Why the Hypocrisy Defense is political suicide for liberalism
June 6, 2011 - 5:24 pm - by Zombie All across the internet over the last few hours, liberal commenters and bloggers have fallen back on one of their most trusted logical arguments in situations like this in which a Democrat is caught in a sex scandal: “At least he’s not a hypocrite.”
This sampling of (unedited) comments taken from today’s New York Times‘ and San Francisco Chronicle‘s articles about Anthony Weiner’s public confession are typical:
“Much to do about nothing. Please wake me up if you find out that he mishandled/stole taxpayer money, or had previously participated in some sort of moral clensing crusade.”
…and…
“Unless an elected official is a hypocrite (i.e., an anti-gay politician who espouses “family values” but solicits men for sex in public restrooms), I don’t care about his private life, including whether he sends naked pictures of himself to women who aren’t his wife.”
…and…
“I certainly find it reprehensible, particularly the lying. But he didn’t run on a Family Values moral superiority platform, like Ensign; there is less hypocracy and more simple stupidity here.”
A quick search of the liberal blogosphere and in the comments sections of MSM articles will turn up countless similar examples. If you spend any time on the Internet, you’ve undoubtedly encountered it yourself over and over, as others have noted. And it hasn’t just emerged in regards to Weinergate: It’s actually one of the bedrocks of the liberal worldview: Conservatives are hypocrites concerning moral issues, whereas liberals are not.
Which got me to thinking:
This has to be the weakest philosophical argument I’ve ever encountered.
Not just weak: self-extirpating.
If there ever was a moment to really dig down into the fundamental structure of this argument, this is it. So let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we?
Sleight-of-mind
What liberals really really love about this stance is its climactic declaration: Our opponents are hypocrites!
Here is how the liberals present their case:
But what they don’t want you to think about — and what they themselves don’t even want to acknowledge — is that this “hypocrites” howl is the second half of a two-part argument. And in that second half, they are the victors. But in the first half….
Well, for the “at least we’re not hypocrites” sentiment to make sense, there must be an agreed-upon starting point — one which the liberals themselves are confirming each time they make this argument. And what must that starting point necessarily be? For conservatives to be hypocrites when they do something immoral, then that means they must profess a moral ideology in the first place. And — here’s the key — for the liberals to be let off the hook when they do something immoral, then that means they must profess an ideology with no moral claims whatsoever.
Thus, the diagram above only showed you the climactic second half of the liberals’ sleight-of-mind trick. The full statement — including the first half which you’re not supposed to think about — would be diagrammed like this:
Not quite so effective an argument when seen this way, is it?
Now, I’m not here to defend hypocrisy — I hate it as much as the next person. I’m only here to point out that in order to lay claim to their “but at least we’re not hypocrites” defense, liberals must necessarily paint themselves into an impossible corner, defining themselves as the ideology of amorality.
Remember, that’s not my characterization of liberalism — that’s liberals’ own characterization of themselves when they use this argument.
Does that mean that the “fallen conservative” is inherently more appealing or “superior” in some way to the “honestly amoral liberal”? No. It actually comes down to each voter’s preference.
Consider these two statements from two different potential husbands:
“I know I promised to stop drinking forever, honey, but I fell off the wagon again; please forgive me, and I’ll really really try to stay sober from now on, but no guarantees.”
vs.
“I’m a tertiary alcoholic, a stone-cold drunk; always have been, always will be. You’re not likely to ever see me sober. Take it or leave it.”
If you had to choose, which would you marry?
Obviously, neither is very appealing, but the liberal stance is that the second potential husband is preferable, because at least he’s honest. The conservative stance is: The first potential husband is preferable, because at least he’s trying.
Within the parameters of this “Hypocrisy Defense”…Which do you think the general public prefers: An ideology that at least tries to champion a moral code, but whose adherents sometimes fail to live up to it; or an ideology that by its own definition is inherently immoral and whose adherents don’t even have a moral code to violate?
The liberals are taking a HUGE gamble that a majority of Americans will throw in their lot with the party of immorality. But I have the feeling they’ve lost that bet — not just in Weinergate, but at a deep structural level in society for a long time to come.
pajamasmedia.com
.....
June 6, 2011 - 7:03 pm Link to this Comment | Reply 6. Jonk
I’ll add that for an amoral philosophy, they sure do judge hypocrisy very seriously.
