Over the last several years, I have been closely affiliated with the libertarian movement. I worked for the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, a wonderful organization that supports free-market groups around the country. During my time with CGKF, I had many opportunities to communicate with prominent libertarian thinkers, who were highly intelligent and persuasive. I continue to be active in the free-market movement.
Although there are numerous strands of libertarianism, all libertarians are united by the belief that a just government exists to protect individual rights and do little else. On matters of political economy and philosophy, I see eye-to-eye with most libertarians on most issues. However, there is one area that continues to be a major point of contention.
At the risk of generalizing, most libertarians have a special disdain for Republican politicians who do not fight for transformational change. By transformational change libertarians mean a radical departure from our current mixed-economy that boasts a massive welfare state and is constrained by burdensome regulations. Libertarians vehemently oppose the strategy of incrementalism, advocating major leaps in policy instead.
The brilliant libertarian scholar and historian David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the libertarian Cato Institute, once said that he did not think Ronald Reagan was a very good President because he did not abolish the Department of Education or privatize Social Security. The free-market conservative scholars, activists and politicians who helped drive the Reagan Revolution supported these libertarian proposals in theory, but the President and his Cabinet did not attempt to implement them--and as we shall see, for good reasons.
To my shock, David Boaz also noted that many libertarians feel like Thomas Jefferson betrayed the libertarian cause by purchasing Louisiana from Napoleon and waging war against the Barbary pirates of North Africa who were terrorizing and hijacking American merchant ships, and often killing or enslaving the ships' crews.
David Boaz represents the majority of libertarian thinkers who believe that any departure from a pure libertarian ideal is a betrayal of that ideal. Furthermore, libertarians believe that political compromise and pragmatism are convenient cop outs that hinder progress towards greater liberty.
I strongly disagree with this view and it is the primary source of my beef with the libertarian movement.
To begin with, impugning Thomas Jefferson for expanding and significantly strengthening the young and fragile republic is naive, for if it wasn't for Jefferson's vision of an American navy that ultimately subdued the menacing Barbary pirates, America might have been fatally vulnerable to British aggression in the War of 1812. Moreover, do libertarians really believe that the Constitution prohibits the Commander-in-Chief from deploying the military against an enemy with a track record of murdering and enslaving Americans? The Constitution is not a suicide pact and neither the Louisiana Purchase nor the just war against the Barbary pirates violated the Constitution or betrayed America's founding principles.
To castigate Ronald Reagan for not achieving transformational libertarian change seems to me equally foolhardy. The political process is highly complex, and all politicians are constrained by precedents, rules, and procedures that make transformational change very difficult if not impossible. We are witnessing this first hand as the Health Care legislation nears its final stages. Barack Obama (and I would venture to guess most Congressional Democrats) supports a single-payer healthcare system. But due to a plethora of political constraints, neither Barack Obama nor Democratic leaders dared to even seriously consider single-payer. In fact, it appears almost certain that even the so-called public option will not be included in the final healthcare bill. And this is despite the fact that the Democrats have a super-majority in the Senate and a significant majority in the House.
Had Ronald Reagan committed political capital to the goal of abolishing the Department of Education or privatizing Social Security, he would have been thoroughly defeated by the Democrat-controlled House and humiliated. Such an ambitious goal would have made the failure all that more dramatic, and rendered Reagan largely inefficacious for the remainder of his term.
Foregoing this political suicide mission, President Reagan instead chose to eloquently defend the principles of liberty, while fighting for significant, but non-transformational change. He succeeded in lowering taxes, growing our economy, stimulating entrepreneurship, and reining in some wasteful spending.
President Reagan wisely differentiated between idealism and pragmatism. What good is idealism if it doesn't affect positive change? Libertarians resent what they view as Reagan's lackluster efforts to rein in the welfare state, but would the country have been better of if President Reagan unwaveringly embraced idealism at the expense of failing to push through any pro free-market initiatives?
