That Was Then, This is Now

    Ah, yes...political hypocrisy....I guess if it doesn't have consequences....

Comments

[fundamentalist]

The author conveniently forgots how the Democrats vehemently opposed the earlier Republican efforts. All politicians are hypocrites. None are better than others.

[don woolley]

except maybe losing the presidency and both houses of congress...incredibly low ratings...and no direction...

I agree with the article, but I have to agree with the post above in that the dems are no different.

And as for the source - The Huffington Post is about as fair and balanced as Fox News. :-)

Hope you had a great Christmas.
don woolley

[Doug]

The only politician I have maintained respect for is Ron Paul, who has fought for a specific bill to audit the Federal Reserve, and now it has gained 80% support from the public, and if presented to the floor of the House and Senate would pass. But since it is part of a larger regulatory bill that he in principle is against, he will end up voting against the bill he has worked so long and hard to get this far. He is indeed a man who stands by his principles.

As far as the GOP, I couldn't care less about it. Same for the Donkey Party.

[zero]

if one dug deeply enough it would be revealed the flaws in ron paul as well. in washington everyone can be bought for the right price. sanders was against the health care bill until he got his several millions for community health centers. i agree with community health centers but without those he wouldn't have voted yes. perhaps he felt he's mitigating a bad deal for citizens for bargaining for the centers. while the outcome is admirable it's still the same process.

[Doug]

Nobody is perfect, of course, but I'm dubious that "Ron Paul has his price." His record has been very clear, and he is more often vilified by Republicans (namely Hannity and Rush) than he is from the Left.

[zero]

oh, i doubt that ron paul is completely clean. even the purest among them in washington are not completely pure.

the huff post delivers news just like a tangible newspaper with very little of actual content originating from huff post staff. and that is clearly marked for those to see the source. the blog offers an opportunity for persons of many backgrounds, ideology, political party, etc to post their thoughts. anyone can post there, including any one here. what is unfair or unbalanced in this method of delivery?

[chuck]

Don, this was an AP post.

To say that all politicians are hypocrites is not to say they are all equally hypocritical (making no judgment about relative party hypocrisy). As to the Dems, they surely have their fair share of hypocrisy, but if you read closely, the difference in this case is obvious. What totally disgusts me is that we have been reduced to tossing out the "all politicians are corrupt" as if that is someone an excuse that makes it okay. Could we agree that we should be calling them on this regularly? and, holding them accountable in the ballot box?

[david beasley]

... all the substantial realities of Flatland itself, appear no better than the offspring of a diseased immagination, or the baseless fabric of a dream. -- Edwin A. Abbott

[Doug]

Chuck, yes, we should be calling out all hypocrisy, but for the sake of discipline, perhaps we should be calling out hypocrisy of those with whom we agree more. Sort of like the log in our own eye sort of thing. For instance, Chuck would be spending more time pointing out the hypocrisies of the Obama Administration (if and when they occur), the Democrats, and other so-called "progressive" politicians, while conservatives should be pointing out the hypocrisy from Republicans and other right-leaning politicians (even Ron Paul, though I suspect he's more liberal than most of us here).

It just seems to me that pointing out the horrible Republicans is pointing out the "speck in their eye" rather than the log in our own. We're all equally guilty of it, which is why I point it out.

[zero]

voting them out is the key. entrenched politicians who are in no danger of losing to a challenger due to a rigged political system (this is all, not one party or another), aren't likely to be anything but what special interests, their "real" base, want them to be. the perceived hypocrisy is in what they say against what they do. it's easy to say whatever people want to hear. and it's easy to vote for what special interests want. there are rarely consequences to such actions. what i want to know, as i've written here often, is why.

[david beasley]

It is a very complicated socio/political situation where legalalities are grossly influenced and fought over by the two shames of humanity which are politics and religion. Conclusions are compromise. Consider the palliative care debate being influenced by politicos like S. Palin (death squads she calls palliative care?), the experiemntal life prolongation drug manufacturers, technological machinery in tandem with drug manufacturers, doctors on payrolls/gifts, hospitals receiving insurance coverage and
the sheep like voters who follow in political servitude without thought one or the ones who seek benefits from their political positions. It is a complicated polarity with much in between and the current poltical scenario seems like a pendulum (ie party in power swings here and there as compromise permits). I don't know what prescriptive position to take other than fear and trembling before God and intercessory prayers considering humankind.

[Roger McKinney]

I know you guys are tired of hearing about Adam Smith, but he described the political situation in his day in exactly the same way. He considered them hopelessly corrupt and hypocritical. That's why he placed no confidence at all in the ability of politicians to create a just society and recommended the free market. The more control politicians have over the economy, the more corrupt they become. Give them more power and they only sell it to the highest bidder.