Isn’t that rather hypocritical?
June 6, 2011 - 7:03 pm Link to this Comment | Reply 7. arhooley
Sexual morality seems to occupy its own category, though. All these questions about whether sexual behavior even has a moral dimension as long as it’s between two consenting adults. I’ve been lurking Daily Kos furiously throughout Weinergate, and I’ve noted that while liberal pols get some exemption on the hypocrisy charge, they admit that marital infidelity is lying and that lying is wrong. (That’s where the “It’s none of our business what he does” defense comes in.)
Liberals certainly claim to be moral — in fact, morally superior. That’s why they’re so generous (with other people’s money) and so eager to fight injustice (not with justice, but with an equal and opposite injustice). But sex is about little more than what people agree to.
I think it’s this splitting-off of sex from morality that, in their own minds, lets liberals off from the hypocrisy charge in these sexual scandals.
Course what Weiner did wasn't just a matter of sexual immorality ..... he also LIED HIS ASS OFF and told his pornstar sexting partner to lie too.
.....
For that matter I don’t want to judge too harshly either, but I came to my own realization a long time ago–in High School History of all places. The Democratic Party hasn’t changed a jot. No matter how bad the Alien and Sedition Acts were, they came into being for a reason, and that reason was that the Democratic-Republicans were literally buying votes as people stepped off the boat, and using mobs to interfere with government officials to keep elections from being square. They did that for many years, all the way into Tammany Hall days. Now their methods are more sly, but it’s the same old vote-buying scheme. And when they get caught, they just gin up a mob like they did in Madison. Corrupt elites and mobs, that has been the Dems from the beginning, and every so often they take a serious beating because of it, and pretend to be noble and good for a few years.
I think we’re getting close to another whippin. Anthony Wiener is just one more little pebble presaging a rockslide.
.....
....
BillyShaft
Brilliant analysis as usual, Z.
The hypocrisy defense is one of the most annoying Prog/Lib last-stands.
The further proof that they are indeed hypocrites is the fact that they lie about having committed the act. A true amoral would look you in the face upon discovery and say; “so what?” No need to hide something you are proud of, right?
June 6, 2011 - 9:56 pm Link to this Comment | Reply 19. Josh
remember, the favorite liberal trick is projection – to put their own faults on others. if they complain of hypocrisy in others, it is because they are monsterous hypocrites themselves.
as you point out, their hypocrisy is that they have any standing to discuss hypocrisy. their basic leadership image is the alpha male who has no need to apologize for anything, and their idea of freedom for citizens is the freedom to be f’d by the alphas – sexual, social, intellectual, financial.
their complaint about hypocrisy is that principles are involved. to say that conservatives are hypocrites for trying, is like saying laws against bank robbery are pointless and should be repealed, since banks are still being robbed in spite of the laws.
.....
Taqiyyotomist
#2 Chris Bolts, #5 perm newb
Agreed. The left, while claiming to be amoral and nonjudgemental all these years, actually has been — as they like to call it so much when Christians even so much as TALK ABOUT their beliefs within their sensitive earshot — “shoving their morality down our throats”. Every other commercial on TV since the 70s has had the message “Be more moral by doing THIS!” Whether it’s their quasi-Mosaic dietary code (Green, Fair-Trade, Free-Trade, Organic… Hippy Kosher, basically), or their “moral” admonishments to buy an Apple computer (because Bill Gates is rich, of course, and Apple is apparently higher on the moral scale for “Greenness” or their more overt corporate political views, or simply because Microsoft is the “oppressor” of the “underdog” Apple), or their every other “moral” Commandment — that we hold the Correct views on everything, or we are somehow judged immoral and unclean.
It’s why I don’t own a TV anymore. Every other commercial is some super-wealthy Hollywood star telling me to “be a better person” by changing my lightbulbs. Nearly every TV show is packed to the gills with Progressive philosophical preaching, and I grew sick of it nearly ten years ago. If I want preaching I’ll go to church.
June 7, 2011 - 5:27 am Link to this Comment | Reply 24. Christina Dunigan
Actually, Liberals DO have a moral code. It only has one rule: Never, ever, EVER say or do ANYTHING that might remind somebody else of their fundamental amorality. Because that might make them feel bad, and making a Liberal feel bad is the only real evil.
.... |
