Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
August 18, 2007 2:30 PM
What Is Hypocrisy & What Kind of "Hypocrisy" Should We Worry About?
What is "hypocrisy" and what kind of "hypocrisy" should we worry about in politics? Forgive me for the length of this post, but these are not easy questions to answer, because we live in both a globalizing world and a country governed by, ahem, an imperfect political system. But we should pause to ask them in light of today's Wall Street Journal story about economic populist John Edwards' holding investments in a hedge fund that has a subsidiary holding in a subprime lender that has foreclosed on 34 New Orleans homeowners. Some conservatives would have us believe that because of this story, Edwards thus should face nothing short of political extinction for the supposed "hypocrisy" of publicly criticizing the laws that govern subprime lending while holding investments in a fund that owns some subprime lenders.
I won't pretend that this is a great situation for Edwards. In a media environment where campaign beat reporters simply refuse to cover huge issues like health care, wage stagnation, job outsourcing and retirement insecurity, manufactured gotchas take center stage, whether its Mitt Romney getting tarred for his kids' decision not to serve in Iraq (which, I've said I think is fairly ridiculous) or this new line of attack on Edwards. It's not that I think its unfair to ask these candidates questions about how well their personal family and financial decisions in the current world go together with the policies they are pushing for the future. But to portray the differences between the two as hypocrisy is absurd.
We live in an imperfect world, and candidates running for office all purport to have solutions to make the world better. But that doesn't mean these candidates don't live in the current imperfect world.
Think about this in your own life for a moment. Let's say you believe oil companies are doing great harm to the planet through their environmental practices and great harm to consumers through their price gouging. And let's say you supoprt much stronger regulation on their behavior. Are you an immoral hypocrite because your 401(k) plan owns shares in ExxonMobil? Broaden it out a bit further. Let's say you despise China's treatment of workers and think we need much stronger labor and human rights standards in our trade policies to push the Chinese government to do better. Are you an immoral hypocrite because many of the products you buy were made in China?
I'd say that whether you are a politician or not the answer is no, not necessarily. Sure, it's laudable if you divest yourself of oil industry stocks (if you even have the option to do so in your retirement plan) or try to not buy any Chinese products (likely an impossible endeavor if you wish to continue existing in American society). But if you don't, you aren't a hypocrite - you are just a person who simultaneously wants to create a better world but who lives in the real world. There's nothing inconsistent about that. You can wholeheartedly believe that we need to change the laws and policies which govern the oil industry or Chinese human rights while not retiring to a monastery or taking a vow of poverty. And in many cases, that is what reporters seem to be expecting from candidates when they focus on this personal hypocrisy storyline. Do we really expect - or even want - every political candidate in America to divest all of their stock holdings? Should every candidate who supports the war be expected to immediately send their children off to war? I just don't think it's so cut and dry.
Now, I will say this - where I do think it is cut and dry is when all this takes place totally within the same spheres, because that goes to a question of what these candidates will do in office.
So, for instance, consider the public sphere. Let's say a candidate is railing on a particular government policy or railing on the behavior of a corporation operating under a particular public policy. If that candidate voted for that policy or previously lobbied for that policy without explaining or apologizing for those previous actions, then that's real hypocrisy - the kind we should worry about because the candidate in question helped create the issue he/she is now railing on, which suggests all the current pledges are lies. A good example of this is GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney using his campaign to rail on a woman's right to choose just a few years after campaigning for governor expressly on his support for a woman's right to choose. How can anyone feel confident about what he would do on the issue as president on the issue? Another example is Colorado Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer. He railed on his fellow school board members not disclosing their conflicts of interest, and then went ahead and didn't disclose his own conflicts of interest. How do we know what he would do in situations just like this as a U.S. Senator?
This axiom, by the way, does extend to personal behavior. If candidates are specifically bragging about their personal behavior in a given area as a reason to vote for them, and then they are shown to be doing exactly the opposite in their personal lives, then hell yes - we should be worried. Same thing if candidates are campaigning for office telling Americans we need to be doing certain things in our personal lives. If they aren't doing those things in their personal lives, then that's a big problem.
