Hypocrisy and Politics

Posted on September 6, 2008
Filed Under Politics |

Don’t worry, the concern is primarily philosophical and not political. Here’s my question. Everyone (on both sides) is all up in arms over hypocrisy. It’s hypocritical of Obama activists to attack Palin with sexist arguments when criticizing sexism elsewhere. Likewise it’s hypocritical of McCain activists to defend Palin’s family while criticizing Britany Spear’s mom and so forth. (Yes, I’m largely following the following Daily Show bit that has been widely commented on)

Yeah John Stewart is mainly skewering Republican hypocrites but it is easy to find as many prominent Democratic hypocrites.

Here’s my question. Should we expect people promoting a candidate to be consistent in their arguments?

That is, should an Obama supporter really be cut off from raising the charge of inexperience against Palin given Obama’s relative inexperience?

Here’s my thought. People vote for a multitude of reasons. The job of a candidate is to provide reasons. But we shouldn’t expect supporters to only present the reasons they think are good. Rather the responsibility for that ought be the voter.

I’ll admit that there is a sizable portion of the electorate who vote based on reasons (and often things that seem irrational) that I don’t value or even strongly disagree with. But I’m fine with that. Shouldn’t people vote based upon what they find most important?

Now for the record I’ve no idea who I’ll vote for. Neither side seems terribly attractive to me and I’m nearing the stage of just deciding to write in “none of the above.”

However if someone is strongly opposed to abortion and plans to vote for McCain based on that I’m not going to criticize them. Even though it’s not an issue that galvinates me and I don’t think either candidate will particularly change the status quo relative to abortion in America. Likewise if someone is really in to having students do service work and votes for Obama because of that I don’t mind even though it’s not an issue I’m terribly excited by.

Some things I dislike such as people who vote for Obama because he’s inspiring or for McCain/Palin because they are “one of us.” (Hard to believe given McCain’s wealth)

Given all that, why should I expect activists on either side to provide a coherent and consistent set of reasons? They should just present reasons that are compelling to people they are attempting to attract.

Comments

18 Responses to “Hypocrisy and Politics”

I was thinking about this after watching the Rove disaster. I thought, “How could this supposed political genius be so dumb?!” Then I realized something: Rove’s job is to put reasons out there for people who want to vote Republican to latch on to.

Voter: “I’m voting Republican.”
Reporter: “Why?”
Voter: “Uh, um, errr…”
{Rove throws out some reasons that sound good at the time—picture someone throwing a life preserver to a man overboard}
Voter: “Yeah. Those reasons.”

And to be clear: both parties do this.

Truth doesn’t matter; votes do. Republicans who need these “political life preservers” will remember that Obama has no experience and Palin has tons—and they’ll not connect the dots to uncover Rove’s “hypocrisy.”

(Now, I won’t go into how I paralleled this with faith, doctrine, religion, etc….)

I don’t think that truth doesn’t matter. I do think people have a duty to be truthful. And that lack of truthfulness on either side I’ll condemn. I’m more curious that “hypocrite” gets tossed around so much. “Liar” is a whole other different level. But to provide a reason you disagree with is not to lie.

To denigrate the kind of experience Obama has and elevate the kind of experience Palin has may be hypocritical but I’m not sure it is necessarily lying (even though to me they are about on par experience-wise even though Obama appears much better educated about important matters)

3 Michael Dorfman on September 6th, 2008 11:32 pm

Clark:even though to me they are about on par experience-wise

4 years in the US Senate is is near-equivalent with less than 2 years as the governor of a low-population state?

Yup. I don’t think the Senate - especially a Freshman Senator who spent a lot of that time campaigning - provides a lot of experience. I think nominating a Governor is usually wiser although there the foreign policy experience is an issue. Some Senators (like Biden) have solid foreign policy experience. But Obama is definitely not one of those.

When a Governor runs against a Senator I think the Senator usually loses. I’m trying to think of cases this last century when that wasn’t the case. This election is different because two Senators are running. But I think it was a mistake of voters in both parties to nominate a Senator.

