98 Comments

1. Dave the Kapampangan:

VDH: “Is there some generic, overarching explanation that accounts for the lopsided allocation of hypocrisy?”

Sure, two phrases explain it all: Media bias and tribal identity.

Most journalists are zealous tribal Liberals. So they identify with their corrupt fellow Liberals, omit to mention their friends’ hypocrisy and greed, and credit the self-serving blowhards (Yes, you, Jimmy and Al) with all sorts of gravitas and nonexistent eloquence — while they are all too quick to sling vindictive arrows at non tribe members.

Why would mainstream media and many young college students join up with liberal ideologues? Because liberal hucksters champion the idea of redistribution while others champion production. On the surface, redistribution sounds like a good deal– a promise that you’ll always get a slice of the pie, no matter how incompetent or uncompetitive you are. (What a great insurance policy for people who can’t yet write well!)

Meanwhile production sounds much riskier because there’s a small risk you won’t win. Understandably, redistribution sounds like a better deal if you’re not too confident that you can do a competent job.

Looking deeper and reviewing history would reveal that replacing solid production with socialist-style redistribution causes an unsustainable and continuously deteriorating condition for the entire society; i.e. redistribution turns out to be a losing proposition for all. But media zealots don’t think that deeply because they strongly believe their faith in political personality cults will give them benefits for free and moral superiority without hard decisions. The last thing devout journalists want to report is something that doesn’t’ fit their flat model of the world or something that challenges their unfounded faith in the Liberal Kool Aid. So they just refuse to look closely at things.

Jul 1, 2009 - 12:29 am 2. Dave:

When faced with Palin (or other) Derangement Syndrome, the best—–make that the only—–
course of action is to show that person or those persons the door, if they are on your turf.

Tell them not to come back until they learn to keep a civil tongue in their head.

If you are on their turf, take your leave immediately and state in no uncertain terms that you are leaving because you refuse to associate with those who cannot even simulate a decent set of manners.

If on neutral ground, play it by ear as to who gets to depart the immediate vicinity.
You leave if your doing so makes the bozo pay the tab. Otherwise, it is your table and he or she gets to relocate. Again, make it very clear that it is their lack of manners that has ended the relationship, until farther notice.

And be prepared to fight. Some of the deranged will assault you and you should always have countermeasures ready to go.

And finally to the inevitable number of trolls who will mouth off here: I happen to like and admire Sarah Palin. Along with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, etc. etc.

There is nothing you can do about my choices in this matter. Not now, not ever. You are helpless and impotent to control my thoughts, conclusions and comments. REmember that and learn to accept it. Once you do, you might make a blemish on a Victor Charlie posterior. But not before. I bid you good day now and suggest that you attend services at the Foxboro Baptist Church. They are not too far above your level of comprehension.

Jul 1, 2009 - 3:32 am 3. Robbins Mitchell:

Well,maybe instead of living as a more or less moral conservative who once got kicked out of Mensa for that daring to actually run for elective office as one,I should just act as stupid as a liberal and surrender myself to moral depravity….at least that way I could get away with my pecadilloes and maybe even gain approval for them while pretending that I ‘care’ about all the poor downtrodden shmucks I’m exploiting

Jul 1, 2009 - 5:43 am 4. Gaffe Prices:

If I may cite a quotation at length, from G. Gutfeld concerning Irena Sendler:

‘The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded this morning, and I’d like to congratulate Irena Sendler. Sendler was a former history teacher who rescued 2,500 children during the Holocaust and was a top contender for the wondrous prize. Back during the early 1940’s, Sendler was a Catholic social worker who had gone into the Warsaw ghetto to rescue Jewish kids who were destined either to starve there, or die in death camps. She would sneak the kids past Nazi guards, sometimes hiding them in body bags, or would provide them with false documents – inevitably getting them to Polish families for adoption, or hiding them in convents or orphanages. She also made a list of the children’s real names, put them in a jar and buried them, so that some day she could dig them up and find the kids to tell them their true names. The Nazis captured her and beat the crap out of her, but she later escaped, and she went into hiding. She’s now in her late 90’s , living in a nursing home in Poland.”

Professor, if you keep this up, it may produce curtain calls for a prequel-sequel second Nobelesque Obligge Prize Award, for Messers Goracle.

When asked about a second prize, Gore hissed at the notion.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:03 am 5. personal trainer austin tx:

“At least I bet she knows there was not TV in 1929 and that Hoover, not FDR, was president.”

Or that there were not 57 states or that people do not speak Austrian.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:18 am 6. johnb:

Once again, Professor, my own thoughts are an echo of your piece here. Well said!

I’ve often wondered why these fallen conservative icons are seemingly so consumed by guilt that they feel the overwhelming need to confess their sins in such a public fashion.

Ordinary people become unhappy in their marriages all the time, they file their divorces, have their day in court, and later remarry. All without much recrimination from anybody. It just seems odd to me that somehow a job on Capital Hill makes someone less of, or more than, an ordinary American.

We are a strange breed.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:54 am 7. PM:

Biden’s little finger? If that is what they call intelligence we’re doomed.

The reactions to Palin remind me of that little guy with the hairdo in Korea.

Jul 1, 2009 - 7:33 am 8. wl25:

Continuing what Dave, Dr. Hanson and Michael Totten (WSJ article) have said, I believe that the main question anyone has to ask themselves is, “Who do you fear most?” There are only two answers: those outside the gate or those inside the gate. If your answer is the former, you are more than likely conservative or a right leaning libertarian. You enjoy your society, its guiding principles, and you enjoy your own life and productivity. Therefore, you constantly fear those who hate and want to invade and conquer your society and its citizenry.
However, if your answer is those inside the gate, your more than likely a liberal or left-leaning. There is something or everything about your society that you hate. Its laws, its citizenry, or its guiding principles you think are inherently wrong. The people who stand in the way of changing anything are conservatives. They hinder and oppose you in what you think are noble endeavors, and you despise them for it. So liberals are at “war” and during times of war you stay united with your allies, no matter how unscrupulous they may be. Right leaning people normally apply this in foreign policy (see Pinochet and Franco). Liberals don’t apply this to foreign policy and are more likely to admire, to meet, or to praise enemies of the United States (Castro, Chavez) because in the end, a great many liberals and dictators have the same goal. That goal is the end of the United States in its current form.

Jul 1, 2009 - 9:33 am 9. Vader:

I believe that, deep in our hearts, most Americans want leaders of high character.

What makes the Republicans different from the Democrats is that, deep in our hearts, most Americans know perfectly well the Democrats will fail to show the high character Americans hunger for, because Democrats poo-poo the values underlying the high character Americans hunger for. But Americans have not yet fully accepted that Republicans are likely also to fail to show the high character Americans hunger for, because Republicans at least pay lip service, and in some cases more (Romney?), to good character. So there is a sense of betrayal you don’t get with Democracts.

Mark Steyn put it very well the other day: Big government more or less guarantees misrule by creeps and misfits.

Jul 1, 2009 - 9:44 am 10. Tina Trent:

There are feminists and there are Feminists. The former were hardly rabid yet willing to condemn Clinton for his personal behavior, as I recall. The latter “professional” Feminists were very much off him from two years prior when he pushed through welfare reform, which they officially despised. They were disinterested in defending him in the Lewinsky scandal, but there was also little love left to be lost there. In recent memory, they had also been battered and bruised (as it were) by the Thomas hearings, and many were averse to raising the issue of workplace harassment and getting clobbered again — including by conservatives, who, it must be admitted, set the rules and the tone for that sordid little chapter in the history of not denouncing sexual impropriety in the workplace (and exploiting race, it must be remembered). We all reap what we sow, perhaps that occurs equally.

However, I have never seen anything like the hysterical negative response to Sarah Palin. Much of it has to do with her (inaccurate) identification as female “pwt” — poor white trash — the Left’s absolute favorite scapegoat of all time. Talk about a “Despised Other,” if one must talk that way. I’ve sat alongside professional journalists and academicians alternately yucking it up over puerile “redneck” jokes and expressing real rage at this alleged class of inferior beings — it really is quite startling, how beloved the accepted stereotypes become in an environment where most are forbidden and policed.

