Help me find a hypocrite!

That's ridiculous.What about the so-called liberals who insist on free reproductive choice for themselves but praise China's one-child policy as being such a sensible thing for the people of China?What about so-called liberals who ask us to be offended on their behalf if their elected president tells them something that turns out not to be true, who then turn around and say a 'strongman' in the Saddam Hussein mold is just fine for the people of Iraq?Real people do this.The kindest thing I can think is that people just aren't thinking. They are reacting. They use the oppositon party as their lodestar and feel that, as long as they aren't agreeing, their compass is pointed to true north. They end up wandering all over the map.These are not principled positions. If they were, what would the principle be? That rights are a privilege to which 'liberal' Americans are entitled, but other people in the world don't rate?No thinking person believes all the mischief is on one side in any complex society. To think so is to be half blind.Interestingly, reesearch shows that most people do get their political loyalties from their families of origin in much the same way as they inherit their religious beliefs. Party loyalties, like church loyalties, are for most people extensions of family loyalties.

My Tribe = Always Good
Their Tribe = Always Bad

This is not thought.In democratic societies the true liberals--by the dictionary definition--tend to be the so-called 'moderates.' They are the people who tend to be the most truly generous in their approach. They are less likely than their highly partisan neighbours to pre-judge. They are open to ideas of merit regardless of the source. They can see the honour on both sides of the debate.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I mentioned individuals 'who insist on free reproductive choice for themselves but praise China's one-child policy as being such a sensible thing for the people of China.'Nuggin swings into action thus: I can name several. Friends of mine. I'm not making this up.It only takes one 'hypocrite' on the left, BTW, to falsify your statement about monopolies. Did you really think none existed? If you think China's 'one-child-per-family policy' is about tax breaks, you know nothing about China's one-child policy.The policy is about strict government control of reproductive choice._____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Here in Taiwan we call it 'Having American friends, practically Nuggin's neighbours, who are living falsifications of his blindly partisan premise that only one political camp ever exhibits a self-serving inconsistency.'Anyone who has spent any time at all observing human nature knows that there's plenty of human weakness to spread around. No one group has a monopoly. It's naive, really, to assert such a thing. Our beer buddies are political figures. They hire and fire presidents.That's why we call democracy 'self-government.' Distinctions between citizens are a matter of degree and role, not caste.You're making trouble for yourself anyway if you retreat toward the position that (maybe, kinda, once-in-a-great-while) Our Tribe might have 'citizen hypocrites' even as its officials, pundits and activists never get tainted. If you seriously intend to put that idea forward, expect to be asked about the location and functioning of the magic firewall. The issue was government control of reproductive choice._____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I offered:

What about so-called liberals who ask us to be offended on their behalf if their elected president tells them something that turns out not to be true, who then turn around and say a 'strongman' in the Saddam Hussein mold is just fine for the people of Iraq?"

Zhimbo: Misquote. I said a 'strongman' in the Saddam Hussein mold.Great thing for someone else. Just don't give them a leader in their own country who would do something like, say, tell them something untrue._____Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : htmlEdited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

In raising these matters you do bring us to something necessary in this thread. You bring up an aspect of political issues that goes to the heart of why Nuggin's 'monopoly' premise cannot be taken seriously by any observer of human nature.The premise that The Other Tribe has a 'monopoly' on 'hypocrisy' (his words) would make Our Tribe immune from this shortcoming. And it's not hyperbole. He really seems to believe this. Daring anyone to find an example to the contrary is his stated purpose in this thread.I avoided the word 'hypocrisy' as being too quickly judgemental. I have put forward just two examples from my own experience of positions that:

1. exhibit self-contradictions on the issue of human rights that
2. demand considerable sacrifices from someone else while demanding none from the speaker.

