Conservative Hypocrisy

[erpowers]

The hypocrisy of conservatives is nothing new. For years people have learned about and discussed the hypocrisy that comes from conservatives, mainly those in the Republican party. A recent article at truthdig gives a number of additional examples of hypicrisy coming from the conservatives. The article gives a list of conservatives both in the Republican and Democratic party who rail against socialist ideas and actions and promote free market ideas and actions while at the same time taking what can be called government welfare.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/michelle_bachman_welfare_queen_20091221/

[dkf]

1. They have a narcissistic version of morality

The rules are for everyone else.

[Toots]

2. I am sure a listing of many of their blatant hypocrisies would make a great campaign ad

But Americans will never see such a thing. When it comes to Campaigning Democrats are like babies. They don't seem to get it..They are not running against a person, they are running against an ideology and it needs to be confronted or just forget it..

[Igel]

3. Except that the OP doesn't show hypocrisy.

It shows a fallacy.

Here's how it works:

1. Use a general term or principle that the target uses. Do not define it as the target uses it. It's best if the target has a strong negative stance towards that term.

2. Define the general term or principle on your terms. Crucially define it so as to include some of the target's actions or stances.

3. Show that the term used by the target applies to actions or stances taken by the target.

4. Invoke hypocrisy, generally defined along the lines of "the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one has been shown to violate in the example or examples given."

5. Exult in showing that the target is a hypocrite, therefore untrustworthy or somehow corrupt.

Let's examine this. Use those ol' critical thinking skills that we so admire and practice in all areas of our lives, unlike mouth-breathing freepers. (We'll leave out some problems of chronology and lack of detail showing that Bachmann's actually done what she's accused of having done--presumably applied for federal subsidies and having had a significant say in her father's farm while he was alive.)

A. The hard and yet more important bit, to my mind, is (4), where the assumed definition of hypocrisy is wrong. (To be fair, not all writers assume this sort of distorted definition. Most do. This one does.) A decent definition: "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess." Now we get to Clintonian tense-aspect parsing, which is important because without it it's hard to understand *how* the assumed definition differs from the sort of generic definition I quoted from dictionary.com. Since tense-aspect in English isn't typically incredibly explicit not explicit, neither taught nor made obvious for most people, it can be ignored and abused. With Clinton's "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" we had both tense and aspect in play. Since it's implicit, it was easy to mislead most people and make it sound like he was a weasel, when he was merely asking a valid question that's hard to get to without using linguistic jargon. In this particular case, we (fortunately) only have aspect at issue. That, paradoxically, makes it a bit easier to use the same, er, (virtuous? snivelly?) trick since English aspect is even *less* accessible to conscious perception.

The simple present in English can do a number of jobs. One can be to show something in progress that's backgrounded. "Clyve was the typical 'Father knows best' husband on this particular Wednesday. He goes to work while his wife is at home dealing with the child who, unknown to them both, has been possessed by a Bean Creature from the planet Xrtpt who is about to spawn." It's a specific action. More commonly it shows a general state or event. "Clyve McCoy goes to work every day." Without the backgrounding it's hard to get "Clyve goes to work on Wednesday, January 10, 2007" as an acceptable utterance in standard English. Notice the difference: Specific, concrete instance versus something that is generally true, in the present simply because the general pattern is still true. "Clyve goes to work on Wednesdays but is home sick on this Wednesday, infected by Bean Creature spawn" is perfectly fine; there's no contradiction between something that is generally true versus an individual instance. "Clyve McCoy goes to work this particular Wednesday but stays home sick" is an out-and-out contradiction. The specific action cannot both be asserted and denied, unless there's some trick that makes the usual rules of grammar fail (". . . because, during his sleep, he underwent bodily fission" or ". . . or at least that's what his employer thought, confusing the Bean pod person for the real McCoy."

In the usual definition of hypocrisy we have the general state in evidence: "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess." The last bit presumes a general pattern. You can be a teetotaller and still fall off the wagon; you can be an alcoholic and be sober for a week. Professed virtues don't have to be consistently implemented or even recognized in real time; lapses can occur. In this day and age ill-will can create an overweening demand for perfection, especially from one's opponents, so that we (fairly consistently) cease to practice our own professed virtues.

B. That was the more important point to make because that kind of manipulation is harder to spot and therefore more virulent in public (and personal) discourse. The second is slightly less important because it's butt-obvious. Between (1) and (2) there's a fallacy. A rather big one. Let's assume that the target consistently and reliably can have (3) applied to him: The instances of his adopting stances or actions contrary to the principle defined by the exposer of public hypocrisy so highlighted aren't occasional, but consistent. An example from a few years ago comes to mind: The 'hypocrite' was addicted to gambling, he gambled often and ran up huge debts. He admitted the problem, but brazenly failed to admit that he had violated his own principles. Prima facie evidence of hypocrisy, it was assumed, because vices include gambling and he campaigned against vices. Just as Bachmann's against socialism and yet applies for and receives aid under a socialist platform while she denies similar kinds of socialist (apparently) help to others. How craven.

The question has to be, did the gambler display "the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess." Well, lots of people said he did. Because he had a large anti-vice campaign under way, he was very moralistic when it came to vices. The problem is, he didn't include gambling among the vices he condemned. There was no evidence that he regularly (or, in fact, even seldom) violated the principles and virtues he professed. He failed to uphold principles he was claimed to profess. Similarly, in this case would Bachmann consider farm subsidies to be socialism? I dunno. I don't know if Bachmann defines socialism to include farm subsidies. Not my job to find out--that's the writer's job, to make his case without crucially depending on a fallacy to make it for him (her?). The writer certainly defines socialism a la Bachmann to include this, and applies the definition s/he arrived at to Bachmann. But consider the definition: The one that's operative is "failing to practice beliefs, feelings, or virtues that someone else claims you possess or hold." That's not hypocrisy. That's failing to live up to another's standards. The definition is warped because mid-stream, between (1) and (2), the writer has shifted, redefined, a word--from the implicit definition that the target assumes to a definition somewhat more explicit if only because it's defined by example.

Perhaps the writer's definition is Bachmann's. But the writer has a lot of work to do to show that the conclusion is valid--s/he has to show that the definition s/he applies is actually Bachmann's definition. Otherwise is journalistic malpractice at worst, simple negligence and incompetence at best. And, yes, I have fairly high standards for journalists. I don't like it when they commit absurdly obvious fallacies, assuming that their readers are too stupid or biased to spot them, and then leave out essential bits of information while declaring themselves to be the defenders of truth and justice. It makes them into, well, hypocrites (for starters).

I have high standards because I don't like being manipulated, even when the manipulation is just to make me think bad of someone I already think bad about. That kind of deceit is toxic.

on edit: And, yes, I'm grumpy and jousting at a pet peeve. Cold, hungry, vaguely insomniac. I really have to find an endocrinologist that can figure out what my l-thyroxine dosing should be.