Jul 1, 2009 - 10:15 am 11. RWE:

I believe the reason for this highly selective embrace of hypocrisy by the left is simple – and hypocritical.

They want the same deal. Hypocrisy is expected to begat hypocrisy – at least in their club.

CNN expects not to be blamed for cozying up to Saddam’s thugs. Rosie O’Donnell expects to get away with being virulently anti-gun except when it comes to her personal bodyguards. And so on.

Jul 1, 2009 - 11:25 am 12. J.E. Dyer:

I don’t know why we waste time calling it “Bush Derangement Syndrome” or “Palin Derangement Syndrome” anymore. It’s “Right Derangement Syndrome,” and it covers everyone who isn’t an intellectual squish, and isn’t in the tank for the laundry list of leftist causes and bromides.

The attacks on guys like Sanford are just cheap opportunism. But one of the most ironic aspects of all this is that the people whom the left excoriates as “poor white trash,” as Tina Trent points out, are typically the least engaged in “do as I say, not as I do” hypocrisy of anyone on the scene, when the left is looking for cheap opportunities. It’s not the “PWT” we find jetting off to Argentina to weep with their true, true love.

But hypocrisy doesn’t really apply in Sanford’s case anyway, unless someone has him on tape thundering against adultery before a crowd. Of course he believes it’s wrong, but unlike the true hypocrites of the left, he doesn’t go around pointing fingers at those who are engaged in it, howling for their blood, and demanding that all the other people adjust THEIR behavior, while he does in private exactly what he rails against in public.

If we used on Sanford the argument the left makes to justify Al Gore’s carbon footprint, we’d first have to catch Sanford piling up a personal fortune of $100 million from lecturing the rest of us on marital fidelity, and selling “adultery credits.”

We’d then go on to argue that, since it IS better for people to keep their marriages together, and not let adultery and lechery into the home, Sanford was doing the world a great public service. And if he needed to blow off some extramarital steam in order to be fresh and ready for that effort, well, that’s what it takes, after all.

That’s the argument we’d make, if we argued like leftists.

Jul 1, 2009 - 12:12 pm 13. Ron Kean:

Outta the park again professor.

Thank you.

Jul 1, 2009 - 12:17 pm 14. Sydney:

VDH,

It is simpler than just conservative are into production and liberals are into equality. Liberal white folks are shallow. They do not have white guilt, like Shelby Steele suggests. They are simply morally preening themselves in to prove their moral superiority to other cool white folks as Steve Sailor says. The more they get into their “religeon” the cooler they become.

Christian Lander’s “Stuff White People Like” book and website is funny and illustrates this. White people do stuff for other white people like hate America because it is cool and PC.

Eggheads who comment on this post sometimes get to complicated, unlike VDH (which is why they are commenting not writing for Pajama’s).

Feminism was buried with Palin treatment. Civil rights movement took huge blow when we found out Reverend Wright and his congregant Obama had their fingers crossed during the civil rights and post civil rights movement, and left us all wondering how many blacks did the same.

PS VDH opposes much of what Steve Sailor and Pat Buchanon have to say, I imagine, but if you read all of them, and shake it up the world makes a bit more sense. Throw in Prager, Krauthammer and Sowell for further clarity.

Jul 1, 2009 - 12:23 pm 15. Rob De Witt:

It’s worth remembering, vis-a-vis “liberals,” that “hypocrisy” is the ultimate epithet of adolescents, who are finely attuned to the inconsistencies of those who set standards for them.

In all cases, particularly those which display Palin Derangement Syndrome, note the withering scorn of the adolescent, the source of the cognitive dissonance experienced by any adult who observes it.

Jul 1, 2009 - 12:32 pm 16. Dr. T:

“9. Vader: I believe that, deep in our hearts, most Americans want leaders of high character.”

History shows that Vader is wrong. Americans typically choose two types of leaders: those who promise them the most or those who look the best. Promisers: Johnson, Clinton, and FDR. Look Best: Kennedy and Reagan.

Occasionally, we choose character. That’s how we got Truman, Carter, and Bush 1. Truman was a good president, but not Carter or Bush 1, so election based on character hasn’t worked well.

I dislike democracy and crave a better way to select politicians. My recommendation is that each position would have a prioritized listing of desirable traits (honesty, openness, communicability, empathy, leadership, fairness, etc.). Candidates would undergo psychological testing that would be cross-checked against their known behaviors. The candidate with the best valid profile would be selected. Significant deviance from the profile while in office would be cause for impeachment.

Jul 1, 2009 - 3:26 pm 17. David H:

The imbalance, IMHO, is created by a vicious cycle of public educators who, themselves indoctrinated on liberal college campuses, indoctrinate young minds in our school systems, which are run by liberal career public servants funded by our tax dollars whose primary goal is to keep their jobs rather than provide quality, well-rounded education.

Conservatism and ethics start in the home, which sadly, is now more and more difficult to sustain (two working parents, daycare, family dinnertimes on the wane, the glorification of single motherhood).

Off to find some sand in which to bury my head.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:21 pm 18. David H:

Oh forgot: VDH, always a pleasure to read your opinions. It really makes me feel better!

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:23 pm 19. wickerbasket:

Sometimes when the politicians really start getting into stuff we can see what is going on. They think that when they talk enough about something we will believe they really mean it. We hear their spirited arguments that are often ridiculous because when someone means it he is right and when someone does not mean it he is wrong. So Republicans are foiled. (Democrats certainly mean it because they stand up against everything wrong.)

They just want us to believe that they are here to fight for us. At least that’s what it seems like to me. They want to play the bulgerism game that CS Lewis talked about. It is not about the truth of the argument, but about the moral standing one has. So marxists point out that capitalists are wrong because they have the perspective of a bourgeousi(?). Quite baffling to Mr. Lewis. Quite normal to us.

I think that in the future we will think about this and wonder.

Jul 1, 2009 - 6:32 pm 20. TLM:

“Some Hypocrisies Are Not Hypocrisies”

When caught in a transgression, hypocritical Liberals usually portray themselves as victims of Conservative machinations, which are of course designed to undermine all Liberals, not just point out the personal failing of the transgressor. Thus, the herd instinct kicks in when any one of them is confronted with accusations of wrong-doing and hypocrisy. Like musk oxen, the group forms a protective circle around the defenseless “victim” of attack, snorting and pawing the ground in fear.

The MSM is part of this herbivore dynamic, and they have now changed it for ever. They believe, intrinsically, that Liberals cannot be hypocrites. That would involve acceptance of a non-relative system of morality, something they are loathe to do themselves. Since a majority of Americans still believe in some semblance of morality akin to Judeo-Christian beliefs, the media seek to level the playing field by biased reporting. They ignore the sexually depraved antics of a Barney Frank house boy, but go completely bonkers over a blubbering buffoon of a Gov. Sanford.

Imagine a liberal version of the disastrous Larry Craig. Caught with his pants down, what would he do? Would he disappear into ignominious political oblivion? Not necessarily. With media connivance, he might opt to have a coming out gala event, complete with sedated spouse and soul mate from stall #9 (or whatever it was). He could confess to living a “lie” — a gay man trapped by convention into living a straight life. His mens’ room epiphany would be celebrated by the MSM as an act of liberation from false morality. The Democrats might run him as the first openly gay candidate for president. And if elected, the First Stall Mate would be hawking his (her?) chocolate chip cookie recipe on GMA.

The MSM has become the protector of Liberal hypocrites. They can do no wrong. Transgressions are to be ignored or exploited for political gain and media viewership. In the absence of morality, anyone can be redeemed if they have the proper political affiliation. And there’s nothing hypocritical about that at all.

Jul 1, 2009 - 10:05 pm 21. Pajamas Media » Some Hypocrisies Are Not Hypocrisies: Sanford, Edwards, and Co.:

[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]

Jul 2, 2009 - 1:01 am 22. Realist:

How about this for hypocrisy writ large black singer/songwriter dies during his life he morphed form a good looking black man in to an ugly middle aged white woman hooked on drugs and plastic surgery he had morbid interest in very young children mainly boys and was caught many times abusing them but either bought off his accusers or was aquitted OJ style by a hilariously equally BIASED jury. But the worst thing about this dt=rug addicted pervert is that he BOUGHT three white children as playthings. I say BOUGHT because that is exactly what he did neither he nor the rented womb Debbie Rowe that he used to created the first two children have any biological connection to them he bought the sperm and bought the eggs she was just a well PAID living incubator. Nothing is know about the third child but as it also has no negroid characteristics at all the logical assumption is that he just BOUGHT him too.
So what do we get in the MSM outrage , disgust, condemnation no we get fawning orgasmic worship of this drug addicted pervert. Michael Jackson BUYS three WHITE children as paedophic SLAVES and playthings and the MSM and the stupid American people do nothing except praise the pervert. USA you have no morals any more and you are not fit to lead the free world you have gone too far down the road of liberal, moral equivalent, multi culti, affirmative action depravity that you just can’t even recognise what morality is.