I have done so because these features seem to meet Nuggin's criteria.The idea of a tribal 'monopoly' on such behaviour is naive for at least three reasons.One is the reason I have stated: no 'monopoly on hypocrisy' can be shown to exist by objective criteria. It's not unusual to meet people of Nuggin's own tribe who exhibit the same trouble with consistency experienced by others.The second is another reason I have stated: human beings remain human beings and do not cease to be so because they have joined one tribe or another. All human shortcomings can be found in all human communities. No tribe is exempt.The third is the reason you have begun to show us here. Political choices involve compromise. The issues they address are complex and often pit conflicting priorities against one another.In the political arena it is necessary not only to hold to certain principles, but to know the limits of one's power, consider the costs and likelihood of success for any given project, honour obligations to one's allies and constituents, and do many other things. Every decision involves trade-offs. One cannot fight every battle on every front, all at once, on behalf of what one believes. No person, no government, no country is that powerful. One has to choose one's battles.Compromise is unavoidable.Because compromise is always present in any political decision, it is simplicity itself for One Tribe to cast The Other Tribe's compromises as unconscionable acts of hypocrisy, then cast its own compromises as pragmatic acts of mature statesmanship. The rest is just anecdotes.It's an easy game to play. 'My Tribe Good, Their Tribe Bad' is a staple of campaign rhetoric, when one wants voters to opt for one's own product over Brand X. But it is not governing.This is not to say there aren't, or shouldn't be, core principles behind all the compromises one makes. Principles are the things that represent one's bedrock priorities, one's absolutes. These are the things that keep you on course through all the compromises and delayed gratification the world makes necessary. Give on these and the moorings are lost. At that point it makes sense to speak of a fatal self-contradiction.Which is why no informed consideration of hypocrisy, the real kind, can take place until one first knows what those principles are._____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I was about to answer that, but then you blew it by throwing in a new variable. You now ask for an example of 'hypocrisy' (Nuggin's word) that cannot also be characterized with a little argument as a 'realistic compromise' (your word).I never made that distinction. In most cases I do not think it can be done.Compromise is inevitable. This is characteristic of adult life. It is especially true in an area as complex as world affairs.The omnipresence of compromise means partisans can always cast The Other Tribe's compromises as 'hypocritical' and Our Tribe's compromises as 'realistic.' Pots and kettles. One can play that game all day.To get past it, we need objective functioning criteria for discerning between 'realistic compromise' on the one hand (your term) and 'hypocrisy' on the other (Nuggin's) that will operate regardless of the issue.Please provide this. It is you asked for an example of the one that cannot also be represented as the other.______Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : gram.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I was not quoting. The argument I have encountered is that a 'strongman' along the lines of 'Saddam Hussein' (mentioned by name) is what the people of Iraq 'need.' The idea being put forward is that a leader in that, er, genre is just fine, is adequate, is on the whole beneficial... for someone else to live under.http://EvC Forum: Lie after Lie (Mother Jones - The Bush War Timeline) -->EvC Forum: Lie after Lie (Mother Jones - The Bush War Timeline)
http://EvC Forum: Iraq needed Saddam? -->EvC Forum: Iraq needed Saddam?As I noted, those making this argument hold their own leaders to conspicuously more stringent standards.This meets the criteria I described: [1] a self-contradictory view (in this case, concerning the ethical standards that are acceptable in a leader) that [2] puts a heavier burden on others than on oneself.It is not my purpose to revisit that discussion. It was my purpose to answer Nuggin's question in good faith as best I could, given the terms he used to ask it.Unflattering compromises know no boundaries of party. You said you wanted an example of someone taking this position that could not also be construed as someone making a 'realistic compromise.'True, you did not not say 'reasonable compromise.' Your word was 'realistic.' But a look at both your post and mine will show that I quoted you accurately. It is you who now misquote yourself.(This is the second time you've changed terms in the very act of challenging them. That's rather often for such a brief exchange.)Regardless: I cannot show you one kind of compromise that could not be argued as the other. I have already observed (in comments you have so far ignored) that the distinction between 'hypocrisy' and 'realistic compromise' is in the eye of the beholder. One can always be taken for the other depending on whether that beholder prefers to find a speck or a two-by-four in the eye of the beheld.Unless.Unless one can establish the existence of certain principles that provide a foundation for all policies and are considered non-negotiable. That would establish the limits of acceptable compromise--and thus the boundary of hypocrisy. But these principles would have to be held as such by the persons doing the compromising, not the person doing the beholding.Any ideas?_____Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Thank you for calling attention to your earlier post, Zhimbo. I did not ignore it; I had accidentally overlooked it.I like how you argue for a position that is rationally defensible. It's a welcome change.Clearly you feel yours is the position Nuggin should have taken. It is not the one, though, that he did take. On the key point your position actually represents a reversal.Nuggin asserted a 'monopoly' on 'hypocrisy' from one side of the political spectrum. He showed every sign of meaning this literally. I contested the notion. No intelligent observer of human nature would say anything so blindly partisan and patently silly.I see now that you agree with me. On the possibility of a 'monopoly' you say 'of course not.' You then admit a reality your colleague refused to entertain: 'Everyone,' you say, 'is a little hypocritical in some sense.'This concession of my point is accepted.Granted, you did try to camouflage it with some redundant adjectives. You denied a 'strict 100.00%' monopoly as if you thought a 'not-so-strict, 50.01-99.99% monopoly' might remain a possibility.It doesn't.A monopoly is the single exclusive source of a particular item. A monopoly is total or it is not a monopoly.So we agree. No monopoly on hypocrisy exists.Thank you, Zhimbo. Take note, Nuggin.

I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

​

...This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.

​

Barack Obama

_______Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.