Friday, November 24, 2006

Add Another Word to That List for the Dictionary: Hypocrisy

Jesurgislac has referenced in several comments the idea that pro-life supporters are hypocritical if they do not also support government mandates and programs for pregnant women and mothers.

This is a term I see thrown around a lot on blogs, usually aimed at conservatives (along with bigot, fascist, and racist). It's used as a perjorative and isn't at all useful in discussions, unless, of course, the point is to shut down discussion (like so many Pandagonistas sticking their fingers in their ears). I've seen it used during the Mark Foley scandal, the Michael J. Fox flap and even about reinstating the draft. Unfortunately, almost every instance where liberals use the word "hypocrisy" they are misusing it.

Hypocrisy means "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess." In everyday speech it would be saying one thing and doing something else.

But that's not really what liberals mean when they use the word. What they mean is "saying and doing things of which we disapprove and not doing the things of which we would approve." For example, if you are pro-life and oppose new government mandates and programs, to a liberal, that is hypocritical. In point of fact, it is not if you believe that private sector help is more effective and better targeted than government programs which can be bureaucratic, time-consuming, ineffective, and wasteful.

"Hypocrisy" was also thrown about during the Mark Foley scandal. Homosexuals and gay rights supporters said Foley was "hypocritical" to vote against various pro-homosexual legislation. But as a representative, Foley was expected to vote for and against legslation as his constituents would want, not necessarily as he would (and I'm not even sure he wanted the various laws passed, either). It is entirely possible to be homosexual without signing on to every legislative initiative, just as it is possible to be a feminist without being pro-abortion.

As for the embryonic stem cell research debate, I've heard people called "hypocritical" for not supporting more government funding for embryonic stem cell research. Why is that hypocritical? Because if you really cared about life, you'd be for finding cures, of course! That anyone would object to any particular form of research must be hypocritical, unless, of course, it's not wanting testing on animals. But it isn't hypocritical to object to using embryos for research if you believe life begins at conception and that experimenting with humans without their consent is unethical, particularly when there are other means and methods for research.

Then there's the draft. Democrat Charles Rangel wants it reinstated and many liberals believe it is hypocritical to support the war in Iraq if one didn't serve in the military. But given that about 90% of Americans have no military service, this would mean that almost no one would be allowed to participate in debate over foreign affairs without being called a hypocrite. Not only would this be foolish, it would be a dereliction of duty. Americans are expected to express themselves on a whole variety of issues about which they don't have expertise: taxes, business regulation, education, environmental issues, and military procurement among them. To say that it is hypocritical to support American foreign policy without military experience is just plain stupid.

There are, of course, real examples of hypocrisy. Ted Kennedy advocates high taxes but hides much of his wealth offshore and away from U.S. tax laws. Noam Chomsky constantly excoriates American foreign policy, yet has made a tidy living off of Defense Department money. Grandma Pelosi claims to support unions yet doesn't use any union workers either in her vineyards or restaurants. Michael Moore says he doesn't own stock, yet records show he's owned thousands of shares, including shares in Halliburton. And Barbra Streisand supports environmental causes...as long as she can drive her SUV and use her own land as she sees fit.

Yes, there's some real hypocrisy out there. But don't expect our liberal friends to discuss it.

16 comments:

  1. I see you don't want to discuss your hypocrisy: you claim you're opposed to abortion, but you're also opposed to preventing abortions if done not because the woman doesn't want a child, but because she can't afford one - or can't afford another one. That would be 23% of the abortions in the US that you're opposed to preventing.

    It makes "anti-choice" so much a better descriptor for you than "pro-life": you even object to women being able to choose not to have abortions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You've made this assertion in a couple of other places, that I'm opposed to preventing abortions. How is that? And how can anything I've said be construed as "objecting to women being able to choose not to have abortions"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You've made this assertion in a couple of other places, that I'm opposed to preventing abortions.