The axiom that we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good should teach libertarians an important political lesson: it is better to fight for incremental change than to stubbornly perpetuate the status quo just because the ideal is unattainable. Libertarians cannot ignore the constraints imposed by the political process, and should not view politicians who compromise in order to advance pro-free market change as spineless, or worse, perfidious. The freedom movement should continue to defend the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism and attack the folly of the welfare state. But libertarians ought to accept the immutable law that in politics, if you allow idealism to trump pragmatism, you will not advance the ideal.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Monday, January 4, 2010
The Art of Politicization
It wasn't long after the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack that leading conservatives doubled down on questioning the wisdom of President Obama's anti-terror policies, including the closing of Guntanamo Bay and trying terrorists in American criminal courts. Much of the criticism was tempered, addressing legitimate points of controversy over how to keep America safe.
Notably, Barak Obama's foremost critic on national security matters, former Vice President Dick Cheney, was quite harsh in his criticism:
The charge that Dick Cheney is politicizing the war on terror is equally hypocritical. Take for example the unhinged and notorious Bush-hater, Mike Lupika's, latest column in the NYDaily News:
Does Mike Lupika honestly believe that it's only politicization when the right criticizes the left's anti-terror policies, or is he simply intellectually dishonest? Listening to Democrats feign outrage over Dick Cheney's comments while simultaneously blaming George Bush's policies for making us less safe, I think it's a combination of the two. Clearly, Mr. Lupika has bought into the fallacious platitude that the "politics of fear" is a uniquely Republican tactic. But not even Mr. Lupika can be that willfully ignorant.
Instead of debating the merit of Cheney's argument, the left is attacking him for daring to make the argument in the first place, as if national security matters are beyond the scope of debate. Perhaps for the sake of civility and national unity, Cheney should have offered a more subtle line of attack. But certainly, the Democrats have not afforded Dick Cheney or George Bush that same courtesy.
Notably, Barak Obama's foremost critic on national security matters, former Vice President Dick Cheney, was quite harsh in his criticism:
Predictably, Dick Cheney's blunt statement sparked wide outrage among liberals, who accused Dick Cheney and other critics of "politicizing the war on terror." I have written in the past that a favorite left-wing talking point is that Republicans use the "politics of fear" to win elections. I explained that this charge is hypocritical, since virtually every left-wing message--from global warming hysteria to blocking social security reform--is primarily grounded in fear.
As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.
He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office.
The charge that Dick Cheney is politicizing the war on terror is equally hypocritical. Take for example the unhinged and notorious Bush-hater, Mike Lupika's, latest column in the NYDaily News:
As usual it starts with a has-been like Dick Cheney acting as if that war is some party issue, as if the country is somehow more vulnerable to fanatics because Democrats have the White House and the Congress, as if all those who hate America and want to kill Americans see this tremendous opening to do that because Barack Obama is in charge now...Cheney looks at a near tragedy on Christmas and sees opportunity. When he does, he doesn't just sound like some old crank in the park. He sounds like a bum.So there you have it: Dick Cheney is out of line for suggesting that Obama is making America less safe and using the incident as an "opportunity" to attack the President. But Lupika's indignation belies the fact that the left has consistently and unrelentingly politicized every element of George Bush's national security agenda, arguing that Guantanamo Bay has made us less safe and more vulnerable to attack, as has The Iraq War, the NSA Surveillance program, CIA interrogations, etc. In fact, in a stroke of brilliant irony, Mr. Lupika repeats some of these charges in the same breath as he declares that "war isn't a party issue":
He [Cheney] acts now as if the last administration were some kind of triumph, as if the economy collapsed on somebody else's watch the way the towers of the World Trade Center did.Did you get Lupika's not-so-veiled attack on the Bush Administration, implying that George Bush is accountable for 9/11 because it happened on his watch? Adding that "the America Obama inherited is hated more now than it was pre-Bush," Mr. Lupika is blatantly politicizing the war on terror in an article condemning the politicization of the war on terror.
Does Mike Lupika honestly believe that it's only politicization when the right criticizes the left's anti-terror policies, or is he simply intellectually dishonest? Listening to Democrats feign outrage over Dick Cheney's comments while simultaneously blaming George Bush's policies for making us less safe, I think it's a combination of the two. Clearly, Mr. Lupika has bought into the fallacious platitude that the "politics of fear" is a uniquely Republican tactic. But not even Mr. Lupika can be that willfully ignorant.
Instead of debating the merit of Cheney's argument, the left is attacking him for daring to make the argument in the first place, as if national security matters are beyond the scope of debate. Perhaps for the sake of civility and national unity, Cheney should have offered a more subtle line of attack. But certainly, the Democrats have not afforded Dick Cheney or George Bush that same courtesy.