Yes, you can write editorials about corruption and try to vote them out, but do you honestly think no one has ever thought of that before? Americans have fought corruption in government since day one, only to find the "pure" politicians become just as corrupt. Attempting the same solutions (voting and editorials) to produce different effects after 250 years of failure is some kind of insanity.

The problem is power. You cannot give human being the kind of power we give politicians and expect them to be immune from the temptations that accompany it. That's irrational. If you don't like the corruption in politics, then take away the power that politicians hold over the economy.

[zero]

only politicians? they aren't the only evil that makes it all wrong! please, admit that others, such as those in business, are just as corrupt. a recurring theme here that doug is tired of hearing....personal gain,
profit, disregarding the interests of others and chuck's theology lessons....also play a part in what's wrong with the system.

go david!

it's snowing and it's beautiful!!!

[david beasley]

zero,
beautiful?
sometimes it is like the Spirit of God Himself is under one's mistletoe.

Roger,
does free market create a climate for mafiosa mentality?

[don woolley]

A few notes:

I've seen nearly as much wrong in the Church as outside it - just sayin' I don't think the Church is in tremendously better shape than Congress.

I apologize for my confusion about the AP article. My main exposure to the Huffington post is on cable news shows where they usually have someone fairly neutral, a conservative, and a liberal...and when the Huffington Post is in the mix, that person is a far left liberal (balancing out a far-right conservative). I don't care. I just don't regard the Huff Post as neutral.

I'm all for voting people in and out based on our best understanding of what it means to follow Jesus, which is why I voted against the party I normally favor in the last presidential election, and why I'll do so again if the dems run anyone decent against one of my state's rep senators.

[Doug]

Zero, if you're admitting that politicians on both sides of the aisle gerrymander their districts so as to stay elected, then why do you put so much stock in "voting them out" when clearly that hasn't been the solution? Sure, some wretches were voted out, but by and large, as you and I seem to agree upon, the whole system is corrupt. Sheldon Richman once said, "just because some people cannot be trusted with liberty doesn't mean that other people can be trusted with power."

Yes, some businesses are greedy, and are corrupt. But if they would be corrupt in a market economy, they would be out of business. Which is why insurance companies that are too costly aren't being put out of business by better entrepreneurs who can provide a lower premium and better service. That's how a market economy works.

Roger said that "Americans have fought corruption in government since day one, only to find the "pure" politicians become just as corrupt." I would add that while the actual good ones don't always BECOME corrupt, their predecessors do. So the "purity" only lasts a cycle or two. I'm just baffled that giving all this power to the federal government makes any sense in the minds of democrats... don't they know that someday the Republicans will have this power and will do with it things they had no intention of doing? It also works the other way around, too.

[Roger McKinney]

david: "does free market create a climate for mafiosa mentality?"

You may not realize how loaded that question is. It assumes that society creates the individual and not the other way around. Most free marketeers assume that human nature is a given and that society doesn't do much to influence it. Another way to look at it is that society reflects individual morality, it doesn't create individual morality.

As for creating a "climate for mafiosa mentality", real capitalism wouldn't because capitalism requires the rule of law that prevents fraud and theft.

[Roger McKinney]

zero: "please, admit that others, such as those in business, are just as corrupt."

Capitalism assumes that. Read Smith. He has many paragraphs on how corrupt businessmen can be. Business people are often the worst enemies of capitalism.

The difference between corrupt businessmen and corrupt politicians is that businessmen have no power compared to politicians. No businessman can force people to do business with him, but a politician can force anyone to do anything if he gets his law passed. That's why business people bribe politicians in order to get hold of some of their power.

[david beasley]

zero,
I am still encouraged by your earlier "go David"
Wrote this:
In science for humanity when we read "science is a dream come true"
like e=mc2
one considers the nature of dream's results.
What are the conclusions and the mistakes along the way... a miscalculation begets a magnifed "Ooooops."
Have they quantified/qualified heaven?
Instructed the Corps of Engineers to harnass The Mississippi?
Fed the poor?
Clothed the naked?
Explained to the masses that empowered politicians and priests are not their friends considering their ends?
What kind of dream is science come true?
------------------------------------------
Maybe I would best not be encouraged, eh?

Roger,
Should you enter"ideal" before your capitalism commentary? What I like about the Old Testament? It does not try to fool anybody into believing that humankind can do things right, conform to ideals that would benefit everybody under the sun.

[david beasley]

Oil barons' families? Turn of the 19th century. The double whammy of what Roger brings to mind is of course "him"... George W. Bush. What allowed for George W. Bush to happen in the commerce of oil and the politcs of oil?
"The difference between corrupt businessmen and corrupt politicians is that businessmen have no power compared to politicians." -- Roger.