This probably isn't worth a diary, but it's late at night and the diaries move a lot slower and I just thought the post was so ridiculous I needed to vent on it.
The diary concerns a book called In Defense of Hypocrisy by Jeremy Lott and the post is from kholtsberry.
http://www.redstate.com/...
First of all, much of the diary is theoretical and abstract, so, at least for me, it was hard to get a handle on much of it.
There were two concrete examples given though:
1.The first example given is that of Strom Thurmond who went from holding a belief in segregation to becoming an integrationist. This seems nothing more than a red herring. I've never heard anybody condemned for preaching one position but later preaching another position if they honestly change their mind and explain why they changed their mind.
2.This is the other concrete example:
"The last example of a necessary hypocrisy that Lott raises might be called the hypocrisy of good intentions. In this scenario, the actions are clearly hypocritical but the motivations are commendable. Lott uses an example from popular film in which a politician known for his strong prosecution of the war on drugs finds out that his daughter has been caught with enough illegal drugs to put her behind bars for a significant period of time. The politician hires some high powered attorneys and "twists a few arms" and gets his daughter a reduced sentence.
"Push the political issue to the side, if you can, and focus on the people. A father was trying to keep his own out of jail and get help for her, and he was willing to put his own credibility on the line to make this happen. The action was hypocritical, sure, but it was also normal and sane and even noble."
Noble? A grandstanding politician bashes drug users to boost his own popularity, but when it comes to his own daughter he changes his tune.
Examining the hypocracy
1.How is this noble when every other parent, many of whom would also have liked to have been able to get their children a reduced sentence, was not only denied that chance, but denied by the same person who is now seeking the reduced sentence.
2.If he thought the drug laws were good for society, then why is he seeking a reduced law for his own child?
In the reponses, I think it's clear that a least a few people really don't understand what this is about.
The thing is, there really aren't that many people that these charges of hypocracy can be leveled at, at least not at a national level: there simply aren't that many people out there lecturing and hectoring people on how they should live their lives (I say nationally, cause obviously every community has ministers and the like).
Yet, one poster wrote:
"Conservatives are less hypocritical, not because they come by it naturally, but because they must. Rush Limbaugh must keep up the the efforts. Robert Downey and Courtney Love keep getting passes."
Really? Maybe I missed the press release, but since when have Robert Downey and Courtney Love been traveling the country lecturing people on how to live their lives?
The significance about the charge of 'hypocracy' is simply this: if the very people who claim to be so 'moral' that they have the right to lecture everybody else on how to live their lives, can't live up to their own standards, then why should we take them seriously?
What kholtsberry, and likely, Jeremy Lott, fail to understand is that people are willing to listen to people who say people should 'behave more morally', but, I believe, people prefer to listen to those preachers who have levity with them and admit that they too will make mistakes. When the Rush Limbaughs and the Bill Bennets preach piety and condemn others for everyday failings, but then fail to live up to their own standards, they deserved to be told to go stuff themselves.
Heh, for something that I wasn't even sure deserved its own thread, I sure went on longer than I thought I would :).