To: Neocon who wrote (41858 ) 4/8/1999 7:57:00 PM From: Johannes Pilch Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 67261
The thing is really elementary, Neocon. As you say, merely acting on differing contingencies will not relegate one's actions to the realm of hypocrisy. But it is inconsistent to act differently to contingencies that are, for all intents and purposes, identical. Uncles Harry and Bob may be different people, but if they have drinking problems that manifest themselves similarly, and if all circumstances relevant to their problems are similar, we then should not criticize Bob's drinking problem if we are unwilling to criticize Harry's. I do not think I buy the notion that some hypocrisy is acceptable. Perhaps it is, but I cannot see it. In the case of Clinton and a future abominable president, we cannot avoid hypocrisy should we allow Clinton to act as he did but disallow any other president to do the same thing. I find this hypocrisy unacceptable. Now perhaps we have decided to protect Clinton while repudiating a future president for essentially the same thing. If so we only have further compromised our integrity and that of our judicial system. Perhaps we have decided in cases of future presidential infractions to follow the Clinton standard we have set for ourselves. If so we have irreparably damaged the presidency. Perhaps we have decided to avoid hypocrisy and yet maintain a standard higher than the Clinton standard. To do this, we must publicly and nationally repudiate the Clinton standard. It is impossible to accomplish this noble goal without publicly and nationally repudiating the Clinton presidency. Now I have acquired just a bit more common sense recently. And therefore I realize Americans are not terribly interested in integrity and a sound judicial system. But they should not whine when elements in society, particularly "leaders", continually force upon them behaviour and even laws they otherwise would reject.