On July 6, 2009, Leonard Pitts, a columnist with the Miami Herald whose work appears regularly in the Austin American-Statesman, wrote an article about Governor Mark Sanford. It moved me to write him this e-mailed letter to him on the same day:
"Dear Mr. Pitts,
"I must start by saying how much I enjoy your work. I look forward to seeing your commentary in my local paper, the Austin American-Statesman, and you are possibly the only commentator whose work I always read when I see it.
"I have to admit, this is partly because I so often agree with you, but I like to think it is also because you are thoughtful, logical, and a good writer.
"I put your commentary on Governor Sanford's infidelity in the same category: thoughtful, logical, and well-written.
"Yes [sic], I was jarred by part of it. So jarred that I felt ocmpelled [sic] to write to you. I know how I feel about what you wrote - that jarring part - but I am as yet unsure what I think about it. So, I'm not saying you should not have written it. I am saying it really jarrred me and I'm very troubled.
"'Next time some politician goes before the cameras with his figurative pants down around his metaphoric ankles and says "I made a mistake," let's form a mob and drag him from the podium. You bring the lanterns, I'll bring the pitchforks.'
"I would have thought you might be more sensitive to the images that get conjured up by the words 'mob,' and 'lanterns and pitchforks,' than the average commentator. For me, those words conjure up some pretty terrible images.
"It is not that I don't think that sort of treatment is exactly what the hypocrites deserve, and I think their behavior says much more about their character and fitness to serve than you managed to mention. I just don't think mobs, lanterns, and pitchforks are the right response.
"Perhaps you will respond that you didn't mean those words literally. To that, I respond that I have heard that said to excuse the crowds at the John McCain rallies calling for the death of Barack Obama. 'We didn't mean to literally kill him.' And to excuse the incendiary rhetoric used by abortion opponents in describing what they thought ought to be done to those who provide reproductive services to women. 'Oh, we didn't mean to literally kill them or burn their clinics.'
"Yet, those words, whether meant literally or not, have an effect. Even if they don't produce the literal result called for, they have an effect on the way people think about each other. To have someone of your credibily and stature say that we ought to form mobs and drag politicians from the podium gives people license to think that's just what we ought to do to another human being. If not that one, then someone else.
"I think the Republicans and conservatives of this nation are consumate hypocrites. Governor Sanford could be exhibit A in the trial of Republicans and conservaties on the vile charge of gross hypocrisy.
"But, lest we be hypocrites ourselves, then we must accept the same standards of restraint on our language that we ask them to accept on theirs. If incendiary language directed against those we support is wrong, then incendiary language directed against those we oppose is just as wrong.
"So, I'm feeling bad - jarred - by your language, and especially so because it came from you, for whom I have such incredible respect. I don't know what I think about it yet. I haven't had time to sort that out, but I feel jarred.
"And, I cannot send this without adding that I still have incredible respect for you. I just feel - maybe - you made a mistake.
"Sincerely,James W. Collins"
I received this response from Mr. Pitts' e-mail address:
"Thanks for your thoughtful letter; I'm replying only because Mr. Pitts will be away for two weeks and I'm afraid he will be overwhelmed trying to get caught up, but I will be sure he sees your email, even if he doesn't have time to respond.
"Judi Smith
"Assistant to Leonard Pitts, Jr."
Mr. Pitts has never responded to my letter personally. If he has responded in his column, I missed it. I'm not sure if Ms. Smith's response was a canned response, but it could have been. I cannot even be sure if Ms. Smith actually exists.
And now we have the opponents of universal health care in America shouting down our elected representatives at their meetings on the topic, screaming at other Americans who are trying to express their opinions in support of universal health care, bringing weapons to the meetings, and even getting into physical conflicts with others at the meetings. We have elected representatives in the United States of America who feel the need to be escorted by armed police from thier own meetings because the crowd seems so close to violence.
And so it begins, Mr. Pitts. And so it begins.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's the problem with people of both parties, hypocrisy seems to be one of the few universal genetic defects of the species Homo Sapiens.
ReplyDeleteI could name a few immoral people on the Democrat/liberal side. Does that make all Democrats/liberals consumate hypocrits? Oh, I guess not as they apparently don't claim to be moral.
ReplyDeleteHere is what I find hypocritical: When it is liberals shouting and protesting (often violently), or screaming down conservative speakers so they cannot be heard, that is considered "free speech" and applauded and even encouraged. When it is the usually silent middle-class Americans who seldom are even involved in politics, and even now protest in overwhelmingly peaceful numbers (although admittedly some are loud - that is their right), they are criticized? "Physical conflicts"....hmm....doesn't that take two sides? I confess, I haven't seen anything about weapons. Could it be that some of the representatives were hamming it up a bit with the escorts?
ReplyDeleteRe your comment: "It is not that I don't think that sort of treatment is exactly what the hypocrites deserve..."
ReplyDeleteDid you really mean to say that you believe they DO deserve that sort of treatment? Doesn't that negate your whole point?
