http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2002-2006 by the authors Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:54:28 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/12/12/111801.php#comment-2503 I would have taken a slightly different tack. Instead of saying "Hypocrisy is not the failure to live up to one's own standards" (I think it is exactly that), I call attention to how un-special hypocrisy is. Of course we fail to live up to our own standards. It is the most natural thing in the world to be hypocrites, like breathing and defecating. The only way out of it is by publicly espousing such low standards (think of a famously permissive person like Rousseau or an unapologetic criminal like G. Gordon Liddy) that hypocrisy is unlikely. I also agree that there is a public element to hypocrisy. But that is simply because we don't know a person's standards until he or she states what they are. Secret crimes don't come back to bite us in the butt the way public crimes do. So I agree that the charge of hypocrisy is often "cooked up," as we see with Trent Lott's remarks, and the cant of those who are calling him on the carpet. Of course, his problem is less hypocrisy than fitness for office. Far from being a hypocrite, he is simply a man with offensive standards. Should we castigate those who jump on the bandwagon? Again, they are hypocrites, unless they have led lives of improbable virtue and consistency. But the greater good is probably to rid ourselves of this loathsome creature because his naked chauvinisms offend even us garden variety hypocrites. ]]> 2503@blogcritics.org Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:54:28 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2002/12/12/111801.php#comment-2502 Fascinating and important distinctions - thanks! ]]> 2502@blogcritics.org Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:19:02 EST