Jul 2, 2009 - 2:38 am 23. Frank:

If you’re looking for a liberal version of Larry Craig, you don’t have to look any farther than Barney Frank. The damage this hypocrite has done to this country is incalculable. And the liberals and MSM adore him.

To take a slightly different twist on what Sydney said: Conservatives (generally) want equality of opportunity. Liberals want equality of outcomes.

Jul 2, 2009 - 4:28 am 24. e:

Well if you don’t have any standards how can you fail to meet them?

Jul 2, 2009 - 4:51 am 25. » Blog Archive » The Hypocrisy File - It’s not bad if liberals do it.:

[...] Source. Feel free to share this with others: [...]

Jul 2, 2009 - 5:18 am 26. fear Obama:

10 Tina Trent-

However, I have never seen anything like the hysterical negative response to Sarah Palin. Much of it has to do with her (inaccurate) identification as female “pwt” — poor white trash — the Left’s absolute favorite scapegoat of all time.

Most feminists I know are going through the ‘change of life.’-

Talk about your Global Warnings.

Sarah comes from cold climate change-Alaska.

Feminists can finally let their hair down and release all that pent up fiery emotion.

Liberal old ‘hair headed’ bald men are into ‘hack the fat’ bicycle riding-

Why else would they want us to drive cars that won’t kill them when we run over them?

Jul 2, 2009 - 5:20 am 27. MikPazula:

Hypocrisy is the human condition. Who among us wants our own life to be the gold standard of moral behavior? The charge of hypocrisy requires that I affirm only those moral standards which I completely fulfill. This requires me to affirm very little. The law, the norms, the cultural standards must be better than any one person’s ability to put them into practice or we descend into a least common denominator lifestyle. Laws describe as well as prescribe. What kind of society do you want? Without laws that describe that society, we have no way of knowing.

In general for liberals, the only sin is hypocrisy. Being caught doing something that once you spoke against is the only sin against the Holy Ghost. “Why, that would be hypocritical!” responded Al Gore. In other words, it would be better to maintain no standard of behavior and thereby never be caught in contradictory behavior.

Is this how they raised their kids?

Jul 2, 2009 - 5:42 am 28. Reformed Trombonist:

It’s very simple.

A conservative believes that someone can still have all the right opinions and philosophies necessary for good government, and still be a dirtbag. Or behave like one on any given day. It’s that religious thing — we are a fallen race, and all our righteousness is as filthy rags. The bad things we do are our nature; the good things we do, we do only with the Lord’s help. So having the right opinions doesn’t get you a free pass with your own constituents if you stumble.

A liberal, however, believes that if you have all the right opinions and philosophies, then you are a good person, by definition. Any sins are simply shoved aside and, when you point them out, the rejoinder is, “That was unfortunate perhaps, but look at all the hard work he has done on the behalf of the (pick one or more) poor/old/minorities/women/downtrodden/environments/etc.”

To a liberal, the read scandal is not that Sanford cheated on his wife, but that he is Republican.

That sort of thing isn’t important to liberals. But they know it is important to conservatives, so they help themselves to a nice tasty portion of Schadenfreude.

Jul 2, 2009 - 6:22 am 29. Reformed Trombonist:

> To a liberal, the read scandal…

Typos r’us. I meant, “real scandal.”

Jul 2, 2009 - 6:24 am 30. sheesh:

Beyond the oddly familiar phraseology and POVs culled from citizen posts on the matter, VDH tries way too hard to minimize the insidious impact that rampant moralizing has on the Republican party, the reputation of Christian conservatives, and, even worse, the general well-being of this country. These wounds are self-inflicted.

Take your lumps. Learn from your mistakes. Move on.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907020002

Jul 2, 2009 - 6:27 am 31. sheesh:

12. J.E. Dyer: . . . “But hypocrisy doesn’t really apply in Sanford’s case anyway, unless someone has him on tape thundering against adultery before a crowd.”

Wow. I’ll bet Phil Spector feels ripped off, sitting in prison for a murder that wasn’t caught on tape.

Thankfully, I can refer you to the link in post #22.

Jul 2, 2009 - 6:35 am 32. jerryofva:

I think there is something more then just bias working here. Since the Democratic Party was taken over by so-called Progressives it has morphed into little more then your typical socialist criminal conspiracy. One of the hallmarks of a socialist/fascist party is that its member are considered above the law. Party members are exempt from social and legal conventions and have privleges not available to ordinary people.

By the way do describe Franco as particularly murderous in light of other 20th Century totalitarians is laughable. He wasn’t a nice man but he was not a genocidal maniac like Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

Jul 2, 2009 - 6:44 am 33. NCBob:

Hypocrisy, indeed! Does anyone really believe that guys as arrogant and dumb as Kerry and Biden didn’t (don’t?) have girlfriends on the side in Washington?
Biden took the train home every night? NONSENSE!! Where did he sleep on those nights he stayed in DC after schmoozing with his son’s clients, those he sold influence and access to?
If the media were anything but propagandists, they’d find these hypocrits out. BTW, there are some senior, arrogant Republicans who are probably as randy. Maybe, there’s a media agreement that the will see no evil when a Senator, and Senator, is involved.

Jul 2, 2009 - 6:46 am 34. misanthropicus:

The Duke U/pedophilia/Lombard affair and VDH -

Hypocrisy… again, VDH’s article is fine & on the mark, yet as tone, I’d say, it’s way too tender with the liberals, who day in day out illustrate that abjection is simply bottomless.

Hypocrisy – what about the miraculously rapid disappearance of the Duke U/pedophilia/Lombard scandal from news?
Something like this should have been on the front page for long time, disected and analysed – yet, as soon as news leaked that Lombard is homosexual, the case has simply vanished, media switching the nation’s attention to galvanizing stories about Michael Jackson’s relevance, about squirrels planted in cleveages and so on.

Where is Diane Sawyer’s pained figure, where is Ophrah speechless, deeply hurt, where is Chris Matthews in a cloud of furious imprecations, where are the Hollywood figures’ fury and support, where is the Empathy-In-Chief dude expressing his indignation and support for the meek and vulnerable?

Yes, where are the liberals’ indignation, disposition they so often discharge on any and countless matters?
When it comes to homosexual transgressions (hey, even I express myself with prudence in this matter), the liberals’ silence is deafening.

And what obfuscations we’ll later hear about this fact? That Lombard was an oppression victim, and that this has caused his behavior, which, anyway is not harmful?

Late Patrick Moynahan coined a term: “dumbing down deviency” – and now we’re all assisting how, by muffling the Lombard/pedophilia affair, liberals are actively working to bring down abomination to a societally acceptable, casual level.

So, mister Hanson, while I generally agree with your views, I have to say that your measured tone IN RE “liberals’ hypocrysy” is not the right key when dealing with the rotten lot they are.

PS. A last thought on media’s integrity: since 4th of July is here, Anderson Cooper has a pefect opportunity to publicly expound on the merits of teabagging and Lombard’s conduct.

PPS: A little metal exercise: substitute Lombard with a Republican/ conservative then imagine that situation’s media coverage – shock and awe, isn’t it?

Jul 2, 2009 - 6:48 am 35. misanthropicus:

RE #30/sheesh: “[...] VDH tries way too hard to minimize the insidious impact that rampant moralizing has on the Republican party, the reputation of Christian conservatives [...]”

