Another Perspective
GOP Not Alone in Hypocrisy
Selective cries of “hypocrite” are intended to silence social conservatives.
“He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first,” Jesus said when confronted by an angry mob intent on executing a woman caught in the act of adultery.
Democrats should take that advice when it comes to Mark Sanford. The party isn’t crucifying the Republican South Carolina governor for being an adulterer, but for being an adulterer and a social conservative. In other words, for being a hypocrite.
From a public relations standpoint, that’s an effective approach. Democrats will get plenty of mileage out of snickering over the righteous Republicans who can’t keep their pants zipped. And they were eager for any opportunity to take down Sanford, who was becoming increasingly popular as a conservative mainstay and could have proven a decent threat to Obama in 2012.
There’s only one problem — Democrats have built their political house on politicians who make a habit of saying one thing and doing another, so their indignation at Sanford’s hypocrisy rings hallow. In fact, it’s downright hypocritical.
Recall that Bill Clinton was the president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law in 1996. The act defined marriage in federal law as the union of one man and one woman, which is the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding. Less than two years later, news broke that Clinton had violated his own marriage vows (not for the first time, or the last) with a White House intern.
Admittedly, Clinton was reluctant to sign the law, and did so more out of political necessity than principle. But if consistency between a politician’s lifestyle and actions is the goal, how can Democrats square Clinton’s support for the most sweeping federal marriage-protection law ever passed with his disdain for his own marriage vows?
More recently, John Edwards has assumed the Democratic Party’s hypocrisy mantle. The former North Carolina senator, renowned for his fight against poverty, often uses a “two Americas” refrain to draw a contrast between the haves and the have-nots. His personal lifestyle, however, doesn’t match his rhetoric.
Edwards owns a multi-million dollar, 28,200-square-foot home in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. During his second bid for the Democrats’ nomination for president, it was revealed that he enjoys $400 haircuts.
Now, federal investigators are probing whether Edwards skirted the law by diverting campaign funds to pay his mistress hefty sums for her videography work, which might have included more than campaign publicity material.
Using the same standard that Democrats have applied to Sanford, is it reasonable to view Edwards as a champion for the underprivileged while he maintains such an opulent lifestyle?
Or take Al Gore as another example. The Democrats’ go-to-guy for all things eco-friendly is known for leaving the lights on. He doesn’t say no to some private air travel, either. But he’s in good company, since America’s first green president enjoys polluting the skies as well (and on Earth Day, no less).
The point of highlighting these Democratic dalliances is not to dismiss Sanford’s sins. He should be forgiven, but actions have consequences, especially when a public figure is involved. If for no other reason than to devote time to rebuilding his marriage and family, Sanford should resign from office.
But if Democrats are intent on lambasting Sanford because his talk didn’t match his walk, they should acknowledge the same behavior among their own. Anything else would be, for lack of a better word, hypocritical.
About the Author
David N. Bass is a journalist who writes from the Old North State. Follow him on Twitter.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (33) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by David N. Bass
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/06/gop-not-alone-in-hypocrisy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The Vast and the Tiny
- The End of the Castros?
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Sandi| 7.6.09 @ 6:46AM
Well said Mr Bass ITA with your Sanford comments!! You are only the second journalist covering this scandal whose writing makes sense. I think he does love his wife I just think he lost sight of that for a while. They should get the book "Not just friends" by Shirley P Glass & Jean Coppock Staeheli. MS "love story" is a text book case straight out of the pages of the book!!
Alice Moore| 7.6.09 @ 7:14AM
You forgot to mention the Obama's rhetoric of sacrifice, "giving up your piece of the pie", "having skin in the game", etc. They order $100 a pound Japanese beef, have pizzas flown in from Chicago, and have $1 million dollar date nights. They certainly are not willing to spread THEIR wealth.
Of course there are the Democrats who extol the virtues of public education; while making sure their own offspring are in the most exclusive private schools.
Darin| 7.6.09 @ 7:19AM
Hypocrisy is possible only where standards exist. Liberals have no standards - their viewpoints are all subjective and based on emotion and feeling, thus subject to frequent change. Hence, liberals can't be accused of hypocrisy.
Jay| 7.6.09 @ 7:25AM
Adulterous behavior and pedophilia are not a stumbling block for democrat politicians. They are members of the "big tent party." They ambrace everything and so stand for no principles.
It is absoulutely correct to demand, for example, that the governeor of South carolina resign in shame. He is a member of a party that tells us it stands for morality, truth and justice. If that be true, how can he not resign? He is a democrat.
Bill Clinton stood for nothing but Bill Clinton. He committed all manner of immorality and even a tad of criminality. But that is expected of democrats, nothing to be ashamed of.
Roy| 7.6.09 @ 9:11AM
"that is expected of democrats, nothing to be ashamed of. "
Actually, on balance, when it comes right down to it, it is.
John Navratil| 7.6.09 @ 9:52AM
Darin, you are spot on!
If one has no standards, one has nothing to live up to. Falling short of standards isn't hypocrisy, it's failure. Not striving to reach the standard is hypocrisy.
A person of no standards has absolutely no business criticizing the failures of those who do.
Tony in Central PA| 7.6.09 @ 10:57AM
More applause for Darin. I wanted to say the same thing, but he did a much better job than I could have.
Mattled| 7.6.09 @ 11:07AM
Darin,
We should end the comments at your post. Well said.
My uber-liberal in-laws just left after a weekend at our house.
I asked them to please recycle their bottles and papers. Nah, we don't recycle. Too much effort (?).
They have Al Bore's DVD and buy carbon credits. I guess the carbon credits justifies their lavish overseas vacations, their huge house WAY out of town away from all grocery stores in a lily-white rural enclave and gas-guzzling v-8 SUV.
They don't know how to properly turn off our lights---when I tried to show them, they just waved me off. So they leave the lights on in three rooms.
I told my spouse I have nothing in common with them. I was told it was because of MY politics.
No---I think it's more like their hypocrisy, ignorance, laziness and loathing (of me).
I really, sincerely don't know bigger hypocrites and it gets worse each time.
KyMouse| 7.6.09 @ 6:26PM
Seems to me that a lot of people misunderstand hypocrisy. Boomers who eagerly indulged in "free love" during the '60s and '70s have been reluctant to tell their kids (or grandkids) to save sex for marriage. They're afraid that the kids will call them hypocrites, but I think that label applies only if one is still doing what one says is wrong. If you know that your previous behavior was wrong and stopped doing it, you aren't a hypocrite for telling your kids not to do it.
Take a reformed thief as an example: He used to steal things, but finally repented and stopped stealing. Now, as a father with youngsters to raise, he says stealing is wrong. That isn't hypocrisy-- in fact, he would be a bad father if he DIDN'T tell them that stealing is wrong.
Starrfish| 9.3.09 @ 12:18PM
When one is espousing a holier than thou attitude and then gets caught in Argentina, it is actually funny. That is why we get such a kick out of people like Larry Craig, the guy with the teenage pages, the senator in Vegas, Sanford, and all the other homo reps in Washington. Falling from non-existent grace is entertaining and hypocritical. The difference with Clinton is that he was in no way vomiting his Christian values all over the nation, that is the difference.
convert djvu to pdf | 11.9.10 @ 10:37PM
That is why we get such a kick out of people like Larry Craig, the guy with the teenage pages, the senator in Vegas, Sanford, and all the other homo reps