Monday, December 28, 2009
The Filibuster: Friend or Foe?
Senate Democrats, liberal interest groups, and their allies in the media are growing increasingly angry at the perpetual filibuster threat posed by the Republican minority. Over the weekend, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) announced plans to reintroduce legislation that would effectively eliminate the filibuster.
To be fair to Senator Harkin, he did introduce similar legislation in 1995 when the Democrats were in the minority. However, news stories and op-eds questioning the wisdom of the filibuster are more prevalent now that the Democrats control both chambers of Congress. On the CBS News Blog, Bob Fuss laments the filibuster in an article entitled "How Filibusters are Strangling the Senate." The liberal columnist Paul Krugman makes a similar argument in his New York Times column. But these columnists didn't object when Democrats used the filibuster during the Bush Administration. This is because the left-leaning media is indignant that the Republican filibuster could derail a liberal agenda, but were all too happy too see a Democrat filibuster undermine a conservative agenda.
This kind of transparent bias and hypocrisy extends beyond the politics of the filibuster. TV anchors and pundits are quick to echo the Democratic Party line that Republicans are "obstructionists" and label the Republican Party the "party of no." Yet when Democrats were in the minority, Republicans also accused Democrats of obstructionism and the media did not legitimize that talking point.
In 2005, after the Democrats successfully filibustered ten of George Bush's high-profile nominees to the federal courts of appeals, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to invoke the nuclear option, which would have required a simple majority to approve a judicial nominee. The Democrats and most in the mainstream press cried foul. Now the tables have turned, and the Republicans (and centrist Democrats) use the filibuster threat, while Democrats ponder some variation of the nuclear option. But as Byron York points out in the Washington Examiner, there is a major substantive distinction between filibustering judicial nominees and filibustering legislation:
To be fair to Senator Harkin, he did introduce similar legislation in 1995 when the Democrats were in the minority. However, news stories and op-eds questioning the wisdom of the filibuster are more prevalent now that the Democrats control both chambers of Congress. On the CBS News Blog, Bob Fuss laments the filibuster in an article entitled "How Filibusters are Strangling the Senate." The liberal columnist Paul Krugman makes a similar argument in his New York Times column. But these columnists didn't object when Democrats used the filibuster during the Bush Administration. This is because the left-leaning media is indignant that the Republican filibuster could derail a liberal agenda, but were all too happy too see a Democrat filibuster undermine a conservative agenda.
This kind of transparent bias and hypocrisy extends beyond the politics of the filibuster. TV anchors and pundits are quick to echo the Democratic Party line that Republicans are "obstructionists" and label the Republican Party the "party of no." Yet when Democrats were in the minority, Republicans also accused Democrats of obstructionism and the media did not legitimize that talking point.
In 2005, after the Democrats successfully filibustered ten of George Bush's high-profile nominees to the federal courts of appeals, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to invoke the nuclear option, which would have required a simple majority to approve a judicial nominee. The Democrats and most in the mainstream press cried foul. Now the tables have turned, and the Republicans (and centrist Democrats) use the filibuster threat, while Democrats ponder some variation of the nuclear option. But as Byron York points out in the Washington Examiner, there is a major substantive distinction between filibustering judicial nominees and filibustering legislation:
The argument was that the judicial filibuster undermined the Senate's constitutional responsibility to give advice and consent on the president's judicial nominations. When legislation is filibustered, it's possible for a bill's sponsors to make changes that will satisfy opponents. But what happens when a nominee is filibustered? No advice and consent. The Constitution does not require the Senate to pass a national health care bill, but it does require it to confirm or deny the president's appointees...So Republicans came up with what was called the "nuclear option"... GOP lawmakers made clear at the time that they were not going after the legislative filibuster...(emphasis added)It is understandable for politicians to support a parliamentary tactic when it advances their agenda, and oppose it when it does not. It makes sense for those in the majority to label the recalcitrant minority "obstructionist," and then when political fortunes are reversed, turn around and obstruct. This is somewhat hypocritical, but such is the art of politics that self-interest usually trumps consistency. What is not acceptable or intellectually honest is for so many in the media to bemoan the filibuster when it threatens a liberal agenda and celebrate it when it hinders a conservative one.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The Sin of Omission Revisited
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), who gained national fame earlier this year when he accused Republicans of wanting "sick people to die", compared America's healthcare system to the "Holocaust", and declared that Fox News and the Republicans are "the enemy", is back. Following in the footsteps of Hugo Chavez, Rep. Grayson wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding that Florida resident Angie Langley be prosecuted and imprisoned for five years. Her crime? Ms. Langley has launched a website critical of Congressman Grayson. The website documents Grayson's various improprieties and allows visitors to donate to a Committee seeking to defeat the Congressman in next year's election. As far as partisan websites go, it is fairly tame and respectful. Much worse things have been said about much better men than Mr. Grayson.