Sheeshkebob, make the effort and apply your deep analysin top media’s conduct in the current, Duke U/Lombard/homosexuality scandal –

Do it buddy, plenty of opportunity to demonstrate why a homosexual pedophiliac is actually a noble figure -

Jul 2, 2009 - 7:21 am 36. Fred Beloit:

Dr. T. thinking outside the box at #16:
“My recommendation is that each position would have a prioritized listing of desirable traits (honesty, openness, communicability, empathy, leadership, fairness, etc.). Candidates would undergo psychological testing that would be cross-checked against their known behaviors. The candidate with the best valid profile would be selected. Significant deviance from the profile while in office would be cause for impeachment.”

I worked for a few years at a psych testing publisher. Dr T, IMO, has way to much faith in the accuracy and objectivity of such tests. Even one as mono-zoned as Sheets could probably manipulate any one of them.

Jul 2, 2009 - 7:21 am 37. bbbb:

The root context of hypocrisy, for many, is their religion. Liberals bash conservatives for being hypocritical because they think they can connect dots to conservatives violating their personal religious beliefs, so presto! Conservatives are hypocrites! With liberals, their extreme left thinking IS their religion (something many people have written about, so that’s nothing new)and with the liberal religion, not only do they have weak to non-existent moral bearings, it’s acceptable to treat conservatives like infidels, unworthy of human decency, so it’s not hypocritical of them to disproportionately bash conservatives compared to liberals for similar misbehavior (sounds a little like many, many Muslims I’ve met). I believe that is why liberals are incapable of having sound, rational, and scientific discussions regarding the issues in which conservatives and liberals are divided- to question their thinking and knowledge is questioning their faith of the liberal religion-lifestyle. By asking them to be rational and disengage emotions is personally insulting to them, they can’t handle it, and then we all get the fun experience of witnessing true and pure derangement firsthand!

Jul 2, 2009 - 7:34 am 38. Mike W.:

I really don’t care that Mark Sanford cheated on his wife, just as I really don’t care that John Edwards did.

What I do care about is that Mark Sanford completely broke off contact with his staff and fled the country and his responsiblity to his state and his constituents in order to cheat on his wife.

It’s not the cheating, it’s the flagrant irrepsonsiblity and disrespect for the office the people of his state that is the REAL issue here.

And of course, it’s the issue that the right-wing doesn’t want to discuss, because it’s so much easier to play the “Democrats cheat too” game.

Jul 2, 2009 - 7:45 am 39. Rob Crawford:

First, no one citing Media Matters has an ounce of credibility. They’re a pack of liars founded primarily to keep liberals from having to confront uncomfortable truths.

(In any case, “sheesh”, if we wanted your input we’d scrape it off the bottoms of our shoes.)

Second, I’ve NEVER heard of a lefty being criticized for living well. The closest has come when they’ve screwed up their taxes, but that has more to do with skirting the law than their own hypocrisy.

Jul 2, 2009 - 8:00 am 40. Craig S. Maxwell:

Maybe the most elegant explanation for this double standard is the essence of the one (given in slightly different forms) by thinkers like C.S. Lewis and, later, Allan Bloom. Simply put, they argue that leftists are less “judgmental” because leftists don’t believe in an objective right and wrong. And , in fact, the majority of leftists really are moral (often, epistemological) relativists. But, of course, no one can escape the necessity of discrimination entirely and leftists are, somewhat paradoxically, often quite shrill in their denunciations (decibel levels often rising as reason retreats). And the reason for this is that by abandoning traditional morality (natural law, the “Tao”) they have lost the only true criterion for making sound evaluations. But, still needing some kind of substitute, rationale, or semi-plausible justification for their thoughts and actions, they have been forced to turn to inadequate ideological substitutes–usually and conveniently, the kind that also serve to flatter their perception of themselves as “brave pioneers” clearing a arduous path (one strewn with intransigent conservatives!) toward a more enlightened future.’

But the vanity of this whole enterprise is plain, and no one summed it up better than G.K. Chesterton when he wrote:
“The best reason for a revival of philosophy is that unless a man has a philosophy certain horrible things will happen to him. He will be practical; he will be progressive; he will cultivate efficiency; he will trust in evolution; he will do the work that lies nearest; he will devote himself to deeds, not words. Thus struck down by blow after blow of blind stupidity and random fate, he will stagger on to a miserable death with no comfort but a series of catchwords; such as those which I have catalogued above. Those things are simply substitutes for thoughts. In some cases they are the tags and tail-ends of somebody else’s thinking. That means that a man who refuses to have his own philosophy will not even have the advantages of a brute beast, and be left to his own instincts. He will only have the used-up scraps of somebody else’s philosophy; which the beasts do not have to inherit; hence their happiness. Men have always one of two things: either a complete and conscious philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken bits of some incomplete and shattered and often discredited philosophy.”

Thus the “liberal mind” today.

Jul 2, 2009 - 8:22 am 41. Delia:

That picture of Edwards looking at himself in a powder compact is PRICELESS.

Jul 2, 2009 - 8:44 am 42. Mike Shuster:

Victorm Clinton and Kennedy are too far back for me to remember, but I have no idea why you think Edwards and Spitzer have not “suffered an additional wage of hypocrisy” or that their infidelities have been overlooked or forgiven by the liberal establishment. They are both dead, career-wise (albeit both making clumsy attempts to rehabilitate their reputations). Both of them were roundly condemned by feminists. (Just for an example off the top of my head, check out jezebel.com, leading feminist left-leaning blog, on both men, or that article in The Nation when the Spitzer thing broke. ) I think this post is based on an entirely false perception on your part.

Jul 2, 2009 - 8:45 am 43. sheesh:

35 missedanthropicus . . . I looked for it on Fox News. Couldn’t find it. Typical of the MSM.

Jul 2, 2009 - 8:59 am 44. shaui-jan:

30.” VDH tries way too hard to minimize the insidious impact that rampant moralizing has on the Republican party, the reputation of Christian conservatives, and, even worse, the general well-being of this country. These wounds are self-inflicted.”

making some sense but still linking to crap…..media matters?c’mon you have had a month,sheesh-o.

Jul 2, 2009 - 9:06 am 45. Mike W.:

Sexual and moral hypocrisy are not even the real issues here.

I couldn’t care less that Sanford cheated on his wife, much like I couldn’t care less that Edwards cheated on his wife.

The REAL issue is that Sanford fled his state and his country, without alerting his staff, and abandoned his responsibility to his state and his constituents.

It’s his recklessness, irresponsibility and betrayal of his constituents that make him unfit to serve, not his affairs.

Jul 2, 2009 - 9:32 am 46. Kolchak:

The Real power in this country resides on the LEFT.

Jul 2, 2009 - 9:36 am 47. sheesh:

44. shaui-jan: Meaningless complaint.

Jul 2, 2009 - 9:57 am 48. Rose:

Liberals are Ayn Rand’s “second hand people”–they don’t really seek to be good at what they proclaim to be, they only want people to think they are good. Thus they both crave and distain the media who supplies them the cover to continue their public deception, thus trapping them in their own incompleteness. They abhor any sign of an authentic person just as the vampire runs from the sign of the cross.

Jul 2, 2009 - 10:03 am 49. Delia:

46. Kolchak:

“The Real power in this country resides on the LEFT.”

Yep. Isn’t the suspense killing you? The train-wreck of Democratic POWER is going to be a real rubber-neck experiment in stupid.

Jul 2, 2009 - 10:15 am 50. joe buzz:

Do not over complicate this.
It is all about FEELINGS with the liberals. It makes them feel good about themselves to point out and criticize the faults and short comings of those on the right. They or lets say “many” can not bear to bring themselves to do the same to those with which they share an ideology or worldview. To do so may cause consternation and less than good feelings about themselves. Self loathers must avoid additional bad feelings at all costs lest they nudge themselves off the slippery edge of sanity.

Jul 2, 2009 - 10:40 am 51. antaine:

Dr. T-

And those who established, amended and monitored those standards would be the puppet masters and real governors…

Jul 2, 2009 - 10:40 am 52. joe buzz:

Oh and BTW, my opinion is that Sanford should resign. He has proven himself unworthy to serve the good people of South Carolina.

Jul 2, 2009 - 10:45 am 53. Mike W.:

Rose: “Liberals are Ayn Rand’s “second hand people”–they don’t really seek to be good at what they proclaim to be, they only want people to think they are good. Thus they both crave and distain the media who supplies them the cover to continue their public deception, thus trapping them in their own incompleteness. They abhor any sign of an authentic person just as the vampire runs from the sign of the cross.”