Now, last I checked, Edwards is not criticizing people who happen to have stock portfolios that include holdings in funds whch have ownership stakes in subprime lenders (and if he had been, he would deserve serious criticism). He has been critical of the laws that are permitting many subprime lenders to hurt ordinary Americans. Same thing for Romney on Iraq. He may support the war (which I, of course, think is grounds for criticism unto itself), but I haven't heard him tell people that if they support the war they should make sure their kids enlist in the military. (By the way, this is substantially different from the very real hypocrisy of the 101st Keyboard Commanders - the group of young, military-age pundits in Washington who used their platforms to push us into the Iraq War and keep us in Iraq, but who haven't enlisted themselves. These people sold the war to America by telling us that the war is important enough for young people to volunteer for the military to die for - yet they themselves are not willing to volunteer for the military and potentially die for the cause that they say is so important).
And not to go off on too much of a tangent, but let's just all stop with the "fair and balanced" nonsense and have the decency to just admit that its no conspiracy theory to say that today's media disproportionately aims these gotchas at Democrats (and remember, I'm no apologist for many of the most high-profile Democrats).
Al Gore campaigns for laws to deal with global warming, and he's the target of a (since debunked) attack as a hypocrite for having the nerve to use energy. Edwards campaigns for policies to deal with poverty, and he's called a hypocrite for getting an expensive haircut. Ted Kennedy criticizes policies that contribute to economic inequality and he's been called a hypocrite because he's personally wealthy. John Kerry votes for an initial version of an Iraq spending bill and then is criticized as a hypocrite for voting against a different version of the bill.
Meanwhile, reporters barely make a peep when Fred Thompson bills himself as a down-home political outsider even though he's spent most of his adult life as a corporate lobbyist in Washington; George Bush is portrayed as a plain-spoken cowboy and independent entrepreneurial businessman even though he grew up an aristocrat and had his personal fortunes built by massive public subsidies secured by his father's financial and political network; and Rudy Giuliani is presented as the strongest candidate in the race on homeland security issues, even though his single defining homeland security experience was negligently contributing to the health plight of New York firefighters.
Sure, I think every candidate - especially Democrats, for the reasons stated above - ought to try to anticipate these manufactured gotcha stories and avoid them, whether through targeted stock divestments or anything else. They should do that not because these examples are the kind of "hypocrisy" that voters should worry about, but because they should know how shallow today's campaign journalism is. And sure, we should applaud candidates who go out of their way to try to bring their personal lives into as much congruence with the policies they advocate for - but are not yet the law of the land.
But I believe Barack Obama said it best this week when he explained why it's not contradictory for him to be advocating for lobbying reform despite aggressively raising money for his presidential campaign. "The argument is not that I'm pristine, because I'm swimming in the same muddy water [of the current system]," he said. "The argument is that I know it's muddy and I want to clean it up."
He's exactly right. So while campaign journalists continue to obsess over manufactured hypocrisy, us voters should be looking not at whether these candidates are perfect humans or whether they have receded from the world as it is now to live in a monastery, but at what these candidates are promising to do with the power they are asking us to give them - and what in their record should make us believe or not believe they will live up to those promises.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- "Center-Right Nation" Meme On Tape
- "Center-Right Nation" - Election Day Watch
- Promoting the Guy Whose Lies Boosted Ratings & Killed Thousands
- "Center-Right Nation" Watch - Mark Penn Edition
- Mandate Watch - Bellwether Races/Initiatives To Watch Below the Presidential Contest
- "Center-Right Nation" Watch - Doug Schoen Edition
- "Center-Right Nation" Watch
- Writing Lessons
- Court Says Colorado's Katherine Harris Is Violating Federal Law With Voter Purges
- NEWSFLASH: America Doesn't Like Its Jobs Shipped Overseas
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
October 27, 2008 -
October 20, 2008 -
October 15, 2008 -
October 13, 2008 -
October 2, 2008
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
The "personality" "likability" BULLSHIT is what gave RAYGUN, Klinton, and Bush II their two term presidencies.
As for Obama, he had since Jan 2005 to give it a shot and what does he have to show for it? Name me even ONE bill US IL Senator Obama supported or even pushed for that actually was about lobbying reform. If he didn't do ANYTHING since 2005, what makes you think he'll bother to even remotely bring up the need for lobbying reform?
