damn Republican South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, but to damn everything he claimed to stand for.
Just as one among a gazillion examples:
After Sanford, Let's End Hypocrisy and Promote EqualityLet us express this argument in the following way:So Governor Sanford is another family values hypocrite. How many times did he deny privacy rights and marriage equality to others?
According to OnTheIssues.org, as a Member of Congress, Mark Sanford voted repeatedly against abortion rights; against gay marriage, civil unions, and gay adoptions; and for posting the Ten Commandments. As Governor, he continued those positions.
Premise 1) Mark Sanford preached traditional family values.Well, how about if we apply that argument to another example:Premise 2) Mark Sanford was discovered to have violated some of the very traditional family values he preached.
Conclusion: We should end hypocrisy and abandon all traditional family values.
Premise 1) Al Gore preached it was wrong to have a huge carbon footprint.I could do the same thing with torturing puppies. Suppose I was a spokesman for PETA, and was subsequently discovered to have kicked a puppy dog. Would anyone but the worst nutjob in the world conclude that we should "end hypocrisy" and abandon a standard against torturing puppies?Premise 2) Al Gore was discovered to have a MASSIVE carbon footprint
Conclusion: We should end to hypocrisy and start pumping trillions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, oceans, and rivers.
Let me say it clearly: the Democrats' use of personal hypocrisy on the part of Mark Sanford (or any other member of the Republican Party) as a device to attack traditional family values is fundamentally irrational. It is an amoral rhetorical ploy, and nothing else.
Mark Sanford is a hypocrite. But that doesn't in any way prove that the values he claimed to stand for are hypocritical.
Should we condemn Governor Sanford for his personal hypocrisy? Sure. Just as we should condemn Al Gore for his personal hypocrisy. Both Mark Sanford and Al Gore have been exposed as being terrible proponents for their publicly-held views. But to then argue that, since Al Gore is a pathetic environmentalist in his personal life, we should therefore abandon all environmentalism and pollute as much as we might like is simply fallacious.
You can go through a directory of logical fallacies and check off about every one: Genetic fallacy; Question begging; Affirming the consequent.; Ad populum; Ad hominem; False cause; Non sequitur; Loaded language; Post hoc, ergo propter hoc; Straw man; Suppressed evidence. Every one of these fallacies and more are being used to advance the "Governor Sanford is a hypocrite, so lets throw out traditional values" thesis.
Believe it or not, there are actually people who hold to traditional family values who don't violate their marriage vows. Just as their are actually people who hold to liberal environmentalist values who don't rack up 221,000 kilowatt hours in one year while flying around in an emissions-spewing private jet and cruising around in a massive luxury boat while profiting from royalties on a zinc mine that the EPA once shut down as one of the worst polluting mines in America.
Let's not base our morality on what a few hypocrites do, but on what we all ought to do.
I add this almost as an afterthought, but it is an important point: one of the related issues to the "hypocrisy" argument by the left is that many liberals do not want to be "constrained" by the traditional moral values espoused by conservatives, and conservatives should therefore back off and stop imposing their values. Does this hold water? Well, if it does, then why do liberals want to impose draconian global warming laws on conservatives who don't buy into global warming? Why do liberals want to impose high taxes on certain classes of people to pay for social programs those people neither want nor need? Etcetera.
And Ensign.
Men/women in public office whom violate their sacred vows, whether they are liberal or conservative, should be regarded as unworthy to hold office.
Does Spitzers sex with prostitutes prove liberals are hypocrites on women’s issues?
I agree.
A politician who cannot even honor a promise made to his/her spouse and family is obviously unworthy of trust. If a politician can’t even be trusted by his own wife, why should anyone else trust him?
But that wasn’t my point. My point was that calling Sanford a hypocrite - which goes to his character - has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the values he claimed to champion.
Liberals are using Sanford to attack traditional family values. Traditional family values are fine whether or not Mark Sanford is a slimeball, thank you very much.
Exactly.
Not only the fact that he did what he did, but that he was so stupid about it, tells me he needs to return to private life.
He’s a governor, thinking about higher office. He has to know that the “opposition researchers” and their PI’s are out there digging and looking for a chink in the armor. The fact that they had his emails 6 months ago should tell everyone exactly how this game is played. But in his line of work he should know that. If you can’t keep your focus on what is presumably your life’s mission, then you need to hand the baton off to someone who can.
You’re right. Sanford is a hypocrite. Liberals aren’t hypocrites about sex because they have essentially gutter values when it comes to that. They’re in the sewer to begin with so they can’t possibly fall short.
However, they’re hypocrites on a variety of other issues. They preach equality but live like kings. They claim to support human rights but act as pimps for some of the vilest despotisms the world has ever known. They promote “diversity” and then flee to a gated all-white community in the exurbs at the first sign of a minority in their ‘hood. They rant against “sexism” and then treat women like trash. And this list could be extended indefinitely.
Are you (gasp) saying that treating women like living blow-up dolls is somehow disrespecting women?
There is good reason to believe that Bill Clinton is a rapist. But he's a liberal, so it must be okay.
Another funny thing about Spitzer is that the guy who replaced him had to give his own press conference about using public money to see his mistress. And of course there's the "I am a gay American" governor (McGreevy).
Don’t let the accusations of “hypocrisy” fool you in the least.
The left isn’t upset at all about hypocrisy, but about the existance or assertion of behavioral standards at all.
Don’t even let a lib try to use the word.
We understand the double standard by which liberals live and breath by, which is precisely why their voice is like a howling wind in my ears; comes and goes without much notice.
Gov. Sanford is being a hypocrite. To espouse traditional family values, which naturally earns support by his constituents whom share those same values, whilst carrying on a sexual relationship with a woman for over a year is hypocritical.
