Crusader War College

Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp

Peter Schweizer has out a new book: Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy that tears the mask off of Liberal Hypocrisy. Not that we already know that they do it, but he goes to great lengths to document everything. A tip of the hat goes to Tipper Via Rantburg

While most of what he says is interesting, I found this answer to Kathryn Jean Lopez' question very penetrating:

Lopez: One overarching kinda question: We all have our moments of hypocrisy. That we don't practice what we preach doesn't make what we preach any less valid. People are human, etc. Is there something about your book that is somewhat fundamentally unfair?

Schweizer: Yes, we are all hypocrites and I talk about that in the book. But liberal hypocrisy and conservative hypocrisy are quite different on two accounts. First, you hear about conservative hypocrisy all the time. A pro-family congressman caught in an extramarital affair, a minister caught in the same. This stuff is exposed by the media all the time. The leaders of the liberal-Left get a complete pass on their hypocrisy. Second, and this is even more important, the consequences of liberal hypocrisy are different than for the conservative variety. When conservatives abandon their principles and become hypocrites, they end up hurting themselves and their families. Conservative principles are like guard rails on a winding road. They are irritating but fundamentally good for you. Liberal hypocrisy is the opposite. When the liberal-left abandon their principles and become hypocrites, they actually improve their lives. Their kids end up in better schools, they have more money, and their families are more content. Their ideas are truly that bad.

That makes a fiendish sort of sense: The media can justify THEIR hypcrisy by saying that bad things happening to people is news, but it isn't news when good things happen to people. William Bennett losing millions of dollars on gambling (which his teachings say is wrong) is bad news. Noam Chomsky making millions investing in the stock market (which his teachings say is wrong) is good news.

...

But there is something more fundamental happening here: William Bennett's failure proved that he was a hypocrite, BUT IT DIDN'T DISPROVE HIS TEACHINGS. Indeed, his teachings told him to where his behavior would lead. He ignored them, and arrived EXACTLY where his teachings said he would arrive. So how exactly did his behavior DISPROVE his teachings? That's like saying the Law of Gravity isn't true because Isaac Newton once fell off a ladder and got hurt.

Noam Chomsky's hypocrisy is of a different sort: He does not teach the evil of capitalism because bad things will happen to people who work the capitalist system, but that doing so is EVIL. His hypocrisy is in LABELLING other people as evil collaborators when THEY invest in the stock market, while LABELLING HIMSELF as okay when HE invests in the stock market because of "special circumstances".

Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5