Yet the Congressman will have none of it. He is demanding Ms. Langley be sentenced to five years in prison, citing a laughably flimsy set of criteria. It is only fitting that one of the most hateful and unhinged elected officials is embracing his inner-Stalin.
And is the media at the forefront of this unprecedented Congressional hubris? As is almost always the case when a Democratic politician does something untoward (never mind outrageous), the mainstream press is largely silent. It seems that only Republican misdeeds are met by scorn and indignation. Conservatives have justifiably grumbled about this glaring double standard for years, but their objections have fallen on deaf years. It is a constant source of frustration for conservatives that liberal sins are downplayed, while Republican indiscretions, trivial or not, are gleefully flaunted.
Just imagine the headlines had a Republican Congressman written a letter to a Republican Attorney General demanding that the owner of a liberal website be prosecuted and imprisoned for dissent. Cries of fascism would have been ubiquitous. The liberal dissident would have popped up on every network and cable news show and celebrated as a hero. Yet because Grayson is a Democrat, there is little news coverage and almost no outrage.
Alan Grayson may be a national disgrace, but the media's gross under-reporting of the Congressman's abhorrent antics is just as disgraceful.
Yet the Congressman will have none of it. He is demanding Ms. Langley be sentenced to five years in prison, citing a laughably flimsy set of criteria. It is only fitting that one of the most hateful and unhinged elected officials is embracing his inner-Stalin.
And is the media at the forefront of this unprecedented Congressional hubris? As is almost always the case when a Democratic politician does something untoward (never mind outrageous), the mainstream press is largely silent. It seems that only Republican misdeeds are met by scorn and indignation. Conservatives have justifiably grumbled about this glaring double standard for years, but their objections have fallen on deaf years. It is a constant source of frustration for conservatives that liberal sins are downplayed, while Republican indiscretions, trivial or not, are gleefully flaunted.
Just imagine the headlines had a Republican Congressman written a letter to a Republican Attorney General demanding that the owner of a liberal website be prosecuted and imprisoned for dissent. Cries of fascism would have been ubiquitous. The liberal dissident would have popped up on every network and cable news show and celebrated as a hero. Yet because Grayson is a Democrat, there is little news coverage and almost no outrage.
Alan Grayson may be a national disgrace, but the media's gross under-reporting of the Congressman's abhorrent antics is just as disgraceful.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Missing Doctrine
After hearing President Obama deliver two of the most seminal speeches on foreign policy so far into his Presidency, historians and pundits have been trying to discern the Obama Doctrine.
Following the West Point speech, disillusioned liberals were infuriated that Barak Obama chose to escalate the war in Afghanistan, while hawkish conservatives were pleased by the President's decision to follow the counsel of his generals (and not his left-wing base), but critical of the arbitrary timeline. Thus, both factions found the speech confusing; liberal doves could not understand how a Nobel Peace Prize winner could double down on President Bush's war, and conservative hawks didn't get why a necessary war mandated an arbitrary exit strategy.
After the Oslo speech, liberals were once again perplexed by the ostensible contradiction of sending more troops to promote peace (really, a non-contradiction as I explain in the Peace through War blog post) and conservatives resented the frequent admonishments of controversial Bush era policies.
No one seemed to be completely satisfied by the President's two major foreign policy speeches. But I think the larger story--and one that does not bode well for Obama's legacy-- is that no central Obama Doctrine emerged. There was nothing unique in either of the speech. Obama declared that as Head of State he has a responsibility to defend his nation. Ok. Obama argued that success in Afghanistan is critical to America's national security. Ok. Virtually everything Obama said has been said before, often by his much maligned predecessor. Interestingly, there were times when Obama enunciated elements of the Bush Doctrine:
To many liberals the President's Oslo speech was reminiscent of George Bush. And they are right. Throughout the speech Obama invoked numerous Bush themes, most notably his recognition that there is evil in the world. Recall how mercilessly the left mocked George Bush for his characterization of Al Qaeda fighters as "evildoers". Well, presumably to the chagrin of left-wing moral relativists, here was Obama making the identical claim.