    Yes. You've argued that it doesn't matter if women have to have an abortion out of economic necessity. Your support for the right of businesses to do as they like, including refusing to let a woman take paid maternity leave or fire a woman for being pregnant, overrides your anti-abortion principles. You actively don't want women to have the choice not to have an abortion out of economic necessity: and as you know that 23% of abortions in the US are done out of economic necessity, that would be 23% of abortions that you support.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is entirely possible to be homosexual without signing on to every legislative initiative, just as it is possible to be a feminist without being pro-abortion.

    Of course. Just it's not possible to be a feminist and anti-choice/pro-life.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You actively don't want women to have the choice not to have an abortion out of economic necessity

    Don't they have that choice now?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Don't they have that choice now?

    "They"? You don't count yourself a woman, or you're wealthy enough that you know economic necessity will never be an issue?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous9:28 PM

    Jesurgislac has referenced in several comments the idea that pro-life supporters are hypocritical if they do not also support government mandates and programs for pregnant women and mothers.

    Yes, it is. Let me translate into plain language:

    I'm having an abortion because I have no financial or emotional support and resources to have this baby.

    Get it now?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "They"? You don't count yourself a woman, or you're wealthy enough that you know economic necessity will never be an issue?

    I don't count myself as someone who will want/need an abortion. Not that that is germaine to the discussion. Again, don't they have the choice now?

    Yes, it is. Let me translate into plain language:

    I'm having an abortion because I have no financial or emotional support and resources to have this baby.

    Get it now?


    How does that change what I said? That doesn't support the contention about pro-life supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That doesn't support the contention about pro-life supporters.

    Pro-life supporters like you who believe it's only right to starve women of the financial resources they would need?

    Hypocrisy - or inconsistency - or just plain not wanting to think it through.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Starve? You're quite dramatic.

    When the survey says "can't afford a baby right now," it doesn't mean that the woman is starving. There are a variety of instances that can fall under "can't afford." I understand why you are taking the most dramatic one.

    There are LOTS of social services available to women who do not want to have abortions and are poor. There are private charities and public assistance programs for the poor. To say a woman must have an abortion or starve is a bit over the top.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sharon, I think you need to read my last comment more carefully: I used "starve" in its metaphorical sense. What I wrote, in full, was "starve women of the financial resources they need". That's the policy you support. Private charities are never an adequate substitute for solid state support: if they were, the US wouldn't have so many women having to have abortions because they can't afford a baby or can't afford another baby.

    Now you understand what I actually wrote, would you like to reply to what I actually wrote? Should I take care to avoid figurative language in future?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I responded to what you wrote: that women are having abortions because otherwise they would have to starve. That, my dear, is bullshit.

    When a study says that women are having abortions for financial reasons or that they "can't afford a child right now" that isn't the same thing as saying they would starve. For one thing, poor people in the U.S. have the highest levels of obesity. They are emphatically NOT starving.

    Second, you are wrong about private charities as support. And if you had read MY statement, you would have seen I discussed private charities AS WELL AS government systems already in place.

    It's understandable why you are hellbent on making this "pro-lifers are heartless and hypocritical" stereotype stick. But it doesn't fit reality in any way, shape, or form.

    ReplyDelete
  13. BTW, you might go check out the Alan Guttmacher study Amanda cited. The reasons given under "can't afford it right now" don't include starvation or anything like that. Here are the top 3 reasons given:

    Unmarried (42)
    Student or planning to study (34)
    Can't afford a baby and childcare (28)

    Of course, the lion's share of abortions were done for reasons connected to "having a baby would dramatically change my life." Those reasons were:

    1. Would interfere with education
    2. Would interfere with job/employment/career
    3. Have other children or dependents

    Would you like to defend those now?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous6:30 AM

    While of course it's your right not to unmoderate comments, still, I cannot resist pointing out yet again that when you claim I said women were starving, you ignored the difference between "I am starved" and "I am being starved of financial resources". The former is a literal reading: the latter is a figurative reading.

    I am startled, to say the least, that you appeared not to be able to tell the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So, you don't like when someone mischaracterizes your comments either, eh?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.