Don’t get me wrong - that’s not a defense of Palin (and I don’t want this to go down that tangent). I find both Palin and Obama scarily unexperienced. I was frankly surprised that Clinton’s attacks along those lines didn’t convince more people in the primaries. And of course merely being a Governor is insufficient to guarantee success. (Look at Bush or Carter)

To add to the above. My problem with a lot of talking heads in the press is that they are pundits. While I don’t mind there being pundits out there I’m not sure that’s appropriate for the press. I think that the press ought be aiming for objectivity even if it’s impossible to reach. So I think the press is perhaps more culpable to the hypocrisy charge even if the individual people the press hires aren’t. (If that subtle distinction makes sense)

The way the press is run and it’s degeneration the past two decades is a real tragedy for America I fear.

4 years in the US Senate is is near-equivalent with less than 2 years as the governor of a low-population state?

Well, Alaska is big. And next to Russia, to say nothing of its proximity to Canada, and just the other side of the north pole is Europe. Basically, Alaska is surrounded by foreign territory–in order to survive up there, you gotta be cool with all kinds of governments.

Yes, the hypocrisy charge is a pretty interesting one. I was having a discussion this week with someone who thinks the Palin choice shows how hypocritical the republicans are for making a big issue of “experience” and then getting excited about Palin. I agreed with them, and then pointed out that it displays the hypocricy of the democrats equally well since they just nominated Obama who has very little experience and now they are going after Palin as though it is the height of irresponsibility to nominate her given her lack of experience. The person I was talking to could see the hypocricy on the right, but couldn’t really see what I was getting at when I pointed to the exact same hypocricy on the left.

It is interesting that like so many other arguments (e.g. experience), hypocricy is one that only seems persuasive when leveled against the opposing party. It is the people who can’t see it from both sides that drive me crazy.

Peter, I don’t really want to get into a discussion of Palin, but I’m not sure that’s correct.

Jacob, yes, the inability to see hypocrisy is interesting. I notice it with personal attacks as well. People who notice Palin being negative don’t notice it in Obama or at least find it excusable. My suspicion is that this is partially confirmation bias but I also think it’s somewhat akin to how in sports games one is upset when ref calls go against you unfairly but not the opposite. Indeed what is most depressing to me about politics is how much of it seems more akin to rabid sports fans than a thoughtful consideration of the issues affecting the nation. Give me a thoughtful person who disagrees with me over a zealot who does agree with me any day of the week. (Plus the former are much more interesting to discuss things with than the latter who are quoting the talking points of the day)

9 Jon in Austin on September 7th, 2008 9:49 pm

Well, Alaska is big. And next to Russia, to say nothing of its proximity to Canada, and just the other side of the north pole is Europe. Basically, Alaska is surrounded by foreign territory–in order to survive up there, you gotta be cool with all kinds of governments.

I’m speechless.

LOL. Do we Canadians even count? (grin)

I’m speechless.

Like, in a good way? Just to be clear–my attempt to bolster Palin’s foreign policy cred was strictly tongue in cheek.

Do we Canadians even count?

Now that I think about it, not really. Canada is practically the 51st state and so relations with it wouldn’t count as foreign policy experience. Maybe if Quebec were closer.

I’ve come to the conclusion that experience doesn’t really mean anything. What matters is who a president surrounds himself with for experience and guidance.

Just look at the history of presidents. Lincoln was criticized for his lack of experience and for surrounding himself with people smarter than himself. Yet, he’s now considered the top president of all time.

GW Bush was governor and ran a business, and Cheney had several years in government and business, yet they’ve surrounded themselves with political hacks like Gonzales and Rumsfeld. Remember Bush’s first choice for Supreme Court? A know-nothing hack attorney from his home town, who he owed political favors to.

I’m looking at the people surrounding Obama and McCain, to see just what’s going to happen. And I’m starting by looking at their VP choices.

While abortion and gay rights are slight issues for me, I’m mostly concerned this election season with government intervention, and government fiscal issues. Who will fix the failing Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid (or mercifully put them out of their misery)? Who will balance the budget (actually balance it, not just move money around)?