The MSM is not fair to anyone who even makes a half-hearted attempt to stand up for ordinary Americans.
You can see that when the only show that is even remotely concerned with ordinary Americans is Lou Dobbs.
Edwards knows this from the '04 campaign when he and Kerry were slimed big time. The MSM gave Bush and the GOP a pass while they pounded on the Democrats mercilessly.
The MSM loves corporatist candides and hates anyone with a populist bone in their body.
That said, I did a WTF when I read Edwards went to work at a Hedge fund after losing the '04 election obstensibly for learning how to understand poverty of all things.
It was bound to bite him on the ass later and it did in spades. He may as well wore a "kick me"
sign.
He got greedy and stupid and now is paying for it.
Look using a investment tool that only rich people have access too is a good way to hurt yourself if you happen to be a Democrat running for office.
Now its going to be used as a wedge issue against him. The MSM is going show the public that Edwards is just another rich elitist running for office.
He should have went to work for Habitat for humanity for a year or just kept to working union picket lines.
That was way too long of a rebuttal for the average American. You have to keep it short and concise to get people to understand and trust you. For example: Obama isn't hypocritical because he's not raising money from paid corporate lobbyists, he's raising it from everyday people.
As for a rebuttal to the Gore nonsense, I like the explanation from this website:
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/02/gores-energy-use.html
The smear on Gore came from some right-wing group that no one had heard of, who put out a press release that was never verified, and which everyone just assumed was correct and didn't even care to verify.
From the link: Gore lives in a large home. If you look at the data, it's clear that Gore's energy usage per square foot is well within the average range for his climate region. So all this accusation boils down to is a claim that it is somehow "hypocritical" for Al Gore to live in a large house.
That's awfully weak. Gore's a former Senator and Vice President of the United States. Does he have to move into a studio apartment before he has the right to talk about climate change?... But he's not asking people to move into smaller homes. He's asking them to reduce their carbon footprints, which is exactly what he has done. He practices what he preaches.
What really gripes me is that we waste so much time on this noonsense. In between breathless reports of Paris Hilton's latest escapade, the nightly news squeezes in maybe 5 minutes of reporting "real news," and then it ends up being John Edwards' haircut. I mean, just to mention one current event, how many minutes did the MSM give to mine safety before this week? I don't know, but I'll bet it' was approximately zero.
MSM stories about hypocrisy like this one are par for the course.
Who cares if Edwards worked for a hedge fund, hasn't raised as much $$$ as Hillary, or has a hair cut that may cost as much as some plebe in Oklahoma's used car? Gore heats his house in the Winter? Ain't so??
The fact that candidates are wealthy does not necessarily imply that they will or will not base their platforms on anti-elite social policies that will strengthen the middle class (like anti-H1-b, anti-corporate tax cuts and loopholes, pro-universal health care, etc.) That's why God created the blogoshpere, so that netroots journalists and authors could step forward and supply the non-elite, educated masses with information that the MSM cower from.
Specifically, where are those netroots journalists who bill themselves as speakers of truth to power? Have they all suddenly taken up polo or are their cell phones turned off in the Hamptons at a Ron Pereleman shindig for Hillary?
With his short-lived career choice to work for a hedge fund, Edwards may arguably have all the 'political animal' prowess of a hedge hog... but his capacity to employ his successful trial lawyer experience combined with his understanding of how to "stick it to the man" makes him an ideal candidate to fight corporate welfare policies -- with one big exception: Edwards is being trotted out as a "Populist" when in fact he is courting the very elitist technology executives and their corporate and political enablers like Gore and Boxer, to name a few, both who support H1-B and have no apparent problem with educated professionals being replaced by cheap foreign labor.
John Edwards is a Populist for elitism -- the very core of what is ruining the civil, social and economic fabric of our society eroding the middle class. Netroots and MSM journalists A-OK with that?
During this election cycle, why are there no journalists even uttering the term
"H1-B" in the same sentence with a candidate's name when economic collapse from subprime lending and disappearing professional jobs are the leading economic issues afecting this nation? Campaign journalists and netroots journalitst A-OK with this?
If the best Obama can do is rationalize away why he swims in the muddy waters instead of telling us what he will do to stop the wholesale sell out of our jobs as the country faces an economic future of middle class economic fallout, let that salute to We The People be his farewell, parting shot into oblivion.
