No Two Ways About It
In a piece on the hypocrisy of politicians, we get this:
Democrats and the White House charge the Republicans are policy hypocrites on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Every Republican in the House and all but three in the Senate voted against it. In the year since its passage they have stayed on message, arguing the stimulus has not created jobs nor helped the economy, and has wasted money. But according to Bloomberg, 100 members of the House and Senate who voted against the measure sought funds from it—a fact that so excited White House press secretary Robert Gibbs that he used it for one of his maiden tweets.
This is the classical definition of hypocrisy: saying one thing but doing another.
No, this is classic poor logic. Opposing an act of government doesn't mean you ignore it if it's passed over your objection. That would just make you a sap. I'm against many tax rules, but as long as they're there, I'm certainly going to take advantage of them. If the government decides it's going to take all our money and toss it into the street, I'd think the plan foolish, even immoral--but I'd be crazy not to be out there with a broom and dustpan.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:11 AM
5 Comments:
Perhaps he's referring specifically to politicians who rail against "bailout" spending bills, but then show up for ribbon-cutting and giant-check-handing-over ceremonies. Saying something is a bad idea, voting against it, then showing up to celebrate how well it worked for your constituents is a lot closer to hypocrisy.
I still don't see the hypocrisy. You think it's a bad idea that they take our money away and give it back to us, but you're still gonna take it back if you think it's better than not taking it back.
My Clarification:
Taking the money is probablynot hypocrisy.
Taking credit for it is.
Most of these guys who have won at least an election or two are slick enough not to get caught in obvious hypocrisy on this bill or any other one.
I've heard this argument about the stimulus bills many times in the past year. Oddly, I don't recall this argument ever being used before, even though it could have been used for just about anything: Congressmen who voted against welfare have routinely allowed welfare money to be given to their constituents. Congressmen who have voted against military funds have allowed their constituents to receive military contracts and to enlist and receive military pay. Conversely, congressmen who have opposed tax increases have allowed their constituents to pay these taxes.
But apparently congressmen who opposed stimulus spending have some kind of obligation to prevent this money from entering their districts?
(I agree with NEG that taking credit for it is hypocrisy.)
I have often heard a similar argument: Clarence Thomas is a hypocrite for benefitting from affirmative action and then opposing it. Oddly, I never hear anyone say that LBJ and Jimmy Carter were hypocrites for benefitting from segregation and Jim Crow laws, and then opposing them.
And what about all the males who voted to allow women to vote? What utter hypocrites. How dare they vote in an all-male election! That's as bad as getting married when Not Everyone Is Allowed To Marry.
I wonder if killer whales can marry Acorn non profits?
Post a Comment
<< Home