Drudge makes a point

Hypocrisies

The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines hypocrisy as: 1, a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion, and/or 2, an act or instance of hypocrisy. It ascribes the origin of the word as from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage.


Many pundits and politicians are fond of hurling hypocrite, explicitly or implicitly, at opponents. In other words, he who does not practice what he preaches shouldn't preach that which he doesn't practice. What is lost in such assertions is context and temporality. For example, a prominent political figure advocates abstinence education; it is claimed (on tenuous grounds, incidentally, but irrelevant to the gedankenexperiment presented here), that this person did not observe abstinence twenty-some years ago. Therefore, either the individual should stop supporting abstinence education, or his or her behavior, decades ago, is fair game for investigation. Such is the "logic" of hypocrisy, or so it seems.


Author Gary Wills produced many conservative writings decades ago, and supported numerous Republican candidates; subsequently he had an awakening of sorts, and became a liberal pundit. Should Wills' writings and actions of forty years ago be held against him, as evidence of hypocrisy? There might be any number of reasons to decry Gary Wills' oeuvre, either early or late. However, he changed, in full public view (much to the distress of William F. Buckley and others), moving from right to left; Wills' transformation was not necessarily hypocrisy. An example of part-playing would have while pretending conservatism early on, and then opening the closet door into a light-infused room.


Regardless of anyone's previous behavior, she or he is innocent of hypocrisy if the current ethic is proclaimed in word and sought to be lived out in deed. Even if a person failed, through human weakness, to live up to the standard they accept, that individual is not necessarily a hypocrite. Look at the definition again: it is a feigning, a pretense. The way that we come to know that hypocrisy is not present in ourselves is when either our words and actions do correspond, or we sincerely confess our failures.


There is another kind of contemporary hypocrisy, that fulfills, and then surpasses the definition above. This is the case of rationalizing "previously" immoral behavior by claiming that moral standards have changed. The best known, and perhaps earliest authoritative assertion of this hypocrisy, is Henry XIII. He, or his lieutenants, invented a new "sin": marrying his brother's widow, Catherine. He desired rationalization of his desired annulment/divorce from Catherine, in order to marry Anne. Present rationalized, "previous" sins included fornication and adultery and related actions and conditions. However, to invoke a Nineteenth Century riddle: 

"Father, ... if I should call this cow's tail a leg, how many legs would she have?""Why five, to be sure.""Why, no father; would calling it a leg make it one?" 

The hypocrisy of the Pharisees, as decried by Jesus, was a conscious act on their part. Importantly, not every Pharisee was a hypocrite; Paul, for example, really believed in the righteousness of the Pharisaic cause, even to justification of the stoning of Stephen. Paul was profoundly wrong, as he subsequently confessed, but he was not a hypocrite.    


So it is that there are current, infectious hypocrisies, including the new one that pretends to change moral law. However, those most often accused of feigning may be innocent of the charge, if not fully innocent of sin.


A temporary best-seller of a few years, What's the Matter with Kansas?, questioned why Kansans, and other Midwesterners, did not vote their own self-interest. Were these caricatures hypocrites? Of course, one could question the premise, unselfish voters. But, to complicate the matter, were Kansans conscious of their own "irrationality"? Slippery, isn't this hypocrisy stuff?

Deceptive & Illegal?

Congressman Ed Perlmutter (D, Colorado) sent a franked mailer to his District 7 constituents last week.

The cover reads: Important Facts on the Proposal to Eliminate Medicare. In just the title, deception is clear; there is no credible proposal to eliminate Medicare. And further deceptions permeate the flyer.

Inside, the heading reads: Ed Perlmutter: "I'll Fight to Save Medicare and Protect Seniors," and the text begins:

Dear Neighbor,
The Republican majority in Congress is proposing to end Medicare as we know it and balance the federal budget by shifting the burden to seniors. I promise to fight this effort. 

There is no Republican majority in Congress; the Democrats hold the majority in the Senate; Republicans hold only the House. And, precisely how are Republicans balancing the budget by burdening seniors? He doesn't say.

A key, real fact not mentioned in Perlmutter's flyer is that if nothing is done, Medicare will end itself, as it will run out of money. It will actually grow to dominate the entire Federal budget.

He also plays the "tax cut" game, writing:

While we must make budget cuts, I refuse to make seniors pay so that millionaires and billionaires can get tax breaks.

What Republicans have proposed as a means of saving Medicare (which must be done) will not affect any current seniors. None.

We are in the midst of an economic recovery that is not happening anywhere fast enough -- the last thing that employers need if they are to grow their workforce is more taxes.

The Congressman needs to refund the cost of this political flyer to the Government as it is clearer and solely a campaign document. And, he need to acquaint himself with the facts.

Inevitability

Ken Sweeney of Ricochet contends: Film, TV, and novels serve Conservatism regardless of ideology from creators.

"...who wants to see a TV show about the collective workers of the world uniting?""... to eradicate this menace [ghost infestation]. Who are you gonna call?  Not the government."
"... the A-Team solv[es] the problems that government can’t"

Subsidiarity is essential in any persuasive story. Isn't that what Sweeney is getting at?

Please put that tech-guilt back on the shelf

Peter Orszag writes:

If the new personalized health technologies wind up being used disproportionately by people with more education and income, driving that group toward even better health, they will probably cause the gap in life expectancy to widen still further.

An email to the author...

Mr. Orszag,

Thanks for your Gloomberg (oops, Freudian typo; I mean Bloomberg) article on improved health technology.

You worry about lifespan gaps because those who adopt the new technology are likely to live longer, as it is the more affluent who will benefit the most because they can afford the WiFi scales and Dick Tracy wrist computers.

Consider something of only marginal health consequence, but which provides an alternative view. I assume that there is a gap in the distribution of big plasma video screens between affluent and less-thans. A similar gap existed in the Sixties between those with Living Color TVs and B&Ws. Is there a dwelling in any of the 50 states today which has only B&W? If there is, they must have obtained one of the subsidized converters when the analog-to-digital conversion occurred or their analog B&W has antenna terminal transformed to an F-connector screwed on to the cable attached to the cable box. 

Please stop feeling (seemingly) guilty. As a technology early-adopter, you are paving the way for the rest of us to benefit. If what you are using works, the price will drop so the rest of us down the income scale can afford it, sooner rather than later.It worked with color TV, VCRs, DVDs, and now Blu-ray. Why not health tech, too?

Rex Pilger

Arvada, Colorado

Chasing DOMA

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. The bill had two principal sections:

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.
...

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

and

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

...
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Now, DOMA is being challenged in the courts and, the Justice Department has indicated that it is unwilling to defend the act. In the absence of the Administration's advocacy, the House of Representatives decided to intervene and provide a defense of DOMA. Attorney and former Solictor General Paul Clement of Atlanta-based King & Spalding, accepted responsibility. Lobbying of the law firm by Human Rights Campaign led K&S to withdraw from representation of the House. Paul Clement resigned from K&S moving to another firm, continues to represent the House in the DOMA Defense. A review of these developments from a pro-DOMA perspective can be found here; the HRC position is here.

The lobbying by HRC is ultimately ironic if not intrinsically contradictory and, ultimately, destructive of marriage, whether traditional or not-so-traditional.

By demanding that H&S drop defense of DOMA, HRC forced the firm into breaking a contract, whether ethical or legal. Why is the marriage contract so important to HRC if other contracts must be broken in order for the marriage to be expanded to include same-sex partners? Doesn't this very strategy of HRC undermine the value of the bond that HRC wants adopted for their constituency. And, what value do contracts have to H&S?

A strange, destructive loop we have here.