More eat cakeisms to come?
I think the part where the MSM can't address real issues says it all.
Most candidates often put their investments in blind trusts to avoid conflicts of interest like this one with Edwards. I wonder if anyone has asked him if his are in a blind trust or if he still has control over how they are managed. Edwards didn't start out rich, and he made his money by earning it, which is more than a lot of the other candidates can say.
There used to be value, obligation, to give back to the society that enabled a person to become wealthy. Has greed become so commonplace and acceptable that such a quality is no longer commendable?
Can't find anything on Edwards site pertaining to H1-B visa workers, off-shoring or rebuilding our manufacturing and technology base lost to "free" trade.
In short he's no populist or Kingfisher.
And the "Netroots" they aren't much better than the MSM on covering economic policies affecting working class Americans. In general they are silent and don't care that the Democratic candidates have more corporate baggage than you can shake a stick at.
You don't see expose' of the Clinton's corporate ties. Hillary's association with K street, Billy's $100 million dollar consulting contract with Dubai. It all goes unoted by the Netroots.
Selective blindness seems to be endemic with this sorry lot.
Nor do you get articles on H1-B visa workers used to beat down American wages, off-shoring and "free" trade, corporate screwing of workers from mainstream blogs.
And yet these are bread and butter issues to a lot of Americans but are not covered. We may as well subscribe to the WSJ for all the use the Netroots are.
So who are the netroots? all I do know is that they don't represent blue collar working stiffs like me who had to watch our jobs being off-shored and "free" traded away.
Speaking of economic issues, notice how silent the MSM has been on the tragic deaths of the rescuers trying to save the Utah mine workers and the possibly tragic deaths of the Utah mine workers. Even on the liberal blogosphere, I have found only one post on it. You know, coal miners are what provide electricity for us people to enjoy our TV, radio, internet, etc ... So much for preserving safety and security in this country. :(
A bigger problem with Edwards' candidacy is his failure to support universal Medicare. His plan to involve business, employees, regional health markets an tax credits, and "requiring" Americans to purchase "affordable" health insurance is ludicrous.
By the way, can anyone tell me what health insurance companies do that is of value to us? Yeah, me neither. Our health care dollars should not be used to pay CEOs, enrich shareholders, and to DENY patients' health care. Medicare works, and it should be expanded to all Americans.
Why won't the Bush family Divest itself of the profits they earned from their collaboration with Nazi Germany, even during the War in 1941 and 1942 while we were at war with Nazi Germany, and the money they earned from their partnership with Standard Oil in the gas factory at Auschwitz..?
I know The WSJ would agree..?
A previous blog comment on Edwards "not having a right to call himself a populist" (Not have a right because he is a millionaire etc) was about as dumb as I have read on the Sirota blogs. Populist has nothing to do with class or money, it has to do with the issues. Kucinich is right on, but Edwards is not far behind. It all depends on the sincerity of the candidate. I don't think anyone will be able to deliver on a populist agenda as long as we have representative corporatist dictatorship in power, but that doesn't make them unethical insincere liars, maybe opportunists. What will brand them hypocrites is if when in power, they don't attempt to change this corrupted seemingly beyond repair corporate usurpation of our democratic system.
Ewode
I never said wealth was the reason Edwards isn't a populist. FDR was a aristocrat and a populist.
But Edwards did royally fuck up by investing in a hedge fund. He should have put his investments in a blind trust so as to protect himself from any accusations of impropriety. Any pol worth his salt knows this.
Edwards isn't a populist by virtue of his positions or should I say lack thereof.
For me I don't call anyone a populist who has the fucking nerve to kiss the asses of Silicon Valley executives and push for more H1-b visa workers so as to smash down American workers. His platform for dealing with off-shoring and "free" trade isn't strong enough by any measure.
That said, he's far better Hillary but given what the country is facing economically we need better.
Still he'll get my vote come election day should he get the nomination(which sadly isn't likely).
Waltc: I was not talking about your comment. I said a previous blog, "All the Stop Watches etc", The Doug Hydin comment. Check it out. Your comment is right on as always and maybe his was not as bad as I thought.
Join the Discussion