I got thinking about it this morning when I posted on Twitter that it was "weird" that an attack on Guam means nuclear war and the destruction of Puerto Rico means fend for themselves.
I realized that was my way of charging hypocrisy, so I added what I prefer: safety for Guam, safety for PR.
So after some thought, I've come up with a hypocrisy rule:
Hypocrisy criticism only works when you agree with one of the two comparisons.
This is why most political hypocrisy fails. Like, chances are, if you're going to accuse Trump of hypocrisy, you disagree with both his decisions.
Example:
"Trump complained that Obama golfed all the time, and now he's golfing all the time!"
This seems like obvious hypocrisy but I ask this: when was Trump right? Was he right, presidents should not be golfing a lot, or is he right in golfing? If he's neither right, here's a charge to you:
"Obama golfed and you said nothing, Trump golfs and suddenly it's a scandal."
You can say "oh it's different" and of course it is, but that would mean things are not so cut and dry, which is a world where hypocrisy happens all the time in our lives and in politics and is unavoidable.
Another charge I see from my side:
"They say they are pro life but..." against human dignity or pro-death penalty or fine with collateral damage or against keeping kids healthy via healthcare, or pro guns, etc etc etc. Same query: which of the two is the right stance? Otherwise another charge reversed:
"Why do you care about this when you are fine with the murder of the most innocent life?"
Unfair charge? Of course! Charges of hypocrisy suck.
Another thing, maybe this should be part of the rule. In accusing, what you agree with probably shouldn't be the most current position. Because people change, and you should prefer people change for the better If Trump is right to golf, because it relaxes him and we should have a healthy and grounded leader, then you should be glad Trump learned it was okay.Statistics: Posted by poorpete — Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:41 am
]]>