In the end, President Obama made a case for war but he failed to unveil an Obama Doctrine. Liberals were left disheartened, conservatives lukewarm, and historians scratching their heads looking for the missing Obama doctrine.
Following the West Point speech, disillusioned liberals were infuriated that Barak Obama chose to escalate the war in Afghanistan, while hawkish conservatives were pleased by the President's decision to follow the counsel of his generals (and not his left-wing base), but critical of the arbitrary timeline. Thus, both factions found the speech confusing; liberal doves could not understand how a Nobel Peace Prize winner could double down on President Bush's war, and conservative hawks didn't get why a necessary war mandated an arbitrary exit strategy.
After the Oslo speech, liberals were once again perplexed by the ostensible contradiction of sending more troops to promote peace (really, a non-contradiction as I explain in the Peace through War blog post) and conservatives resented the frequent admonishments of controversial Bush era policies.
No one seemed to be completely satisfied by the President's two major foreign policy speeches. But I think the larger story--and one that does not bode well for Obama's legacy-- is that no central Obama Doctrine emerged. There was nothing unique in either of the speech. Obama declared that as Head of State he has a responsibility to defend his nation. Ok. Obama argued that success in Afghanistan is critical to America's national security. Ok. Virtually everything Obama said has been said before, often by his much maligned predecessor. Interestingly, there were times when Obama enunciated elements of the Bush Doctrine:
And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights and tend for the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are; that is the source, the moral source of America's authority.This is a fascinating declaration considering that the idea of America fostering freedom around the world is perhaps the central Bush Doctrine to which President Bush devoted the bulk of his Second Inaugural Address. The left never gave George Bush credit for establishing a link between America's national security and global freedom, and then candidate Obama joined the chorus of liberal detractors who mocked the idea of America's exceptionalism being used as a vehicle for freedom. But that is precisely what Barack Obama implies in his West Point speech.
To many liberals the President's Oslo speech was reminiscent of George Bush. And they are right. Throughout the speech Obama invoked numerous Bush themes, most notably his recognition that there is evil in the world. Recall how mercilessly the left mocked George Bush for his characterization of Al Qaeda fighters as "evildoers". Well, presumably to the chagrin of left-wing moral relativists, here was Obama making the identical claim.
In the end, President Obama made a case for war but he failed to unveil an Obama Doctrine. Liberals were left disheartened, conservatives lukewarm, and historians scratching their heads looking for the missing Obama doctrine.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Peace through War
It is amusing hearing disaffected liberal Democrats struggle to understand how President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize squares with his Afghan war strategy, which entails sending 30,000 more troops to the troubled region. These detractors seem to think that there is an inherent contradiction between fighting for peace and waging war against violent extremists.
This false paradox is emblematic of the Nobel Prize Committee's sophomoric world view: war is never justified and peace is achieved through handshakes, smiles and concessions. According to this world view, Neville Chamberlain should have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1938 and Winston Churchill should have been denounced as a war monger.
Over the course of history, hundreds of millions of people were slaughtered (and continue to be slaughtered) by tyrants. In cases where these tyrants were finally stopped, war, not peace, was the primary instrument of deterrence. It is staggeringly ignorant to uphold pacifism as an absolute good, for pacifism in the face of violence being waged by a tyrant is tantamount to sanctioned mass suicide.
The merits of the Afghanistan War are debatable, but what is not debatable, is that war is sometimes necessary to achieve peace. Free and noble men have for centuries taken up arms against tyrants and murderers, thereby saving and liberating millions of people. Had they instead chosen peace and compromise, men like Hitler would have slaughtered masses with impunity. It is therefore intellectually naive to contend that any leader who escalates a war is by definition not advancing peace, and any leader who veers away from armed conflict is a peacemaker.
3JCH4BKE2XE5
This false paradox is emblematic of the Nobel Prize Committee's sophomoric world view: war is never justified and peace is achieved through handshakes, smiles and concessions. According to this world view, Neville Chamberlain should have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1938 and Winston Churchill should have been denounced as a war monger.