Ayn Rand was a wealthy brat whose family got all their money taken away by Russian Communists. So natually she grew up hating wealth distribution and started a whole movement around it. Like a scientist, a philosopher must seek knowledge without bias. Ayn’s bias was that any redistribution of wealth or curtailing of individual freedom = evil. So therefore her entire philosophy was already loaded from the start. It’s as if Newton, in his observations of gravity, started with the preconception that only certain apples can fall to the ground. The greatest irony of Objectivism is that, by scientific standards, it is not objective.

Ayn Rand was not a biologist or anthropologist, yet she claimed to have authoritative insight into the human condition. She argued that the human animal is an individual by nature, and that human happiness and virtue can only really be gained by living a rationally self-interested life. However, if you ask any modern day biologist about the true origins and characteristics of the human species, he would laugh at Rand’s judgment. The human animal, like all animals, is a pack animal that has for the 2 million years of his existence (and millions of years before that) lived in communal, hierarchical environments like chimps and gorillas. An early human who lived a “rationally self interested life” would soon find himself ejected from his tribe and left to fend on his own, where he would be an easy target for predators and other tribes. The community, and the safety and comfort it offers, is the basis of our ‘civilization’ and has been for millions of years. Go look at other primates, and see how many of them are “rationally self-interested”. But Ayn Rand comes along and argues that now that we have money, millions of years of evolution are now out the window because we can buy the things that the community used to provide for free. Obviously, Ayn Rand is not a scientist.

I enjoyed reading the Fountainhead as much as the next guy, but if you really subscribe to Rand’s pseudo-science joke of a philosophy then you need to get your head examined.

Jul 2, 2009 - 10:52 am 54. Tina Trent:

There reaches a point where it is not worth reading Pajamas Media when in order to do so you must crawl through ignorant guttersnipe about menopause and hitting women with cars. It reflects badly on the whole thing.

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:04 am 55. BP:

–who used his superior position to cajole the younger woman into exploitive sexual services–

Women fall like flies to men in power. Cajoling or Force is not needed.

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:18 am 56. Moogie:

#50 Joe Buzz: You nailed it.

VDH: Another great observation.

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:39 am 57. Jenny Greenteeth:

Feminists have long argued that serial womanizing is a sort of moral cheapening of their gender. The supposed male power broker uses rank, money, and privilege to sexually exploit the vulnerable, gullible, younger female. So true.

And yet (and I speak from experience here) a man who looks OK, is well groomed, has manners and self confidence, holds a powerful job and drives a high end car far from having to use his power, rank and wealth to exploit women will find hilself getting more offers than he can handle. And the fact that he’s married does not seem to make a difference.

but I think the difference in the media attitude to liberals (I mean classic liberals not American liberals) and conservatives is a lot to do with the way conervatives make a big deal of family values, thus their philandering looks more hypocritical.

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:42 am 58. Strawman:

There reaches a point where it is not worth reading Pajamas Media when in order to do so you must crawl through ignorant guttersnipe about menopause and hitting women with cars. It reflects badly on the whole thing.

Indeed. In order to avoid charges of “censorship”, over-the-top comments like that should go into a monkey cage. If you want to see them, go there, but don’t leave them here to trip(e) over.

There should be broad categories of reason for monkey caging, which include:

Ad Hominem
Racism/sexism/homophobia/etc.
Gross stupidity
Trolling behavior

And probably a few others.

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:48 am 59. jw:

(1) Representative Barney Frank’s career is a good example of left-wing hypocrisy. (I do not use the word “liberal” since Marxists are not liberal.) How can a man who allowed his apartment to be used for male homosexual pimping, he being in a homosexual relationship with the pimp, still be a member of Congress?

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:56 am 60. Shef Rogers:

Yes, Victor, they’re all against you and it’s so, so unfair.

Jul 2, 2009 - 12:06 pm 61. jw:

On Ayn Rand and animals: Indeed, man is a political animal, as Aristotle said. But among social animals, each animal is an individual with competition between them. And, of course, there is competition between groups of human beings – as in war. Thomas Hobbes’ LEVIATHAN is right about human behavior.

Jul 2, 2009 - 12:11 pm 62. Michael:

While I don’t worship at the alter of Ayan Rand I don’t see her philosophy worthless because of her background. “Like a scientist, a philosopher must seek knowledge without bias” is the ideal but I don’t know that I can point to anyone that has done that successfully. I have worked with scientists and conversed with philosophers and they are all just as captive of their preconseptions as everyone else. A few realised this (and I respect that) but most just deny it and pontificate.

The most anyone can do is be aware of their preconceptions and make allowances for them even though complete success is not possible. Those that deny their prejudices are legion and fill the media and colleges and politics.

Jul 2, 2009 - 12:14 pm 63. WR Jonas:

Got to say that #22 “Realists’ “broadside sank quite a few ships! Great post.
#57 Lordy, I hope that your name is a hoax!!!

Jul 2, 2009 - 12:36 pm 64. ricpic:

What’s with Sanford that he couldn’t suck it up like a man?

“I made a mistake. That is all I will say about my private life. Based on my conduct I am unworthy of the office I hold and therefor will resign forthwith. Period.”

Why couldn’t he handle it like that?

Jul 2, 2009 - 1:49 pm 65. Marc Malone:

#38 Mike W – When this story broke, your plaint is the first opinion I offered on this site. I said he should be impeached for dereliction. I am a Conservative, but I agree with you on this score. We don’t all think alike, just so’s you know.

Jul 2, 2009 - 2:29 pm 66. Marc Malone:

#53 Mike W – Again, your post has some good points. I think, however, that you miss the very basic notion that WE are not animals. We can rise above our baser nature… at least a few of us can.

When we seek out philosophy, we seek to aspire to nobler things. One need not be a scientist to philosophize. There is much that the herd does that is very wrong. Prejudice comes to mind as an example.

Was Ayn Rand wholly correct? No. However, much of what she wrote is widely valued for its ability to allow us to put some things in perspective and see some truths for ourselves. Rather than define things for me, she merely exposed things.

I think it is the striving towards understnading that renders us moral. When we stop, thinking we know what we need to know, we begin to perish. You are growing, or you are dying. Constantly thinking about right or wrong keeps one righteous. When we stop, we become animals again.

Jul 2, 2009 - 2:46 pm 67. Marc Malone:

To me, the greatest ridiculousness of the Left are their charges of hypocrisy by the Right. How do they do it? Anecdotal evidence.

Sanford was a Conservative Christian. See? You guys can’t live up to your own standards! Um, no, ONE guy couldn’t live up to our standards.

The charges are intellectually dishonest.

Jul 2, 2009 - 2:52 pm 68. Marzipan:

Two things I would point out

1 – Any look at the news shows that most (not all, but most) of the calls coming from within SC for Sanford’s resignation are from fellow Republicans. Maybe they are part of the left wing conspiracy too?

2 – Edward’s infidelities cost him his shot at the democratic nomination, Spitzer had to resign as governor and Clinton was lucky he got caught in his second term or he wouldn’t have been re-elected. Going back even further, Gary Hart’s fun on a lil’ ship called the Monkey Business (if i remember correctly) cost him the democratic nomination in the 80s. And if Barny Frank is a pervert – at least he is an honest one.

The real issue here is that Sanford, Edwards, Spitzer, Clinton and all the others from both parties are liars. And if they can betray their wives and families why should any member of the public believe that they would not betray the public trust?

Jul 2, 2009 - 3:21 pm 69. Ed Wallis:

The following is based on having read the article but none of the responses (will do so in due time, when time allows!) :

BRILLIANT article.

Articulates the frustration and anger of the current situation very well.

FOR ME : I would hope that this article serves “conservatives”/”the right” as a “clarion call”/kick in the a§§ to GET ACTIVE and FIGHT as the Leftists have done over the past decades…to drop the LAME “oh, we’re not like them…we just don’t DO that sort of thing”.

TIME TO GO FOR THE JUGULAR…FOR AMERICA.

Trolls be damned. (Just IGNORE them..as tempting as it is…!)

WE CAN DO IT.

