If the majority of people in prison were there because of traffic laws. If traffic laws were causing overcrowding in prisons and causing money to be taken from education. If violating a traffic law could earn you life in prison, could ruin your life. If many people thought that the traffic laws were a diversion to take people’s minds off the real problems of society, yet the politicain continued enforcing them and preaching about them in a self righteous manner. Then I could see the analogy.
I would also see it as hypocritcal if Bush had been wrongfully convicted of murder, spent years on death row, and been freed based on evidence, and then continued to support the death penalty.
oldscratch: Your points are quite good, and I agree.
My reason for posting it in the first place is that when an argument is made of “So-and-so is absolutely terrible”, the omission of similar failings of the other side seems to me to make it look like “Your guy is an ogre and a dimwit; mine is without failings.” Even though the ‘opponent’ may have failings as bad, as worse, or in similar areas; and even though those complaining about the failures of one side do not necessarily even support the other side; it still comes across to me as gleeful bashing.
But I may well be both paranoid and hyper-sensitive; wouldn’t be the first time.
Why is criminality the issue? As I see it, the hypocracy issue concerns strong enforcement of laws that he himself may not have always kept himself. Whether the penalty is jail or anything else may make the hypocracy more or less severe, but not erase it entirely.
I don’t think there is any hypocracy at all in someone realizing that society needs deterents for acts that he himself has engaged in. This is the rationale that applies to traffic violations, and the same one that applies to drug laws.
oldscratch,
You have given a rationale for abolishing the drug laws, or at least reducing the penalties. You have not addressed the issue of whether it is hypocracy to for a person to disagree with you about the issues that you raise, if that person has themselves violated those laws in the past.
What I do find find hypocritical is when people who’ve committed such sins/crimes then turn around and celebrate their newfound rightousness in contrast to others. (Dr. Laura, for example). But I haven’t seen any of that in Bush.
IzzyR It depends on the laws and the actions. It must be looked at on a case by case basis. If there were a law banning abortions, and the canidate had broken it to get one, it would seem hypocritcal to support the law. If there were a law preventing public drunkenness, and the canidate was publicly drunk at several points, there would be nothing wrong with continuing to support such a law. If the law against public drunkeness called for 20 years in prison, and the canidate supported making the punishment harsher (while at the same time not serving any time for their crimes) then it would be a different subject.
Scratch that. I think the sticking poin is that GWBUSH was not punished for his coke use. If he had been caught and seved time, and still supported the penalties, I would have no longer think of him as hypocritical. Wrong in continuing to support the penalties. But not hypocritcal. John Corrardo
I agree. I really wish I was at home right now. I have a book, Whiteout, that details the goings on of the CIA. It talks about possible connections Clinton had, while governer of AK, to CIA coke runners. So, I would say he is more of a hypocrite. But, everyone already knew that.
You are right. The question is about more or less severe levels of hypocrisy. In my opinion, using cocaine involves moral and criminal issues that are not present in having had a speeding ticket in the past. This is obviously so, since using cocaine requires a coverup, while having a speeding ticket, wouldn’t have. I’m finding it hard to believe you are being serious here.
The hidden nature of it is another reason for making this suspect. If a politician said “Yes, I used cocaine in the past, but I received help/done my time/gotten over my habit, and I still support legal action against drug users” that would be a different thing then one who has covered up these actions, yet still supports policies against them.
We engage in small acts of hypocrisy all the time, merely as social lubricant. It is the larger ones which are more disturbing.
If the issue is his not having been punished for his sins, let me try the other extreme. Suppose you had, in your youth, murdered a person. Never cought. Regretted it, turned your life around etc. Would you feel that you had a moral obligation to turn yourself in, and barring that, that you’d be a hypocrite unless you supported the abolition of jail time for murderers?
I think punishing for crimes is something that society does. A person does not have an obligation to be punished for his crimes.
BTW kyber, due to my limited intelligence, I’ve failed to understand your last post.
Well, if I didn’t support at least semi-abolition (that is, allowing murderers to avoid jail time because they’ve turned around and become productive, generous members of society) I’d certainly be a hypocrite. If I sat in front of the TV during the OJ trial and muttered about how they needed “to fry his ass”, I’d be one huge hypocrite.
Certainly, with Bush, the biggest problem with calling him a hypocrite is that nothing is proven; while it can be generally assumed that he did, we don’t know for sure- and even our assumptions can’t tell us how much or how often he did. (Did he try it once, then have a hit of conscience and refuse to touch it again? Or did he do enough blow to increase Boliva’s GNP by 3% in 1979? Two vastly different circumstances.)
But if he did do cocaine, and he does believe that all cocaine users should go to jail, and he didn’t serve time for his cocaine use himself, he’s a hypocrite.