Over the course of history, hundreds of millions of people were slaughtered (and continue to be slaughtered) by tyrants. In cases where these tyrants were finally stopped, war, not peace, was the primary instrument of deterrence. It is staggeringly ignorant to uphold pacifism as an absolute good, for pacifism in the face of violence being waged by a tyrant is tantamount to sanctioned mass suicide.
The merits of the Afghanistan War are debatable, but what is not debatable, is that war is sometimes necessary to achieve peace. Free and noble men have for centuries taken up arms against tyrants and murderers, thereby saving and liberating millions of people. Had they instead chosen peace and compromise, men like Hitler would have slaughtered masses with impunity. It is therefore intellectually naive to contend that any leader who escalates a war is by definition not advancing peace, and any leader who veers away from armed conflict is a peacemaker.
3JCH4BKE2XE5
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The Art of Hypocrisy
As sex scandals involving celebrities and politicians pile up, a common theme is emerging among liberal commentators: conservatives who commit adultery are hypocrites, because conservatives defend traditional values and the institution of marriage. Therefore, the argument goes, the sin of adultery is more heinous if committed by a conservative.
Joy Behar is just the latest liberal commentator to make this (almost) unbelievably idiotic argument. Tune into MSNBC, and you will hear David Shuster, Contessa Brewer and a host of left-wing commentators play the hypocrisy card.
Unbeknownst to most liberals making the claim, the implication of the hypocrisy argument is straightforward: liberals like Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, et al, who commit adultery are not hypocrites, because they are pro-adultery. That's right, if conservative adulterers are hypocrites because they stand up for traditional values (like marital fidelity), then liberal aduleters must not be hypocrites because they don't think that adultery is wrong. The absurdity of this argument is self-evident. Liberal adulterers, like their conservative counterparts, always repent and usually issue a public apology. Naturally, the mea culpa suggests that liberal adulterers do in fact recognize that adultery is unethical. Therefore, they are equally as "hypocritical" as the conservative adulterers.
Because conservatives tend to highlight the importance of family values more consistently than liberals, liberals take a perverse pleasure in exposing conservative adulterers (even those who don't run on social issues) as hypocrites. This is understandable. But it certainly does not then follow that liberals aren't being hypocritical when they commit adultery. I have never heard a liberal adulterer caught in the act proclaim that he is "pro-adultery", and therefore immune to criticism. Perhaps it makes sense to hold conservatives who pontificate about family values to a higher standard than liberals, but it is ludicrous to suggest that liberal adulterers aren't hypocrites. Until we hear a liberal politician proclaim that he is pro-adultery, we can safely conclude that all aduleters, regardless of political affiliation, are technically hypocrites.
Joy Behar is just the latest liberal commentator to make this (almost) unbelievably idiotic argument. Tune into MSNBC, and you will hear David Shuster, Contessa Brewer and a host of left-wing commentators play the hypocrisy card.
Unbeknownst to most liberals making the claim, the implication of the hypocrisy argument is straightforward: liberals like Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, et al, who commit adultery are not hypocrites, because they are pro-adultery. That's right, if conservative adulterers are hypocrites because they stand up for traditional values (like marital fidelity), then liberal aduleters must not be hypocrites because they don't think that adultery is wrong. The absurdity of this argument is self-evident. Liberal adulterers, like their conservative counterparts, always repent and usually issue a public apology. Naturally, the mea culpa suggests that liberal adulterers do in fact recognize that adultery is unethical. Therefore, they are equally as "hypocritical" as the conservative adulterers.
Because conservatives tend to highlight the importance of family values more consistently than liberals, liberals take a perverse pleasure in exposing conservative adulterers (even those who don't run on social issues) as hypocrites. This is understandable. But it certainly does not then follow that liberals aren't being hypocritical when they commit adultery. I have never heard a liberal adulterer caught in the act proclaim that he is "pro-adultery", and therefore immune to criticism. Perhaps it makes sense to hold conservatives who pontificate about family values to a higher standard than liberals, but it is ludicrous to suggest that liberal adulterers aren't hypocrites. Until we hear a liberal politician proclaim that he is pro-adultery, we can safely conclude that all aduleters, regardless of political affiliation, are technically hypocrites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)