Jul 2, 2009 - 4:03 pm 70. sheesh:

67. Marc Malone: . . . “Sanford was a Conservative Christian. See? You guys can’t live up to your own standards! Um, no, ONE guy couldn’t live up to our standards.”

Come on, Malvo . . . ONE guy? You know better than that. Everybody knows better than that. Oh no, wait, you’re right, Sanford is your ONLY guy . . . and Clinton was our ONLY guy.

You’re not even making an effort. Is it that desperate for conservatives now that you’ve given up trying?

Jul 2, 2009 - 4:14 pm 71. bill:

Too much effort wasted attempting to define our “postmodern” world in black and white terms like democrat/republican & conservative/liberal. People who are trying to get by don’t care about Gore, Edwards, Spitzer or Sanford and they don’t understand why Sarah Palin doesn’t go away. She and McCain lost. A fun, nice appearing woman who is perfect for the rugged individualists in Alaska. If you want to be in the public spotlight then be prepared for the rough treatment Ronald Reagan was so good at laughing off. I don’t recall him couching himself as a victim.

Ask any middle age caucasian baby boomer and they are likely not enthusiastic in their support for Sotomayor regardless of their political leanings. They don’t like the arrogance of Barbara Boxer. And they don’t like the financial wizards who have lost them their jobs and their savings. Most American’s favor universal healthcare. (do the republican’s think everyone will quit their jobs and hope they get sick because we have a public healthcare program?)

It’s still about the economy.

Jul 2, 2009 - 4:51 pm 72. chrisa:

Just as some of you pointed out that Sanford’s real transgression was dereliction, let’s all get a clue here–Spitzer committed an actual crime, so did Clinton. Edwards was slimy but unless he violated law with the payments to Rielle, not criminal, same w Hart. Frank is a criminal unless you are incredibly gullible — prostitution ring, remember?

But were Clinton, Edwards, and Sanford, to take 3, lying to their wives? I highly doubt that the wives in question didn’t know or 99% suspect, and I know that a lot of wives tolerate infidelity if the man is considered a catch.

Jul 2, 2009 - 5:03 pm 73. Wynne:

The Awful Specter of Standards

To the extent that the problem of hypocrisy can be reduced to a simple cause I would submit that it rests – for conservatives — on the adherence to standards, writ large. For liberals it is something else entirely.

What kinds of standards? Those traditional in Western culture, particularly – but not exclusively – normative ones: standards of social behavior, decency, honor, objective truth, intellect, principle, language and performance in one’s endeavors. Adherence to standards is, in a word, discipline. Standards that motivate, on the one hand, and constrain on the other.

The petulant, adolescent rebellion of the 60’s was an overt rejection of traditional standards and attendant norms. And it was a wholesale rejection, somewhat reminiscent of the phenomenon that followed the French Revolution. Agin’ what is and for what ain’t. Although he rebellion may have been driven more by demographics than ideology, many of the ‘new’ ideas it internalized had been brewing for half a century

I think that a case can be made that a desire for constraints and a natural sense of good and bad, right and wrong inhere, hard-wired, in human nature, and are probably associated with survival. If they are deliberately ignored or willfully denied one is exposed to nagging phantasms of loss and guilt. A post-Kierkegaardian nihilism. Enter here the specter of standards – not quite destroyed, somehow undead — rudely to remind the left of the existential angst that constantly besets them.

Conservatives, by definition, embrace tradition, and they represent a constant scold to the left for their forfeiture of essential social structures. Though we often fail to meet them, they are still our standards. This may explain why the left is so hostile to established religion (not in the Constitutional sense) and to the military, where tradition and discipline are foremost.

The left holds the amoral high ground.

Having forsworn intellectual discipline the left trades on emotion – the lowest common denominator. By “lowest” I do not mean least important, but rather least governable, for it operates at the limbic level. It is infantile, requiring no standards beyond the operative and strategic ones of empathy or anger that a situation may demand. It seeks its own ends (power) without any scruple save the primal, self-affirming need to believe they – persons and ends — are good.

And so we return to hypocrisy. Better, perhaps, “hypocrisies”, since the hypocrisy of the left is qualitatively different from that of the right. For the right hypocrisy lies in articulating standards and failing through weakness to meet them; for the left hypocrisy is simply the pretense of owning standards. Employed as a means to power, It is a weapon taken from the arsenal of the right and used against it. Otherwise it is without meaning. As there can be no shame without honor, so there can be no hypocrisy without standards.

As the experience of the 20th Century illustrates, the political victories of the left may be ultimately hollow, Pyrrhic and haunted, but they are extremely pernicious. Better they be true hypocrites.

Jul 2, 2009 - 5:09 pm 74. baluc/ka:

Yup, Biden is so smart that he just had to plagiarize someone else’s work.

A smart person does not steal someone else’s ideas/work.

Only a fool in over his head.

Jul 2, 2009 - 6:23 pm 75. Instapundit » Blog Archive » VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: I think the standard explanation of the trashing accorded the foolish Govern…:

[...] VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: [...]

Jul 2, 2009 - 6:59 pm 76. DavidN:

I think you’ve missed one crucial point, Victor. According to the sequence of events as they were recounted in something I read (no the sequence in which they became public), John Edwards cheated on his wife and fathered a child, confessed to her that he’d done so, and then went out and campaigned for the presidency. During that campaign, he more than once insisted that a candidate’s fidelity to his spouse was an important part of what made him/her a good or bad candidate. He did this after he’d cheated on his wife, and confessed to her his infidelity, but before the rest of us knew about it. Think about that, in all its breathless hypocrisy: he cheats on his wife, confesses to her, and then runs on the “I’m faithful to my wife” platform.

The fact that he did this, and then wasn’t really called on it, is beyond absurd. Frankly, I’m even more than a bit peeved at his wife, who stood by him during the campaign (or stayed home more or less sick) and let him profess his faithfulness, all the while knowing he was lying but “going to do the right thing” once he won the presidency.

The whole discussion really comes down to this: accusations of various faults: racism, sexism, homophobia, elitism, greed…all of these ills are judged by small groups of interested people, and most of them are very liberal, and very partisan. Jeremiah “Them Jews” Wright isn’t a racist, but your average generic Republican who opposes a tax increase is. Bill “I did not have sex with that woman” Clinton isn’t a sexist, but said Republican who opposes abortion is. Al Gore, Charles Rangel, and Joe Biden are thought to be *populists* while Newt Gingrich is the ultimate evil, and Dick Cheney is supposedly Darth Vader.

Jul 2, 2009 - 8:08 pm 77. Bill Clinton:

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Jul 2, 2009 - 8:30 pm 78. Jack Marcotte:

Essential vdh

The most interesting about the above comments is the silence, including vdh’s that is due to the piece that is missing.

Who can tell what it is and how it fits? The BHO’s can be seen as irrational and human when seen and understood in more than the two dimensions discussed in most comments.

Liberal or conservative, sounds simple and benign however when seen in its entirety as it should be seen without the “brain” holes it is much more dangerous to America than most now believe.

Without the clarity needed to “see” it simply is the internal rationalizing for those who think only in two dimensions and only at the level of left or right that their own limited rationalizations allow. A simple difference of opinion. Confusion. Not.

All are the same human trait. The internal hole that is missing simply blocks any vision that allows a complete truthful picture. Would this complete vision allow for the decision needed? — Of course!

Marxist, liberal thought is brainless at best; it is not even evolutional or advanced to humans but irrational, a product of irrational unoccupied weak minds, attributed to Lenin and Marx, hypocritical and power hungry at its core.

It reflects either the chaos or hypocrisy in the minds of the “believers”.

It is also misery and hell on earth when implemented. It kills the human spirit. It kills human’s period when its implementation has gone far enough to gain total control.

It must kill. It you do not understand that you still have a “hole” and are essentially a liberal cult follower. Forget showing your educational credentials that is a confirmation of it. They are your indocrination papers. If gotten in the last 30 years they are also worthless as an education in history and political science.

The silent holes in a rational human mind are much bigger in the Marxist liberal brain and when viewed by a complete human who has no holes in his “brain” it can be seen for what it is.

The utopian language liberals hear blows throw their minds like “weed” smoke making them believe than can understand the “Universe”. Weed or Pot, is the perfect drug for the Marxist Utopians. The Marxist leaders, like Stalin, PolPot,and Mao however knew better. BHO is simply a believer.

