We clearly see generalizing and sterotyping differently.
Generalizations may be correct or incorrect. Stereotype, by definition, is an incorrect assumption. It's not wholly exclusive, but usage typically is applied to groups and stereotypes are typically applied to individuals.
One can make a sampling of and come to a conclusion based on that sampling, a generalization. That doesn't necessarily mean that all instances are even all members of a group fit that generalization. In a stereotype we claim some generalization of an individual or group, typically of an individual, based on an insufficient sampling of data. That's the definition.
I might point out that Bush talks a lot about free trade, which is true. The Administration has also taken a number of actions that are contrary to free trade, sic, two tariffs on soft lumber imports from Canada, steel tariffs, refusing to negotiate any agreements under the Open Skies program. He can talk about objecting to farm subsidies and has; he has pledged to eliminate farm subsidies for non-planting. But the facts are that farm subsidies increased by 65% in the President's proposed budget [and was approved]. He can promise a return to civility and at the same time claim that the Democrats don't care about the security of the US...and then have that sent out by e-mail from the GOP to a million addresses. He can proclaim the end of demonizing in politics and have Cheney come out and proclaim that anyone that disagrees with him on his energy policy doesn't know what they are talking about. The GOP spent years trying to kill the Americorp program. This Administration doubled the spending on it and there's no objection from the GOP. The GOP and this Administration have claimed on numerous occasions that any international treaty that is not verifiable isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Yet the recent Arms control treaty with the Russians is the first Arms control treaty the US has ever signed that has no verifiability requirements at all. Nor does it have any reduction schedule. It merely says the parties must comply by a certain date and one second after that date the treaty is void. In other words, it's impossible to be non-compliant with the treaty. Either side can increase their weapons stockpile three-fold....ten-fold; it's never verified and it's never in technical violation of the treaty. It's hypocritical to insist that Iraq comply with UN resolutions, but not Israel, who has defied UN resolutions far longer than Iraq.
Each is an example of hypocrisy on it's own right and justifies an overall assessment or generalization of hypocrisy. When the examples permeate every aspect of governance, politics, domestic and foreign policy it becomes quite valid to claim the generalization of total hypocrisy.
Does "Total hypocrisy of the GOP" apply to every single issue and every single member of the GOP? No. I don't believe that generalizations make that claim. You might decide that's what it means. But then you don't understand what a generalization means.
jttmab |