The governor has betrayed the trust, as you pointed out, not only of his wife and sons, and other close family, but those he represents as a public servant.
The liberals are attacking Gov. Palin and her little boy. Their rejoicing and critique of Gov. Sanford carries about as much gravity as the moon. They’re singing to the choir.
All this for a piece of a#*! He should resign in disgrace.
Good point, and you’re correct!
It is only hypocritical if you tell others it is wrong to do something while you are doing it. I've never had an affair, am not having one now, and never intend to have one. Therefore, it is not hypocritical for me to say extramarital affairs are wrong.
Of course, the left doesn't understand what hypocrisy is. So they scream "hypocrisy" at conservatives, all the while practicing it themselves.
We should end to hypocrisy and start pumping trillions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, oceans, and rivers
Lets do it - lets start drilling for oil NOW! Yeeeehaaa!
He is also a sinner who has a right to repentance and forgiveness from Jesus Christ and His Father.
The Marxists **deliberately** refuse to recognize that humans are fallen beings and subject to sin. This does not mean that because we**all** sin that we enshrine sin as ideal behavior.
This is merely a Saul Alinsky technique to **personalize** and destroy people and the organization with which they are associated.
The best example of this Alinsky neutron bomb was when Lott's misspoke at Thurmond’s birthday party. They **personalized** his misstep and moved in like sharks to **destroy** not only him but the Republican Party.
Those are great points. So if the liberals are going to use Sanford's betrayal of conservative family values as a means of attacking those values, should we likewise assume they are willing to throw away their crap about "economic fairness" or "human rights" or "diversity" because of their OWN personal behavior?
I hope Sanford resigns. And if he doesn't, I hope conservatives drive him out. Not only did he prove he's untrustworthy by betraying his marriage vows, but he proved he's irresponsible and frankly maybe mentally unstable.
But I never made my defense of family values, "Well, Mark Sanford supports them, and that's enough for me!"
I hope conservatives drive him out.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are consequences to sin. While he can repent and seek forgiveness from Christ, there are **consequences** and these can not be removed. It’s like breaking and egg. It can’t be put back together again.
I applaud you for your moral values. I think it is the same if you are a pastor an have fallen into sexual sin. You are forgiven but no longer allowed to have a congregation (at least that's the way it used to be) - the same should go for government - no matter who it is. But, liberals, having no arguments for moral laxity except if it feels good do it, have to bring everyone down to their level. It makes them feel better than better to see a conservative stumble, crash and burn - they will be glad to light the fire - they have a feel good feeling. Their self-loathing has something to feed on. If one tries to live a moral and decent life it irritates them.
That there are Conservatives who fail to walk the walk is not hypocrisy; it is proof that humans are frail beings subject to failure and error. Conservatism recognizes that humans have their weaknesses and accounts for them. Liberalism’s greatest failure is its refusal and/or inability to account for human imperfections (their own or those in others) in their political beliefs.
We strive for a high standard and sometimes fail. They set no standard and so, they think, they can never fail. They set the bar low and when they can’t even meet that standard, they claim that all is well because “they meant well.” They seek to eliminate failure from our lives by removing standards. This is not how life works and why Liberalism doesn’t work either.
To avoid failure by never having a defined set of standards is dishonest, self-serving, naive, cowardly and ultimately self-defeating. One can never truly know success if they have never experienced failure. In insisting that they never be held to account for anything, they delude themselves into believing that they cannot fail and cannot be wrong and so, they are “free.” Unfortunately for them, they are, in fact, eliminating any chance they have for true, long-term success or happiness.
I often say that I am glad the church lets hypocrites in - because otherwise they would shut the doors when I showed up.
Personally, I believe politics breed hypocrisy. It’s the nature of what these people do today: they are trying to please all kinds of different constituency groups, and so they say one thing for one and an entirely different thing to another. That’s one reason why I am such a firm believer in term limits. Just like the presidency: two terms and bye-bye.
Here’s another part of the problem:
- - - -
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361983,00.html
Truth Test
Some recent surveys suggest a striking gap between liberals and conservatives on the issue of honesty. Polling by an organization called The World Values Survey posed the question, “Is it OK to cheat on your taxes?”
Fifty-seven percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said “yes”, compared with only 20 percent of those calling themselves “very conservative.” That same survey in the Washington Examiner found those on the left were more likely to say it is OK to buy goods that one knows are stolen.
Another questionnaire done by the Culture and Media Institute’s National Cultural Values Survey posed a scenario in which an employer would be willing to pay someone in cash in order to avoid taxes and allow a worker to collect unemployment benefits. Forty-nine percent of self-described progressives said they would go along with the plan, while only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.
- - - - - - -
When you DON’T believe in transcendent and objective moral/ethical standards, you do what you want, and then relativize it to, “Other people are doing it too, so it’s not that big of a deal.”
You tend to think in terms of “normative ethics,” which is what liberals were forcing down our children’s throats for years in public school and calling it “education.”
Conservatives, who by and large derive their moral standards from a transcendent and unchanging God, are “locked in” to moral standards which liberals ridicule.
But their standard is that there really IS no standard.
So when a liberal mocks a conservative for a moral failure, he’s really like a dirt-poor, ignorant, homeless, drug-addicted, and mentally ill guy mocking a rich man for going bankrupt. And, yeah, Mark Sanford is now revealed to be bankrupt, but the liberals who are mocking him never had a pot to piss in to begin with.
When you are a subjectivist emotionalist, those pesky fallacies don't matter.If it feels right, then it must be true.
Ah, let us sit back and listen to the sound of one hand clapping.
The funny thing is that you can read Orwell’s “1984” and contemplate “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” Ignorance is strength,” and as bad and as crazy as THAT was, it STILL made more sense and had more credibility than most of what comes out of Obama’s mouth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.