Who will bring jobs back to the USA from China, India and Russia? And not just minimum wage jobs? Who will fix our education program that now only teaches to the test, rather than educate kids and teach them critical thinking skills (we can thank Bush and Kennedy for this current terrible program)? How else will we compete in the world, if our kids can’t think beyond, “would you like fries with your order?”

As it is, I’m glad to have an African American and a woman on the tickets. However, having said that, so far, of the 4 Pres/VP candidates, I’m only impressed with Sarah Palin - and that could change.

Still, I think this year’s choices are better than the ones from the last 8 years.

Well I’m more interested in the hypocrisy issue. While experience may not be of interest to you it clearly is to many. Given that it seems fair to bring up even if it may not be what decides your vote.

I confess it’s a big one for me. Brandon has up a pretty strong argument for why experience doesn’t matter. To me while an unexperienced person like Lincoln can succeed he did so because he did the oddity of bringing his enemies into his cabinet and having many views. Can we trust all unexperienced people to do this? And will it always work?

Recall that the one big knock against Bush in 99 and 2000 was his foreign policy inexperience. So he brought on some big names that then even Democrats were praising. People then weren’t calling Rumsfeld a hack but something to shore up Bush’s experience. (Ditto with Cheyney and many others)

Also Bush’s business experience (which frankly he failed at typically) should have been a clue to what he was like. (While I wasn’t a fan of Bush in 2000 I must confess I didn’t see the signs then of what he was to become even if in hindsight there were a lot of them) So Bush’s experience should have informed us as to what he was like. And having others around an inexperienced person is no guarantee. Yes I feel better than Obama brought on someone like Biden but then I felt better that Bush brought on Cheyney and look how that turned out.

Clark, when I said “truth doesn’t matter,” I should have said “full disclosure doesn’t matter.” I accept your differentiation between lies and hypocrisy.

Still, there’s a difference between citing legitimate reasons to vote for someone even though those reasons don’t compel me, versus using a double standard (i.e., hypocrisy) to support my candidate and denigrate yours. I don’t have a good name for the former—”stumping” maybe?—but I can support it and despise hypocrisy (and lying).

Part of the problem is simply that political pundits and talk show hosts talk so much and, by the requirement of their job, express strong opinions so frequently, they really can’t help but contradict themselves sometimes. I would be surprised if they managed to be entirely consistent all of the time.

Question. is John Stewart a hypocrite for only pointing out Republican hypocrisy (assuming that is what he did)?

Rich

I’m mostly with you on the amazing amounts of double standards, but I’m not sure this is really hypocrisy. Yes, some Democrats attacking Palin for rather standard religious boilerplate and yet defending Jeremiah Wright (to give one example, there are plenty on both sides) seems like a clear partisan double standard.

But is it really hypocrisy? As one famous saying puts it (I forget who said it): “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.” Generally, a hypocrite does something they don’t really believe in (say, attacking same-sex marriage in public because it will get votes while personally believing that there’s nothing wrong with it). Merely sinning (or doing bad stuff) is not hypocrisy, if the person doing it knows that his or her actions are wrong.

So, when partisans use double standards, I’d argue they aren’t really hypocrites because they don’t see that what they are doing is wrong - there’s no real disconnect between their personal beliefs and their public pronouncements. Instead, they’re just so partisan, they can’t see the disconnect. Hypocrites know the disconnect and do it anyway (for various reasons). Partisans seem (whether willful or not) blind to their own arguments.

Eric (#15), I think one big problem is that news has become punditry rather than news. Fox and CNBC are complete and utter jokes in my opinion.

Rich (#16), he does a bit. Although most of his Obama quips have been more the cult-like devotion of his big fans. (Something I worry is inexplicably happening to some Palin fans) But overall he isn’t quite even come election time. Even when I largely agree with him I still find it hard to watch the Daily Show much around election time just because he gets a tad shrill.

Ivan (#17), interesting take. I don’t know. I tend to think most know they are using a double standard but try to hide that fact (perhaps sometimes even to themselves).

Leave a Reply