Should Democrats pay higher taxes?
Why aren't those charging the GOP with hypocrisy over Schiavo also demanding that Democrats pay higher taxes?
I remember watching William Buckley many years ago respond on his TV show to a question about hypocrisy. He was asked if it was hypocritical for someone who had opposed social security to cash the checks. Of course not, he said. It is perfectly consistent to operate within the rules at the same time one advocates that those rules be changed.
We could come up with hundreds of examples. A coach may advocate changing a rule, but his team should continue to play in accordance with the rules until he is successful in convincing the rulesmakers to make the desired change. A lawyer will use all the rules of procedure and evidence despite his belief that some should be changed. And Democrats are not hypocrites for pocketing Bush's tax cuts despite advocating higher taxes.
This is why there is nothing at all hypocritical about Republicans in Congress advocating federalism and passing legislation seeking de novo review of the facts in the Schiavo case. Republicans are pro-life. Using the legal structure as it presently exists to advance this core principle is not hypocrisy, even while arguing that said legal structure is flawed and should be changed.
A genuine example of hypocrisy would be the positions taken by liberals on the issue of sexual harassment. They worked to have the law changed. They succeeded. Then their favored politician, Bill Clinton, flagrantly violated the law. At which point, they argued that the law shouldn't be enforced. Blatant hypocrisy.
Note, that the charges of hypocrisy made by them against conservatives at the same time were false. There was nothing hypocritical about insisting that Clinton be judged by the very laws he succeeded in implementing. Sure, conservatives opposed the implementation of those laws. But once the law was changed, insisting on even-handed enforcement for all is not hypocrisy in the least.
I remember watching William Buckley many years ago respond on his TV show to a question about hypocrisy. He was asked if it was hypocritical for someone who had opposed social security to cash the checks. Of course not, he said. It is perfectly consistent to operate within the rules at the same time one advocates that those rules be changed.
We could come up with hundreds of examples. A coach may advocate changing a rule, but his team should continue to play in accordance with the rules until he is successful in convincing the rulesmakers to make the desired change. A lawyer will use all the rules of procedure and evidence despite his belief that some should be changed. And Democrats are not hypocrites for pocketing Bush's tax cuts despite advocating higher taxes.
This is why there is nothing at all hypocritical about Republicans in Congress advocating federalism and passing legislation seeking de novo review of the facts in the Schiavo case. Republicans are pro-life. Using the legal structure as it presently exists to advance this core principle is not hypocrisy, even while arguing that said legal structure is flawed and should be changed.
A genuine example of hypocrisy would be the positions taken by liberals on the issue of sexual harassment. They worked to have the law changed. They succeeded. Then their favored politician, Bill Clinton, flagrantly violated the law. At which point, they argued that the law shouldn't be enforced. Blatant hypocrisy.
Note, that the charges of hypocrisy made by them against conservatives at the same time were false. There was nothing hypocritical about insisting that Clinton be judged by the very laws he succeeded in implementing. Sure, conservatives opposed the implementation of those laws. But once the law was changed, insisting on even-handed enforcement for all is not hypocrisy in the least.
posted by Stan at 10:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home