P.S.- Kyb, I’m as confused by Izzy by that last post. Care to elucidate?
The point should not be what you or I once did in our lives - whether 25 years or 25 minutes ago…
Nor is the point the relative nature of the “offense”, whether it should be a crime or just youthful exuberance…
The point is that George W. Bush is running for President in order to “restore trust and dignity” to the office.
Presumably since Woodman Al did not resign during spatter-gate, he cannot be relied upon to restore “honor” to the Presidency.
But if Dubya is like thee and me, a sinner with clay feet, who most certainly had a drinking problem, spent decades doing basically nothing, and may have experimented with drugs (imho very unlikely), just how can such a person (1) judge pants-down-bubba, and (2) can be trusted himself not to fall off the wagon if things get tough.
Lets get real. Dubya is using this “theme” based on focus group studies that revealed the public’s continuing dismay and anger at Clinton’s “escapades” (a Jimmy Carter phrase) and Gore’s link with Clinton. If those same focus groups had said that yes they hate Billy but saw zero connection with Billy and Al, then Dubya would look for another campaign theme.
Jiminy Carter would be the logical choice to restore trust and honor to the Presidency. Let’s vote him in. No, really, he’s using the name Ralph Nader.
True anecdote: After his victory at Vicksburgh, Grant got drunk, fell off his horse and injured his shoulder. It was now impossible for his enemies (primarily chief of staff Halleck) to dismiss him, so they promoted one of Grant’s friends from Galena to colonel. His assignment was to make damn sure that Grant didn’t drink. Long after Grant’s death, the colonel wrote a brief memoir but was denounced by the papers of the 1890’s as a liar and scandal monger. Grant had become such an icon, that his frailties could no longer be talked about.
Well one would hope not anyway. Although it would certainly make for an interesting sitting president. It’s pretty well known that Willie Brown (the most powerfull man in California(your supposed to say that in a large booming voice btw)) used Cocaine when he was in the Assembly.
I just realized that while Bush’s enemies (not pointing fingers at anyone in this thread) cry out “Hypocrite!” because it’s suspected (without an ounce of definite proof) that he committed a crime decades ago, they also call him “Evil!” for no pardoning (okay, granting reprieve) a man whom has tons of definite evidence surrounding his guilt. Who’s the pot (no pun intended) and who’s the kettle in this case?
Anyway…
Revtim…
Well, you’re right. I wasn’t comparing Bush to Hillary so much as I’m pointing out that I’m not politically motivated in my belief that it’s utterly ridiculous to relentlessly hound a man for a (relatively) minor crime he years in the past.
I say “relatively”, because compared to some other presidents, who committed heinous crimes while in office and got off scott-free, snorting a row 26 years ago is nothing.
I agree with you about sitting in front of the TV etc. But I don’t think his idea of what is right for society should necessarily change. As I picture myself in the same situation, I think my attitude would be the same as that which you consider hypocritical - I believe that society needs these penalties, but no way would I turn myself in. For that matter, I would not turn in a friend or relative who had committed a crime that I feel deserves punishment.
So I guess I’m the same hypocrite as Bush. In that case it should be OK for me to vote for him. And I’ll bet alot of others are the same way. We should get a group together - “Hypocrites For Bush”. (Only problem is that our hated rivals “Phoneys For Gore” would probably be even more successful. Hmmm…)
Your points about Texas and its constitution are well taken. I’ve based my decision on living here for some 2 years and reading various commentaries in the papers around Austin. Should it be changed? Come live in Texas for a while and you tell me.
As for the Dubya, well, this is only ONE point out of many that I disagree with both him and the Republicans in general. Were the Republican platform to be fully enacted, I would be in jail, doing serious time for simply being myself. In other words, I’m a gay man and un-repentant about it.
Does this make me a Gore fan? No, not really. Besides the association with the Clintons, his own fund-raising scandles have left a nasty taste in my mouth. His leadership qualities are severely lacking and I feel he’s say just about anything to appease whoever he’s taking to at the moment. His weighing in during the Elian affair was a prime example of that.
Is there really something in the Republican platform that would put you in jail for being a gay man and unrepentent about it? I wonder if you could clarify this.
This question wasn’t directed at me, but for what it’s worth, if I had killed someone I would feel a moral obligation to turn myself in. The self-serving coward in me might win out, but I would consider myself a hypocrite, particularly if I were bemoaning the crime rate and advocating a tougher stance on violent offenders. And I certainly wouldn’t consider myself qualified to lead a nation.
Sounds like you’re saying everything’s fair game as long as you don’t get caught. Looks like the Republicans and Democrats have some common ground after all.
**I wouldn’t either. But I wouldn’t think you are a hypocrite.
I don’t know why it would sound like that. A person has an obligation to act morally and ethically. He does not have an obligation to punish himself on the occasions when he has failed.
