Of course, I shouldn't be surprised. Liberal hypocrisy is so common. A few examples:
-- Mainstream (read liberal) newspapers and magazines devote endless ink to the importance of being green yet kill countless trees to produce paper versions of their publications rather than posting them online. Meanwhile, landfills grow ever larger to accommodate all the newsprint. And the delivery trucks release into the atmosphere the hydrocarbons the newspapers insist they're worried about.
-- Hillary has long advocated for public education, yet she sent her daughter to private schools and private college. (Update: Obama, another big supporter of public education, is sending his kid to the same tony private school the Clintons sent Chelsea to.)
-- Hillary has long proclaimed herself a celebrant of diversity, yet when she became senator, she bought her house in one of New York City's only lily-white suburbs.
-- Congress has passed endless affirmative-action laws, yet specifically exempted itself from those laws.
-- John Kerry, while running as the "Environmental President," owned gas-guzzling SUVs. (Yes, that's plural.)
--Limousine Liberals, ubiquitous in Hollywood and the San Francisco Bay Area, advocate for the poor, for example, railing against CEO salaries, making movies that bash the rich. (I just saw Michael Clayton, a typical example.) They urge everyone to walk the talk, yet they don't. If they chose to live mere upper-middle class lifestyles, each keeping an extra million bucks for a rainy day and gave the rest to the poor, limousine liberals could save countless poor people's lives. But instead they prefer to just sing a song at a benefit concert or sound sanctimonious in a CNN interview and then escape in their limo through their mansion's electronic gate and then press "Close."
This sort of argumentation doesn't seem very productive to me. Is it "hypocrisy" to support the war, but refuse to enlist? If so, we could hardly talk about it. The same goes for issues concerning the poor. Should it be a prerequisite that commentators themselves become poor before talking about the issues?
ReplyDeleteOne can make these sorts of observations about either side. They don't prove anything.
It's one thing to try to help the poorest of people while having ethically gained wealth for yourself and your family. It's another to tell people they need to decrease their "carbon footprint" - wow, wasn't that concept pulled right out of thin air - while refusing to change a lavish lifestyle, or telling all of us we need to embrace people of all backgrounds while buffering yourself from that same diversity.
ReplyDeleteThe hypocrites are on both sides of the political aisle. It is not limited to liberals. And it seems to be this time of year when they shine the brightest.
This is something I've often wondered about: what would happen if the political elite had to live by all, not just some, of the same rules and laws and trials and tribulations the rest of us had to live through? Some of them have. Not all politicians came from privileged backgrounds, and there are still some good politicians serving the people. But others have never had to live the life of just a common person, and others have forgotten what it's like to be just a regular person scraping by.
What if Hillary Clinton had lived the life a single mother, raising a son who had severe learning disabilities and little to no sympathy or help at her neighborhood public school? Might she have fought a little harder to challenge the school system once in the Senate?
What if the "not in my backyard" types began to have things happen in their backyards, and there were no more quiet, protected places to flee? Might they understand that there are many others who aren't so lucky?
What if our two remaining Democrat presidential candidates addressed real issues, and didn't have to stoop to playing the race and gender cards to stay in the game? Would people still want to vote for them if they told voters what they needed to hear, not what they wanted to hear?
What if there were no lobbyists or 527s? How many people in politics would still be there without a huge payday?
What if all the voters began to aggressively hold their representatives accountable for their promises and actions? Might government be more productive? Might there be a change in the congressional guard every now and then?
A lot of "what ifs." But no matter who's our next president, things will probably at best remain the same, and at worst continue slowly going downhill, because none of them mean what they say. All of them, I cynically say, just want your vote.
DC Insider:
ReplyDeleteI agree there is enough hypocrisy to go around for everyone. Some days it feels hoepless!
I concur w/ Jason, it's the quandry of the ages and - full disclosure - something I struggle w/ myself as of late. I grew up w/ single mom, lower income, making dinner, raising my younger bro, bust my butt to get grades, worked part-time, served in the military, etc..and generally considered myself an conservative Dem(?), advocate of the lower-class, affirmative action, yes social programs, public school, etc. Fast-fwd...now I'm in a position where God has blessed me with a wonderful wife, kids, well above average wage kick-butt job, big (but within budget of course :)) house, brown-picket fence, etc. and now I want government out of my taxes, kids to go to private schools, eat organic food, etc. Hey, what happened!? My wife and I came from one caste and worked hard to go "up" a caste and now appear to be over-compensating. Would I tell my kids not to serve in the military, not sure. Would I send my kids to public high school if I can afford a high-end private school that lines them up for the "ivy league"? Again, not sure. Hipocrisy, like everything else, is in the eye of the reflection in the mirror.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is hypocrisy on all sides. However, some liberals are extremely vocal and smug while not walking the walk.
ReplyDelete