(Due to limitations on the length of comments, I am having to divide my response into two parts.)
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, first, thank you for your comments. While they seem to have an edge of anger to them, perhaps I am misreading tone from words not intended to convey such emotion. So, I'm going to respond to your comments as if they were a serious effort to engage in thoughtful discussion, and not merely an effort to be sarcastic and hateful.
I am sure you could name a few immoral people "on the Democrat/liberal side." I suspect you could name many immoral people who associate themselves with the Democratic Party or what they think is the liberal philosophy. In some belief systems, all humans are immoral, so it might be argued that all Democrats and liberals are immoral. Even if that were true, it would not logically follow that even some Democrats or liberals were hypocrites. As I think you understand, hypocrisy does not arise from being moral or immoral, but from applying different standards to other people's behavior than you are willing to apply to your own. So, whether they are moral or immoral is really irrelevant to the discussion of hypocrisy. As I think you know.
I am puzzled, though, by your assertion that Democrats and liberals do not claim to be moral. I cannot imagine why you think that. Most of the Democrats and liberals I know spend a good bit of thought and energy trying to determine the moral course of action and then attempting to follow it. They don't necessarily go about preaching their morality, but if asked, I think they would say that they are, essentially, moral individuals, though imperfectly so.
I admit, I don't know any who claim to be perfect, even by their own lights. If you think that it is immoral to attempt to do what you believe is moral and fail in the attempt, then I quite agree with your statement. They don't claim to be moral. I don't know any Democrats or liberals who claim that they never fall short of their own standards. So, by that standard - that one always lives up to his or her own moral beliefs and never claims otherwise - you would be right. But, you would also be right if you simply asserted, by that standard, that most humans don't claim to be moral. I don't even know anyone I'd classify as a hypocrite who would be so bold as to assert that they never fail to live up to their own concepts of morality. Do you? Know anyone who claims that, I mean.
You set out an example of what you find hypocritical. I certainly agree, and wholeheartedly, that such an example as you hypothesize would be an excellent example of hypocrisy.
Certainly, liberals have and do shout and protest. As I'm sure you understand, my comments were not directed toward mere shouting or protesting, but toward the advocacy of violence against elected officials. However, you hypothesize that liberals scream down conservative speakers so they cannot be heard. I'm not aware of that happening, though perhaps it might or might have in the past. If you think it has happened, I'd be bothinterested and chagrined to hear the specifics of when and where.
I'm also unaware of such behavior - screaming down anyone so that they cannot be heard - ever defended as free speech. It is not free speech, and as a lawyer who has studied a bit of constitutional law, I am unaware of it ever having been defended as such. Perhaps you can point me to a case where a court found that screaming down someone so that they could not be heard was found to be protected free speech.
Finally, I am unaware of anyone criticizing anyone for peaceful protest. In fact, I've heard many coommentators mention stories in which there were both those who were peacefully protesting and also those who were wildly and rudely interrupting their elected representatives at their own meetings. In none of those instances have I ever heard the peaceful protestors criticized. So, I am honestly unaware of either the example of violent liberals screaming down conservative speakers and being supported as merely exercising free speech or your conter-example of peaceful conservative protestors being criticized.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless, even if your hypothetical example of hypocrisy (which I agree is an excellent hypothetical example of hypocrisy), were true in fact, it still would not demonstrate actual hypocrisy unless the contrary positons (supporting violent protest on the one hand and criticizing peaceful protest on the other) were taken by the same person. It is not hypocritical to hold a view when someone else holds a contrary view. It is only hypocritical to hold two contrary views yourself, simultaneiously.
Now, I'm sure you could, if you put your efforts to it, point to real life examples of hypocrisy among Democrats and liberals. In fact, I have done just that in my writing to Mr. Pitts. So, since I have challenged Mr. Pitts, who is, I believe, a liberal, to apply the same standards of linguistic discourse to himself that he would ask of his opponehts, I'm not sure why you did not simply respond with enthusiastic agreement.
Isn't that what you want? That Mr. Pitts not be hypocritical? Or is it your real complaint that he does not agree with you?
I understand your point when you ask if my comment about what I thought they deserved didn't do exaclty what I was asking Mr. Pitts to refrain from doing. However, what I said and what he said were, in fact, different. He was encouraging people to engage in violence. I was commenting that, even though I thought they deserved violence, I thought it innapropriate, even under those circumstances, to encourage people to engage in v8olence.
Even though I think the distinction is logically significant, perhaps the distinction is not enough to avoid a negative impact from my words similar to the negative impact I feared might arise from Mr. Pitts' words. I'll have to think about that.
How would you express the idea that even if one thinks someone deserves violent treatment, it is irresponsible to advocate it, without having the negative impact you detected? I'd be interested in learning a different, less damaging way to express that idea.
Mark Sanford was among the many Republicans calling for Bill Clinton's resignation because he had an affair and lied about it. Then, when Mark Sanford has an affair and lies about it, he refuses to resign. A quintessential example of hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteThe list of hypocritical positions taken by conservative Republicans is almost endless.