This indoctrination process to chaos and revolution delivered in the BHO package on the USA will always self destruct as millions of victims have already found just in the last century.

To allow it to implement means that to end it will require a revolution.

Any revolution at this point will start with the vote. However, what happens if Acorn’s continue to steal the votes. What happens then America?

Is American Justice now dealing with Acorn? Why not America? Has it gone further than you think?

Can the Liberal Democratic Party Facade of the Revolution cover Acorn’s crimes up because they now control the US Congress and Whitehouse? and Moving to control the Supreme Court with a “racist” who has sympathy for blacks and gays. But not justice for all.

Look carefully you can see it happening among the “cult” brain dead (big holes) followers.

Remember Joe the Plumber, with his simple comments a mindless female African “American” without direction or instruction begins a sinister and anti American “check” on Joe the Plumber. She is not brave or intelligent enough to fight with ideas or even under the constitutional “rules of the game” but behind the curtain of a mindless bureaucracy, motivated by communal racial indoctrination, she began the “move” to what all BHO’s will eventually become. At the expense of Who? America.

Like an ant colony of living ants forming an organism simply designed to preserve itself at the expense of the individual. Dead or Alive and Sub human. What is in store for us?

There are plenty of other such examples for those who can see. All such participates in the BHO “movement” will become as they are for different reasons, black or white, until they are thrown out.

BHO is only real and accurately captured if you define him as a product of this irrational PC parasitic movement that infested the USA in the 1940’s and 50’s when communism still had a shot at world domination.

What is their shot now in the USA is a question that all should be asking themselves now in the current Banana Republic of America.

Jul 2, 2009 - 9:45 pm 79. TLM:

It’s amazing how often the articles and posts on this site devolve into a discussion of ethics and morality. How one perceives morality may now be the fundamental difference between Conservatives and Liberals in this country, more so than politics, economic policy or national security considerations.

I have a pet theory for why this is so (and I’m sure it is not original). The moral relativism that dominates Liberal thinking is anathema to conservatives — for two reasons. The first is obvious: moral relativism represents a rejection of Western cultural beliefs, particularly the Judeo-Christian ethical teachings still adhered to by most people who consider themselves conservative.

The second reason is the concrete nature of the thinking that underlies moral relativism: by definition moral relativism rejects an abstract concept of what is moral. Conservatives find it irritating to have to argue morality by concrete example, tit for tat, yada yada. They get nowhere and come away thinking they are participating in cognitive de-evolution or something.

In short, there is a fundamental difference in how Liberals and Conservatives think (as in cogitate) about morality, and probably the world in general. I hope the cognitive scientists, sociobiologists, etc are busy mitigating this problem. Unfortunately, the majority of them seem to be diehard Liberals as well, so don’t expect any definitive answers soon.

Jul 2, 2009 - 10:32 pm 80. Realist:

In the NAZI Night of the Long Knives many Brownshirts died with ‘Heil Hitler’ on their lips such was their sublime gullibility and incapability of understanding that their Fuehrer could have betrayed them and their socialist beliefs.
The same thing is happening to American liberals now they cannot or rather will not believe that the ‘hope and change’ THEY voted for is not the ‘Hope and Change’ that LIAR Messiah and BOGUS POTUS is forcing on them.
It was ever thus gullible, hysterical, emotional worshipers are ALWAYS the last to wake up and smell the coffee.

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:36 pm 81. JMH:

It’s the rule of men, not of laws. In the liberal mind, whatever liberals do is okay, since they’re the annointed. Laws are for other people.

Jul 2, 2009 - 11:43 pm 82. Joseph:

I know this is off topic but I’ve waited for someone to call #32 jerryofva on his description of Franco as “He wasn’t a nice man.” He wasn’t as bad as Hitler or Stalin or Mao but that was because Spain isn’t as big as Russia or China and didn’t invade all of Europe like Germany. The people of Spain are just starting to dig up the victims in mass graves thanks to this less than nice man. Anyone here got a brief for Franco except jerry?
Can anyone explain what 78 Jack Marcotte is talking about? All I get is a vague Body Snatchers vibe.

Jul 3, 2009 - 2:15 am 83. RightwingHippyChick:

@Dave:
“When faced with Palin (or other) Derangement Syndrome, the best—–make that the only—–course of action is to show that person or those persons the door, if they are on your turf.”

Indeedy, view it as an instant IQ test and be thankful you found out they are a nutty kook so cheaply.

Keeping ‘friends’ like that around usually leads to bad situations somewhere down the line because they have a fundamental attitude issue that will eventually catch up with them at some point (just like a house with a broken basement eventually collapses) and you really don’t want to be around when it does.

Jul 3, 2009 - 2:34 am 84. Charlie:

Whoa!

I’m rather astonished that a scholar does not understand the definition of hypocrisy. Then reading thru the comments, seems no one does.

Hypocrisy is professing to virtues, standards, principles one does not actually hold.

If you truly hold a principle and fall short of it, as seems to be the case with Mr Sanford, that is not hypocrisy. That is plain ol’ human frailty, sin even.

It is precisely behavior like that of Mr Edwards that is a billboard for hypocrisy. He was boasting for all to hear that he was standing by the little lady thru her ordeal as proof of his character even as he was indulging in his affair.

It will help us all to withstand the inevitable childish lefty accusations that fly whenever someone on the right trips up if we keep that distinction in mind. Giving into temptation, struggling with your demons, sinning… NOT hypocrisy. Proclaiming your character and admirable qualities while blithely doing otherwise… hypocrisy.

Jul 3, 2009 - 5:49 am 85. sheesh:

74. baluc/ka: . . . “Yup, Biden is so smart that he just had to plagiarize someone else’s work. A smart person does not steal someone else’s ideas/work.”

Ann Coulter. Elizabeth Hasselbeck.

Jul 3, 2009 - 7:19 am 86. Jerry:

Hanson plays hardball with his political enemies all the time.When a well earned brush back pitch at some of the very photogenic and very intellectual light weigth party hacks in his dopey party causes him to complain to the umpire it makes me laugh.
I noticed he forgot to mention Newt dumping his wife while she was on her death bed!
Pot….meet kettle…

Jul 3, 2009 - 7:36 am 87. David Perry:

I don’t worship at the altar of Ayn Rand either, and I don’t buy that her philosophy is somehow “objective,” but #53 is seriously oversimplifying her views. Rand never said that working together with others was a bad thing in and of itself, or that you shouldn’t care what happens to others. What she was in essence saying was, don’t pretend that you’re working with or helping others out of some disinterested sense of wanting to do good for others, but rather recognize that you’re doing it because of some combination of a.) liking the people you work with, generally because they share *your* values in some basic way, and b.) because working with others gets you closer to some goal you are trying to reach. She also said that, to the maximum extent possible, such associations should be *voluntary* ones, and not forced upon the individual. She also noted that people who are trying to impose their will on others love to wrap up their plans in a disguise of “I’m doing this for the people.”

Whether you agree with all of this or not is a debatable point. There is a very interesting discussion to be had (at least on some levels) as to whether there is truly such a thing as altruism. But there is a lot of truth to be found in what she was saying, particularly in the idea that the ideas of “community” or “society” are not totally congruent with the concept of “government.” There are many ways in which people can work together without getting government involved, and in most situations, the results are better than the ones government gets. The other irony, of course, is that the biologically-based theory of behavior that #53 cites is totally based on self-interest; it’s just that it replaces the idea of “us” having some kind of independent self-interest with the idea that our genes are self-interested.

“Ayn Rand was a wealthy brat whose family got all their money taken away by Russian Communists. So natually she grew up hating wealth distribution and started a whole movement around it. . .So therefore her entire philosophy was already loaded from the start.”

Whereas there are absolutely no value assumptions in your statement whatsoever, no sirree.

Jul 3, 2009 - 8:47 am 88. Jerry:

Dave(87)
It’s all hard wired.Jesus/Ann Rand or Marx can’t undo evolution based methods of survival encoded in our dna.
Sanford is just a dominant male ape taking orders from ancient parts of his brain.I see no problem with any of these guys on the “getting some strange” front.

