Posted on 07/17/2002 3:19:46 AM PDT by 2Trievers
WE’VE RECENTLY LEARNED that President Bush took a loan from a company on whose board of directors he served, even though he now wants to ban such practices. The New York Times headlined the story “Bush Calls for End to Loans of a Type He Once Received.” White House spinners and spokesmen are working furiously to explain why Bush isn’t being hypocritical. “They are an entirely different set of circumstances,” administration spokesman Scott McClellan insisted with a faint whiff of panic.
Meanwhile, Democrats are Christmas-pony happy over Bush’s troubles. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, in his usual razor-sharp monotone, serenely observed: “It puts him (Bush) in a difficult position to criticize others.”
I have only one question about Bush’s hypocrisy: So what?
In a town where looking for hypocrisy is easier than looking for sand on a beach, I am consistently amazed how everyone is willing to accept that hypocrisy is always wrong, even though what we admire most in our politicians is hypocrisy. It’s just that when we like the hypocrisy, we call it courage.
Take campaign finance reform. Sen. John McCain is considered one of the bravest politicians in America, at least by elite journalists who often define their jobs as the search for hypocrisy. Why is he a paladin of political courage? Because he dedicated himself to the cause of campaign finance reform. And why did he commit his eternal honor to slaying the dragon of Big Money? Because he took some himself.
McCain was part of the once-infamous Keating Five campaign finance scandal. He didn’t enjoy having his integrity questioned. So, he decided to attack the system. And yet, we don’t fret over McCain’s “hypocrisy” for waging a battle against a system he benefited from.
But McCain’s experience is different, you might say, since he felt his integrity was unfairly besmirched in the Keating scandal. Fair enough. But do I really need to call the roll of Democrats who took — and continue to take — precisely the sort of huge donations from corporations and PACs they want to outlaw?
I must have missed the condemnatory New York Times headline declaring “Democrats Call for End of Contributions of a Type they Once Received.”
As often as not, our political heroes (and villains, depending on where you’re coming from) are hypocrites. As attorney general, Robert Kennedy was more of a threat to civil rights than critics imagine John Ashcroft to be. It was RFK, remember, who bugged Martin Luther King. And yet, when Kennedy became a born-again liberal he became a secular messiah to many liberals.
Choose your poison. Bill Clinton was a huge supporter of feminist causes. Ronald Reagan was a former union boss. Woodrow Wilson was an unreconstructed bigot who championed human rights and democracy. Teddy Roosevelt was a flaming hypocrite who was regularly denounced by the wealthy as a “traitor to his class” for his attacks on the Trusts and other so-called “malefactors of great wealth.” Richard Nixon was supposedly a bigoted and anti-Semitic conservative who hired and relied on Jews, supported Israel and pretty much made affirmative action into the quota system liberals consider sacrosanct.
When you sit back and think about it, we largely define political courage as the willingness to contradict yourself. Richard Nixon’s trip to China, Bill Clinton’s denunciation of Sister Soulja, President Bush’s sop to the steel industry: These overtures were all hailed as bold and brave by those who agreed with them and hypocritical by those who didn’t.
When Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, the liberal establishment exploded with charges of hypocrisy. “This blundering intervention,” The New York Times thundered, “is a body blow to the President’s own credibility.”
Calling the pardon “a betrayal of the public trust,” Ted Kennedy asked, “Is there one system of justice for the average citizen and another system for the high and mighty?” This from the man who finagled his way out of a homicide charge. Talk about hypocrisy.
A quarter century later, Ford received the Profiles in Courage award for his pardon decision. The award is supposed to go to politicians who make brave but unpopular decisions. Yet when Ted Kennedy gave him the award, The New York Times applauded, hypocritically.
Indeed, if you wade through the list of award recipients, you’ll find many hypocrites. Among them, former Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker received the award in 1992 for forcing an income tax on voters after swearing he wouldn’t. If conservatives gave out the award instead of unreconstructed liberals, we’d have to call it the Profiles in Hypocrisy Award.