I am the “anonymous” that posted the 2nd and 3rd anonymous comments – about the protestors and about the violent treatment you believe hypocrites deserve. I was also the first anonymous poster on your blog titled “What’s in It for Me?” (discussing ideas for health care reform).
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me apologize if my comments came off as angry. That was not my intention. I confess I was being sarcastic, and for that I apologize, too, for I know this is a serious debate. But I certainly did not feel hateful. In fact, I have enjoyed your writing and the ensuing debates.
Regarding “violent treatment,” I suppose I am just shocked that you really believe Mark Sanford “deserves” that treatment even though you say we should not advocate it. Don’t get me wrong….I think he is a detestable person. And, as you have clearly illustrated, HE is a “consummate hypocrite.” Violent treatment, though? He has not killed anyone nor physically harmed anyone that I am aware of. And from what I can tell (though I confess I have not followed the story closely as it repels me), it is mostly his Republican colleagues that have been calling for his resignation. Certainly that is a valid request. But I don’t think he deserves “violence” – just unemployment and divorce. Unfortunately, his family didn’t deserve any of this.
Regarding hypocrisy: You stated that you believed “the Republicans and conservatives of this nation” were the “consummate hypocrites.” I must admit that I found this comment to be somewhat angry and hateful. I don’t believe we should generalize an entire group of people in that way. Do you really believe that all conservatives are hypocrites? And so much more than liberals? I believe any group has individuals that fit that description and most groups also have people that would rarely fit it. I was merely giving you an example of liberal hypocrisy.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteIn your original post you did not seem to be exclusively referring to “the advocacy of violence against elected officials.” Certainly, most rational people would be against this. It is abhorrent. However, I do get tired of the double standard. Many, many signs about death to President Bush went ignored for years. I’m sure there were some prosecutions, but I think for the most part these were not considered serious threats, but free speech/expression. I could post a link to quite a few pictures of these signs, but will not as this is, respectfully, your blog.
You also asked for some examples of conservatives shouted down by liberals. Here are a few:
Star Parker at Penn State, 1999; Ann Coulter at University of Connecticut, 2005; Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project at Columbia, 2006; Bill Kristol at University of Texas, 2006; David Horowitz at Emory University, 2007.
As far as specific liberal hypocrisy, here is one: Nancy Pelosi, at a town hall meeting in San Francisco in 2006 was loudly interrupted numerous times by anti-war protestors. Her response was “…your advocacy is very American….there’s nothing more articulate, more eloquent, to a member of congress than the voice of his or her own constituent….I understand your anger….I’m a fan of disruptors….” However, when she referred to the people speaking out and “disrupting” the health care town hall meetings she said, “…An ugly campaign is under way not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation but to disrupt civil dialogue….” She said they were “drowning out opposing views” and were “simply un-American.” I do not believe she was referring to any violent threats at this point, only to the people who were so obviously frustrated with their representatives. This position was repeated by many members of the democratic party. What happened to the voice of the constituent being “articulate” and “eloquent?”
I would also like to point out that President Bush was booed and heckled at his State of the Union speech in 2005. In addition, when he was interrupted at a speech on July 4, 2008, he responded by saying, “To my fellow citizens, we believe in free speech in the United States of America.”
I did not say that shouting down others was ever defended in court. Or even that it is defensible. I only make the point that many liberals consider it to be free speech when it suits them and “un-American” when it does not.
That, to me, is an example of being a “consummate hypocrite.”
Actually, I do believe that "sort" of treatment is exactly what hypocrites deserve. Not hanging, not even execution. But violent treatment? Yes, I think they deserve that.
ReplyDeleteThere were only two types of people Jesus of Nazareth ever lost his temper with: hypocrites and money changers in the temple. The money changers he physically attacked. The hypoctrites he merely cursed. "Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees. Hypocrites!" People don't generally understand that when Jesus wished "woe" on the hypocrites, he was cursing them, but he was.
Yes, I think they do deserve violent treatment. I seem to be in pretty good company on the point.
On the other hand, I would counsel against giving them that treatment, and I would try to stop it any time I could. I try not to be a hypocrite. I think violence is never a solution, except as a truly last resort. Since there are other ways to deal with hypocritical politicians, I suggest that we deal with them in those ways, and not give them what they so richly deserve. All due respect to Mr. Pitts.
Finally, for now at least, I must agree with you that there are many liberals who are showing themselves to be hypocrites. I am profoundly disappointed in them. I had thought better of them.
Even admitting that, I think liberals, in general, have a long way to go before their hypocrisy is as profound and as obvious and as egregious as the hypocrisy of the great majority of conservatives.
But, reasonable, good-hearted, intelligent people can disagree on that conclusion. I hope they won't disagree when I opine, as I did in the main article, that Mr. Pitts is being hypocritical when he advocates violence for philandering, hypocritical politicians, but admonishes the Rush Limbaughs of the world not to encourage violence toward abortion providers.
Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!