Hypocrisy

[Fat Old Guy]

"FOG, and your dating history and motivations (which I really didn't want to know about) are relevant to the actions of a famous segregationist who slept with (and fathered a child with) one of the people he said should not be allowed to associate with "his people," is relevant how, exactly?"

 

You're pretty dense aren't you? The point is that I would "have fun" with many girls that I wouldn't association with on a normal basis. When the crotch is involved, normal rules do not apply.

 

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

Your second bet (i.e., that someone would mention Robert Byrd and make a partisan point out of that) was a self-fulfilling prophecy, which you accomplished by attacking a conservative politician for a crime that you knew a well known liberal politician was guilty of, yet failed to even mention his name.

 

A crime that I knew a well known liberal politician was gulity of? You know, I must have missed the news the day that it came out that Robert Byrd came home from a KKK rally one day at the age of 22 and impregnated his household's 16-year-old black maid. When did that happen, Rooster?

 

My post was not to attack Strom Thurmond for being a practitioner of racial politics, which he was. (I will leave aside what the definition of "racist" is, I don't think there is really any question about it in Thurmond's case, but it's beside the point.) That has been a well-known fact for about 60 years. What I was reacting to was a news story from this week about Strom Thurmond, revealing that he did not practice what he preached, so to speak. I have not seen any new revelations this week about Robert Byrd. The reason I knew my post would draw a mention of Byrd is not that the mention is justified, but that I have heard enough conservative/Republican commentary recently to know that Byrd is the "stock item" in the "bag of tricks" to be brought out every time a racial issue comes up.

 

I have not, and still have not, made this a partisan issue. Looking over the past century, neither party's record on race has been particularly spotless. There were other Democratic segregationists you could have mentioned as well... and then I could mention the segregationists who switched to the Republican Party rather than renounce segregationism -- not only Thurmond, but George Wallace and Lester Maddox as well. And maybe others as well. Both Thurmond and Wallace, seeing which way the wind was blowing in the early 70's, did renounce racism and segregation and started appointing minorities to their staffs, etc. -- as did every Democratic segregationist I can think of, including Byrd and Fritz Hollings. You just don't score any partisan points on this, Rooster. The revelation about Thurmond stands on its own -- his personal life did not match his private life. His partisan affiliation has, and had, nothing to do with it.

[scoutingagain]

In this instance I am afraid FOG is correct. Men only think with one organ at a time. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be held acountable for what they do though.

 

SA

[NJCubScouter]

FOG says:

 

The point is that I would "have fun" with many girls that I wouldn't association with on a normal basis. When the crotch is involved, normal rules do not apply.

 

Well, isn't that special. Is that what you tell the boys in your troop?

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

You call it a "bag of tricks". I call it simple facts.

 

And the fact that you knew your post would provoke someone into bringing up Byrd, is more of an indictment against the obvious bias in your post than it is against Republican trickery (as you might call it).

 

As for my "partisan points", I was just attempting to keep things balanced. I never claimed Thurmond was guiltless. I just pointed out that if Thurmond is a scoundrel for his so-called hypocritical behavior, then Byrd should be mentioned with the same breath.

 

Furthermore, I maintain - if you want to see excellent examples of hypocrisy; then study the Democrats on Capital Hill. Their condemnation is very selective.

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster: Are there any Republican hypocrites? Or are all hypocrites Democrats?

[Fat Old Guy]

Well NJ Dude, I suppose that you only dated girls that you would have married or did you marry the first girl that you dated?

[Rooster7]

I'm sure there are some Republican hypocrites. How about Senator Jefferies of Vermont? ;-)

[NJCubScouter]

That's what I figured, Rooster. I saw the wink. You know very well what I'm talking about.

 

And Senator Jeffords, if that is who you meant, is now an Independent, as I am sure you know.

 

Just in the interest of fair play, however, I did find this handy-dandy web site listing all kinds of scandals involving Republicans. And you're right, it is biased and partisan, and has nothing about any Democrats. (And it's a few years old and lists some people who are arguably not Republicans or who have left the party, like Pat Buchanan.) But, Rooster, you've already mentioned all the Democratic scandals you can think of, so I just thought I'd provide some balance. It does make for interesting reading.

[Adrianvs]

It is perfectly consistent with a racist mindset to take advantage of a black maid and then ignore her. It is very common for "...ist" individuals to sexually exploit groups that they do not respect and would not accept as peers. If Thurmond were a "pretend racist" then he would be a hypocrite. If he really were a racist (the most likely case in my opinion), then doing what he did doesn't make him a hypocrite. Lifestyle-preaching inconsistency can be a sign of hypocricy, but it isn't a necessary condition for it. In Thurmond's case, it doesn't seem that it's inconsistent at all. If he had kept the woman as a mistress for years and romanced her while running on a racist platform, then he would have been a hypocrite. I haven't followed the story closely, but this doesn't seem to be the case.

 

Rooster- I found your religious examples appropriate.

FOG- I found your dating example appropriate.

NJ- I had a bet with myself that you would object to any religious reference or disagreement by stating that you had forseen such things... just kidding.

 

It should be noted that Thurmond may have been a hypocrite in regards to other things, like his profession of faith or moral virtues. As a racist, however, he seems rather consistent.

[NJCubScouter]

FOG, you can suppose what you want. My personal life isn't any more relevant to this than yours is. The reason that Strom Thurmond's personal life is relevant is that he made his career -- literally, the best-known and most-remembered aspects of his entire, long career -- out of promoting discrimination and exclusion against a group of people, but he didn't extend that exclusion to the 16-year-old girl he slept with as an adult, and fathered a child with.

 

I, on the other hand, haven't made my career out of excluding anyone from anything. But, ok, let's suppose that the aspect of my personal life that we now know about Thurmond is relevant. So, because I know the world was waiting for this, I have never slept with any teenagers while I was an adult, and I haven't fathered any children other than the three I go home to every night.

 

FOG, if your answers on these subjects would be any different, I beg of you, please, don't tell us.

[Adrianvs]

The previous post may be used to demonstrate the nature of hypocrisy. NJ indicates that he is living in a committed and monogamous relationship. He has taken responsibility for the children he has fathered. He (and rightly so) presents this as a virtuous lifestyle.

 

Now if (and this is hypothetical), he were to consider monogamous relationships and taking responsibility for one's children (as opposed to abandoning them or having them terminated) as mere social conventions and not necessarily virtuous choices, then he would be engaging in hypocrisy. In such a situation (again, this is hypothetical), his outward message and lifestyle are in agreement yet he would still be engaged in hypocrisy.

 

Again, I have no reason to believe that NJ holds these things as optional or mere conventions. It is just to illustrate that hypocrites are those who appear as they are not. This usually takes the form of those who appear virtuous, but are really just using their conventions to appear so to others. To use a religious example , this is what the Pharisees whom Christ called hypocrites were guilty of. They behaved exactly as a virtuous person should, but were merely acting. Hypocrisy is a difficult charge to make; Christians believe that Christ was able to do so because of his ability to see the inner disposition of those he accused.

 

In Thurmond's case, it is debatable as to whether his form of racism excluded using and abusing blacks in that manner. I doubt it. If he were a hypocrite regarding his racism, then that means he was pretending. I doubt that too. Perhaps a case could be made that he was a hypocrite segregationist. As it stands, I doubt that his segregationism would have excluded maids, concubines, and the like. I think there are better words to describe Mr. Thurmond. Most of them can't be printed here.

[LovetoCamp]

In 1922 girls were marrying at 12 and having their 3rd kid at 16. Times have changed and so did Thurmond.

 

Strom landed at Normandy on D-Day. God Bless him.

[ScoutParent]

Strom Thurmond received the largest % of the black vote that any SC senator has ever received in his last election. Seems the black voters in his state didn't agree with your assessment of this man. Strom Thurmond was known to be the father of a black coed. He frequented the college regularly meeting with and visiting his daughter; both in the president's office and throughout the campus. Most students realized that he was her father although neither father nor daughter referred to it. Blacks in South Carolina didn't hold it against him because he "did right" by her. His daughter sent him Father's day cards and he reciprocated with letters to her. Most of these facts and many other interesting ones can be found at www.blackcommentator.com.

 

Strom Thurmond was also a WWII hero who with the 82nd Airborne, stormed the beaches of Normandy, was wounded; won 5 battlefield stars and 18 decorations. Stom Thurmond was the only major office holder in the US to be elected by write in votes.

 

He was a member of the Dixiecrat Party who ran for president under a STATES RIGHTS platform. Read the Southern Manifesto to see more about that. Read the entire speech that one paragraph has been excerpted from to gain a better understanding of his views. Other members of his party at the time considered him a moderate and didn't trust him because his emphasis was different from theirs. In the 1960's he joined with republican forces to again fight for STATES RIGHTS. He was consistently and foremost concerned with STATES RIGHTS. Although he opposed the Civil Rights Act; it was because he felt it should not be legislated to the states.

 

He hired the first black aide, he appointed blacks to positions of importance and established black colleges in his state.

 

 

[Hunt]

To be fair, George Wallace did publicly renounce his racist past. Thurmond never, ever did this. He did take some actions--like hiring a black staffer--that have given support to claims that he changed his views. But nobody has come up with one word from him to suggest that he was wrong when he said things like "There's not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches." The idea that his Dixiecrat run for President was only about states' rights and not about segregation is a ludicrous piece of revisionist history.