Jul 3, 2009 - 10:20 am 89. Marc Malone:

#70 sheesh – C’mon, now. “One guy” meant one among tens of millions. I never cheated on my wife. Same is true of the vast majority of Conservatives.

Btw, what is this Malvo you keep calling me. I know there’s a city in Sweden(?) by that name, but I doubt you’re referring to that?

Jul 3, 2009 - 8:11 pm 90. Marc Malone:

#79 TLM – The answer to your question is simple. We conervatives get our values from traditional sources. Our religions are the usual suspects. They form the basis for our values.

Liberals, on the other hand, have their politics as their religion. Being good and devout means adhering to the Party line. You can do all kinds of unethical things and still be “moral” according to their faith, because you’re devoted to “The Cause”. Typical cult stuff. Standards of decency go out the window. It’s a sad morality, but there is no hypocrisy, per se.

It’s like with Islam. It is okay to lie to the Infidel. It is also okay to slay the Apostate. Nothing amoral about it. In fact, it is demanded and highly moral. Killing innocents? What of that? Nothing wrong with such collateral damage of Jihad. The moral standards are simply different, based on one’s faith.

Jul 3, 2009 - 8:21 pm 91. Jack Marcotte:

Essential vdh

#82 Joseph: “Sorry about that” To not be understood at all has to be worse than being misunderstood. The debate then is how much is due to your lack of insight and how much is due to my bad thinking and writing–as I also review it after it cools off.

A hint–it is not airy fairy. It is incomplete because one can’t write a book on this “stuff”. It says what it means: that this particular situation for America, in this time and place is much more dangerous than what the circumstances and processes are being described as.

We are not talking simply about differences of opinion between two “voters” in the street. Remember Joe the Plumber and what happened. Wheels began to turn.

The limited two dimensions are simply the mind “screens” of “liberal” thought and “conservative” thought. We are dealing with human brains that are very much alike whether liberal or conservative.

I am saying in part that the mind “screens” of the liberal has such big holes in them they are more likely to become cogs in a very vicious wheel of human destruction as history has proven.

Marxist liberalism, the true name of being liberal based on the politics of BHO, does not work and has never worked no matter what it has been called down through the ages. It does however destroy humans in all ways . It is the ultimate perfumed scorpion.

Why do not Marxist liberals who seem to pride themselves on their “intelligence” know this? It is a factual matter of history and it is not new thinking but a product of subversive indoctrination delivered in the “perfumed” language of Utopian thinking.

Thus liberals have “big holes” in the brain that they maintain to be able to “forget” selectively. Marxist liberals are somewhat like a “cult organism”, they have to be because in order to work all have to agree. Thus all who don’t agree are killed off—eventually.

Marxist liberals would be better described in the animal world as being like ants in an anthill. This is understood when one looks at how ants work. It is an almost perfect fit for the reactions of liberals to an outside “threat” to their “ideology”.

There is something left out in all of the writings as I have pointed out and it is needed to see this in the proper way. I did not explain that and will not explain it. To have any value it must be done with self discovery and contemplation, along with coming to a conclusion that you will act on. All else is daydreaming.

Self discovery of situational and universal “truths” is very difficult thing to do today because we are continually being bombarded by the chit chat chaff of the MSM and even blogs like this. This is to the extent that very little worthwhile thought is available to those who do not and cannot think for themselves.

Since this chaff takes up space in the holes of the mind it is not beneficial. Americans do not think any where near as clearly now as our forefathers did. A growing and subversive process and menace to the USA and Americans.

It is up to you to reverse this mindlessnes within you own thinking process. You however will not likely do it. A fish has very little likelyhood of being able to “change” his water.

Jul 4, 2009 - 7:43 am 92. Teacher in Texas:

Well stated Professor. I have often argued that point about the blinkers that the left puts on for their heroes.

It all seems to get back to, “But they mean well” and so liberal/Democratic politicians get a lot more slack.

“Well Obama’s going to quadruple the defecit, but at least he’s trying….”

I teach with a woman who is a very well-meaning, moderate, liberal Democrat. Once we were discussing Stalin’s mass-starvation of the Ukranians, the great untold Holocaust of the 20th century, and I restated my oft made point that we were allied with a mass murderer to defeat Hitler, who made HItler look like an amateur.

Her take on Stalin. A slight frown creased her face and she said, “Well he did some good things AND some bad things.”

It was all I could do to keep from laughing in her face. I would not want to do that because I do value her as a friend and co worker.

“Some bad things?” I responded. “I guess you could say the same thing about Hitler, I mean hey he got Germany out of the Depression faster than we did.”

Rather than get into an argument I ended it with something like “the were both monsters.”

Oh this teacher also explained the “Che phenomonon to me. She is in her fiftes and told me that growing up as a Cold War child she always thought that the Communists were these ugly, monsters and Che was really good looking. (I kid you not! The Seventeen Magazine approach to mass murderers. He Che was cute)

Jul 4, 2009 - 9:15 am 93. Charles R. Williams:

Adultery is wrong and we have powerful inclinations to do it. They are so powerful that we need all the support of public opinion, the media, our laws, our customs, religion and education in morality to restrain ourselves. People fail. When they do we need to be forgiving and understanding but immediately remove them from high office and any position of moral authority.

It is not hypocrisy for someone who believes all this to fail himself – especially in a world where traditional morality is continually undermined. Nor does it discredit the position he advocates. What is hypocrisy is not to resign immediately and play on public sympathy hoping to stay in office.

Jul 4, 2009 - 9:40 am 94. Joseph:

Dear Jack Marcotte,
Maybe the holes in my head are too large and all encompassing for me to understand your position, but I must dispute at least one of your suggestions.
“Marxist liberals are somewhat like a “cult organism”, they have to be because in order to work all have to agree. Thus all who don’t agree are killed off—eventually.”
I feel the need to quote Will Rogers, “I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.”
The idea that left leaning folks are as lock stepped as you suggest seems to me an illusion. If anyone is kicking out heretics these days it is folks like Rush Limbaugh and conservatives of his ilk.
I would encourage you to be less opaque and more persuasive and a little more forgiving of others faults.
Good Luck Jack.

Jul 5, 2009 - 12:09 am 95. J Milam:

From “Dave” @ #2: “There is nothing you can do about my choices in this matter. Not now, not ever. You are helpless and impotent to control my thoughts, conclusions and comments. REmember that and learn to accept it.”

Thank you very much, sir. For therein lies the rub for so many. I can willfully and almost happily accept that not everyone thinks as I do. We all have different experiences and, due to our psychological make-up, have all reacted differently to them. I CAN accept that. There are far too many people that CAN’T. They want you to not only accept that they’re of a different mind, you must embrace it and, for reasons they can never provide, you must admit aloud that their conclusions are the correct ones. Their message is: if you feel differently, your best bet is to just keep it to yourself lest you attract their ire, which almost always will eventually lead to their appeal to someone or some group with enough power to punish you for it.

Jul 5, 2009 - 5:51 am 96. lefty:

Okay, lets see…

dems can go poking around in dark places, even produce children, and they’re “good ole boys”..nasty women for leading ‘em on..

a republican does that and he’s the “son of evil”… blahblahblah..

The world thinks we’re stupid and we prove it everyday…

Jul 5, 2009 - 7:14 pm 97. Pete:

Why are conservatives always being accused of hypocricy, but not leftists and liberals? Of ocurse tribalism plays a part, as other posters here suggest; leftists are all too happy to overlook character flaws and moral lapses in those on “their” team. An equally important reason is that conservatives generally aspire to rigorous moral and intellectual standards; leftists generally make no such claims. Leftists set the bar low, and in clearing it, proclaim their superiority. Conservatives set a higher standard, and in occasionally failing to reach it, are derided as phonies, hypocrits, and failed moralists. Because we have standards, we will always suffer the charge of hypocricy when we fail.

One of the “beauties” of political correctness and moral relativism, is that both are perpetual “Get out of jail free” cards, that excuse any and all behaviors, with one exception – becoming a member of the opposition, becoming a conservative. This prohibition applies doubly if one is a white, or female, or of a protected minority (black, homosexual, etc.).

Jul 5, 2009 - 9:41 pm 98. Massive Link Dump « The Quantum Conservative:

[...] ALSO by Hanson:

Jul 6, 2009 - 1:19 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: