.
The response to Warren Buffett's piece is interesting (see previous post). I think that there is a nice parallel with the reaction to government programs.
Michele Bachman stated that "There is nothing keeping Mr. Buffett from writing a check." If he wants to pay higher taxes.
That is true but it (in her mind) allows her to completely ignore his major point: That higher tax rates will not run off the "job creators". They will still be around just like they were when we had the 'higher than now' Clinton rates in the 90's.
However Ms. Bachman does not (as far as I know) call Mr. Buffett a hypocrite for holding that opinion without paying up.
Consider now a conservative M C who a) futilely votes against a liberal benefit program and b)after it passes this MC still arranges for their district to get its share.
I have a liberal friend who thinks that that is rank hypocrisy.
It just seems like the other side of the coin from Buffett's comments to me.
There was a lot of discussion about a similar point last year on this blog. I have included most of it in the first 3 comments.
(Wayne in that discussion is YA.)
.
Marjorie Taylor Greene
4 hours ago
Rob said...
ReplyDeleteSo here's a general question about this kind of thing... If there's something you oppose in principle but nonetheless partake in, at what point do you become a hypocrite?
I'm looking for an example to illustrate what I'm getting at, here's something from my workplace that came to mind. For years, the administration at my university supported a certain kind of outreach service program by offering financial incentives to faculty to participate. Some faculty opposed this because of the way it might devalue or discourage other valuable and needed service from faculty. Among those who opposed the program in principle, I wouldn't have held it against them if they went ahead and took advantage of this financial opportunity that would help them and their families.
This also brings to mind the idea of some states accepting stimulus spending even when their political leadership is opposed to the stimulus in principle. Is this outright hypocrisy? Or is it just the schoolyard rule, "don't hate the player, hate the game"?
November 23, 2010 8:14 AM
Tom said...
Rob Nov 23 7:13 - Good question and I see this as the absolute foundation of our republic. Once the votes are counted we all do what the majority voted for. Doesn’t mean we all like it, doesn’t mean we can’t work to change it, but we do it because we respect the system.
In a business setting the same thing works except the boss has the big vote. I have no problem giving my opinion and a good boss will appreciate all opinions, still once the decision is made we all follow the rules and I don’t view that as hypocritical.
In your example of stimulus money, if the majority approves stimulus money and then criticizes someone for taking it (following their rules) I would view that as hypocritical.
November 23, 2010 1:30 PM
Wayne said...
I like Tom's answer here.
For the record I favor national health insurance, but I do not like some of the arguments for it. One of those is that if lawmakers gets some benefit – health insurance, for example – then everyone in the country should have that benefit at government expense. If that argument were valid, then I should have an Air Force One available at all times. The pertinent point is that the members of Congress get those things as part of an employee benefits package.
On the other side Warren Buffett says that the rich should pay more taxes and Bill O'Reilly says, "If Buffet wants to pay more taxes then let him do it." At least he didn't call Buffett hypocritical for not doing it.
November 23, 2010 2:59 PM
Rob said...
Yep, very good points Tom and Wayne.
Another thought along these lines... Isn't the way the word "hypocrite" is casually thrown around in political discourse somewhat similar to the inappropriate use of the word "enemy"? (The latter was the topic of a post by Wayne on Nov 13.)
November 23, 2010 8:50 PM
Rob said...
ReplyDeleteIn the spirit of Dan Runnels' original post, here are some more examples to add to the collection of behavior of public figures that can seem, at the least, a little dissonant.
I agree with Wayne that Warren Buffet is not being hypocritical in not voluntarily paying more in taxes than he owes under the current system, given that he supports a higher tax rate for the rich. However, it does seem that Buffet could add something to his advocacy, if nothing more than drawing attention to his cause, by going ahead and paying more. But, maybe he thinks that would only reinforce O'Reilly's idea that paying over and above the current rate should be voluntary.
Whether Al Gore's expansive living spaces and jet-setting lifestyle amount to something hypocritical, I'm not sure… those actions do seem to undermine his environmental message, though.
As for the shenanigans that bounced Eliot Spitzer from the governor's mansion in New York, I think I'd have to say: categorically hypocritical.
November 23, 2010 9:04 PM
Wayne said...
With respect to Rob's last remark: Spitzer interviewed Rand Paul recently and asked him, "How much money did you make last year?" To which Paul responded, (paraphrased)"It will not help the policy discussion to ask me about my personal life. I might ask you about your personal life." That ended that line of questioning.
November 24, 2010 12:52 AM
Tom said...
Rob Nov 22, 8:50 – Well Mr. Buffet and Mr. Gore are great foils to use in a hypocrisy discussion. Although Mr. Buffet and I are on different ends of the political spectrum I have no hypocrisy issues with his position.
As you might guess Mr. Gore is a different story and my major stumbling block with Al is the promotion and use of carbon credits. I have 30 acres of wooded land and I can sell carbon credits on those trees by simply promising NOT to cut them down for 20 years. So here is what happens. Some grandmother flies across country to see her grandchildren and being environmentally conscious she buys my carbon credits to offset the carbon generated by her trip. Her conscience is eased because she thinks that something POSITIVE was done to offset the carbon from her trip when in reality all that happened was I did NOT cut down my trees. Net, net is her trip added CO2 to the atmosphere. I have to see the promotion and use of carbon credits, in general and in its current form, as hypocritical.
p.s - Personally I have wrestled with actually selling carbon credits on my trees. It is legal and within the rules, and it is like money lying on the ground, but as of yet I have not been able to make myself do it.
November 24, 2010 7:03 AM
Rob said...
ReplyDeleteYeah, Spitzer really walked into that one. CNN hired him I suppose in part because of the buzz his notoriety might generate, but they had to know that the extent to which he could play hardball would be limited by the fact that anyone at any time can put Spitzer's past on the table.
Incidentally I'm most certainly not a big fan of Rand Paul. But, he does have some moxie.
November 24, 2010 7:04 AM
Rob said...
So Tom, I can see why you might be hesitant to sell carbon credits. I would see nothing hypocritical in your opposition to carbon credits in principle on the one hand and on the other hand selling them because the system for that is in place. But I could also see that you might hesitate because you wouldn't want your participation to contribute to the further establishment of the system. Maybe?
It is also hard for me not to view Gore's behavior as hypocritical. Besides the carbon credits and other policy positions, part of what he's selling comes across to me as bit of moral posturing that just doesn't square with his lifestyle.
So I guess I'm trying to probe for that line where the dissonance (for lack of a better word) crosses the line into hypocrisy. Mostly I'm just curious, but I am interested in knowing when the perception of inconsistency can become something damaging... in part because I have plenty of "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" moments with my kids!
November 24, 2010 7:19 AM
Tom said...
Rob, thanks for the encouragement to go ahead and indulge. In the event that we get some legislation such as “Cap & Trade” that furnishes the moral cover that a majority vote provides I will sell. As for now, the Carbon Credits industry is for profit private enterprise that I can choose not to (or choose to) participate in. So for now it’s a no sell.