Now, I don’t think hypocrisy is good, but it’s not nearly as terrible as we’re taught to believe. If hypocrisy were the most terrible thing in the world, we would demand that overeaters endorse gluttony. So is Bush a hypocrite for wanting to ban a legal and accepted practice he — and thousands of others — benefited from? Of course. But you still need to explain why that’s bad.
Jonah Goldberg is the editor of National Review Online.
Ooooh! Great turn of phrase. Keep up the good work.
To set the record straight, and to let Pres. Bush get back to his job as President, I am willing to assume the mantle of the World's Biggest Hypocrite. Here are my qualifications:
Up until my 30's, all I cared about was my own hedonistic pleasure. Today, my pleasure is derived from being a husband and father to 3 great kids (two teenagers and a 5 month old). More and more energy is exerted to supervise a blossoming, and typically headstrong, 15 year old young lady.
As a younger lad, I thought pro-choice was a good thing. Today, I am ardently anti-choice on abortion.
As a young father, I agreed with my wife that we would never deliberately embarrass our children in public. Today, when they've exhausted my patience while we're out in public, I unabashedly do my 'Happy Dance', whereupon the two teenagers cower in mortified embarrassment.
Up until a few years ago, I barely paid lip service to the blessings the Lord has bestowed upon me. Now I look forward to attending Sunday Mass with my family, and the other church activities that we participate in.
There it is. I've laid just a few of my qualifications on the table. Now can we let Pres. Bush get back to work?
This is true, for the same reason that people are more afraid to fly after a plane crash or more fearful of shark attacks when a few are over reported one summer. Hearing it time after time, over and over, has an effect on the weak minded or those who only occasionally pay attention: the vast majority of voters.
It's all emotion. And just like how the politicians and talking heads can talk up or down the value of the stock market, they can support or damage a politician's reputation and standing in the polls. It just takes an issue that resonates and seems to make sense. It doesn't have to be true, only seem as though it could be true.
No matter that Harken has been investigated by everybody time and time again (or every time Bush seeks a political office), with the current belief about the market and poor economy, coupled with the historical belief about the tie between Republicans and the Corporate world, Bush's approval ratings have dropped some. The power of the press in action. Good thing the politics of personal destruction are over! Hardee har har.
The White House won't pursue a national identification card system, despite renewed clamor from some people in government and industry for the idea after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. "We are not even considering the idea," said a Bush spokesman today.
The White House's chilly reception followed a recent surge of interest in the idea of national ID cards, including an offer this week from Oracle Corp. CEO Larry Ellison to have his company bear software costs for such a system (see story).
from Computerworld, 09/27/01
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yesterdays reversal is just pragmatism, I guess.
Regards
J.R.
To some, nay many, that is called finesse.
jimtorr: "Hypocisy is defined as the feigning to be what one is not; extreme insincerity; dissimulation."
These are also my thoughts. A changed mind, a changed heart, often comes through feeling guilty at what one has done wrong or seeing how it could have had bad consequences. In Paul's case, he clearly was convicted of his wrongdoing, even though, as he persecuted Christians, he believed what he was doing was honorable and right. After God showed Paul the error of his ways, Paul stopped the persecution and, instead, became a Christian. That was not hypocritical.
Bush's changed mind on certain types of business dealings/operations is also not hypocritical. He saw how what he, himself, previously did could (and has) afforded those with evil intents to defraud. In the current scandalous business climate of the corporate world, something must be done to protect the innocents from those with evil intentions.
This is not hypocrisy. It's called a change of heart, a willingness and desire to learn from past mistakes (made by oneself or others) or errors in judgment. It's realizing how certain actions could be perceived as dishonest or how those same actions could be used for dishonest gain by evil/corrupt people. These changes of heart, these learning experiences, these realizations, are things which all humanity should strive to achieve and not be persecuted for.
Bush is no hypocrite. He's a man of principle, who listens to God, and others, so he can improve the road upon which he travels, for himself and for those who follow. What more can we expect of any man?
Both times he was booed.
Maybe their "IS" hope for America, if lefty LA is "getting" it. :o)
Well, maybe I could be the second "biggest hypocrite", then...heheHE! (and, good work, N.H.N....happy "dancing"!) ; )
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.