LOSING OUR WAY. “Conservatives” Developing Hypocrisy Problem

[HonestJohn]

Agreed. The echo chamber effect was why I left TOS.

Its like saying that Megyn Kelly is tough on Donald Trump so she is the left and therefore I hate her. If someone I dislike says something right, I'm supposed to abandon the right thing because someone I disagree said it.

Its complete and utter stupidity which a smart enemy will use with great effect.

Pelosi used that in the past.  She knows that knee-jerk conservatives will oppose anything she speaks favorably about... so she has sometimes spoke favorable about Republican proposals, knowing full well that their base would then go apoplectic about it.

The last I remember was during discussions about making Social Security solvent again.

[Cripplecreek]

Pelosi used that in the past.  She knows that knee-jerk conservatives will oppose anything she speaks favorably about... so she has sometimes spoke favorable about Republican proposals, knowing full well that their base would then go apoplectic about it.

The last I remember was during discussions about making Social Security solvent again.

Funny thing is that I was thinking of Nancy Pelosi saying she opposed ethics rule changes and a user here at TBR chiming in almost immediately with "If she's against it, I have to be for it". Its simple reverse psychology with a little conditioned response thrown in.

People become so used to opposing someone that they refuse to accept exactly what they want because it comes from the person they oppose. In fact people often give ground rather than take ground willfully ceded from an enemy.

[Smokin Joe]

Funny thing is that I was thinking of Nancy Pelosi saying she opposed ethics rule changes and a user here at TBR chiming in almost immediately with "If she's against it, I have to be for it". Its simple reverse psychology with a little conditioned response thrown in.

People become so used to opposing someone that they refuse to accept exactly what they want because it comes from the person they oppose. In fact people often give ground rather than take ground willfully ceded from an enemy.

It's why principle over personality is so important.
Sooner or later, though not as often as a stopped clock, people are right. No one living bats 1.000, even at being wrong. Knee jerk reactions to sources, rather than ideas, are dangerous, and by the wrong person saying the right thing rendering those concepts politically radioactive, the very reforms desired could be discarded en masse by the careless.

[Hondo69]

@CatherineofAragon

   Martha will not fix that fair and balanced thing either, Fox has jumped the shark, been coopted by Trumpsters just like Trumpbart and TOS among a few examples.

Personally, I've always liked Martha and found her to be one of the few personalities on Fox I can stomach.  She comes across to me as genuine.

But I'm drifting away from the main topic here and that is hypocrisy of Conservatives.  It's a tough call and I've thought about it a good deal over the years.  At the end of the day it is a moral issue.

As one person noted:

"If she's against it, I have to be for it". Its simple reverse psychology with a little conditioned response thrown in.

I used to think, "be honest, play by the rules, and eventually the American people will come to their senses and do the right thing".  Conservatives have been doing so for decades and losing ground to those who do not play by the rules and do not have any intention of doing the right thing.  So I've changed my mind.

As the old saying goes, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight".  Which brings up another old saying, "Politics ain't beanbag".

So my new revised opinion on the matter is stick the knife in, then twist.  When they fall to the ground be sure to pour the boots to them for good measure.

There are people in this country hell bent on destroying the fabric of our society.  And they've done a good job of tearing apart our schools, media, banking system, healthcare system, legal system, agriculture and industry.  So I repeat, at the end of the day it is a moral issue.  Is it better to let them destroy the fabric of our society or is it better to stop them by means that are more than a little bit unseemly?

No one likes wet work - sometimes the situation calls for it.

[Cripplecreek]

No one likes wet work - sometimes the situation calls for it.

Well congratulations, you've become the left.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

To me "the end justifies the means" is the very antithesis of conservatism.

[Silver Pines]

Funny thing is that I was thinking of Nancy Pelosi saying she opposed ethics rule changes and a user here at TBR chiming in almost immediately with "If she's against it, I have to be for it". Its simple reverse psychology with a little conditioned response thrown in.

People become so used to opposing someone that they refuse to accept exactly what they want because it comes from the person they oppose. In fact people often give ground rather than take ground willfully ceded from an enemy.

@Cripplecreek

During the election, a friend of mine couldn't bring herself to utter a word of criticism against Trump, despite the fact that she never liked him.  Her reasoning?  "The left is criticizing him and I can't imagine agreeing with them about anything."

I tried to tell her she wasn't agreeing with them unless she'd suddenly become a supporter of liberal policies, but she didn't get it.

[Hondo69]

Well congratulations, you've become the left.

You may be right.  I hope not, but it's a personal moral issue for each and every one of us.

To me "the end justifies the means" is the very antithesis of conservatism.

Yes, as much as I hate to admit it - the end justifies the means.

First, I want to clarify phrases like "wet work" and "stick the knife in".  Hopefully it was clear these are only expressions and I'm not advocating any violence.  That's a line I'm unwilling to cross - I meant in a purely political sense. 

The situation is a little bit similar to those they would bring up in Ethics 101.  Suppose you're Harry Truman and just became president two days ago when a leading general comes to you and says, "we've been working on this thing called the Manhattan Project. . ."  Or another, "you just captured a terrorist and he knows where the bomb is that will go off in 45 minutes . . . "

Instead of the make believe Ethics 101 classroom we have real life political situations that affect us, our children and grandchildren.  Would you concoct a story out of thin air that would force Nancy Pelosi to resign in disgrace?  Yes I would.   Would you convene a grand jury and put Hillary Clinton on trial even though it is guaranteed to set off one king hell of a fire storm?  Yes I would.  What about a grand jury for Eric Holder?  In a heartbeat.

These are all incredibly tough decisions that come with a ton of negative consequences.  At the end of the day each boils down to a personal moral decision.  Sometimes the end justifies the means.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You may be right.  I hope not, but it's a personal moral issue for each and every one of us.
Yes, as much as I hate to admit it - the end justifies the means.

First, I want to clarify phrases like "wet work" and "stick the knife in".  Hopefully it was clear these are only expressions and I'm not advocating any violence.  That's a line I'm unwilling to cross - I meant in a purely political sense. 

The situation is a little bit similar to those they would bring up in Ethics 101.  Suppose you're Harry Truman and just became president two days ago when a leading general comes to you and says, "we've been working on this thing called the Manhattan Project. . ."  Or another, "you just captured a terrorist and he knows where the bomb is that will go off in 45 minutes . . . "

Instead of the make believe Ethics 101 classroom we have real life political situations that affect us, our children and grandchildren.  Would you concoct a story out of thin air that would force Nancy Pelosi to resign in disgrace?  Yes I would.   Would you convene a grand jury and put Hillary Clinton on trial even though it is guaranteed to set off one king hell of a fire storm?  Yes I would.  What about a grand jury for Eric Holder?  In a heartbeat.

These are all incredibly tough decisions that come with a ton of negative consequences.  At the end of the day each boils down to a personal moral decision.  Sometimes the end justifies the means.

In a liberal democratic republic such as ours, the emphasis has to be on the means. And if you don't agree and follow whatever way you want, I will resist you every step of the way.

[Sanguine]

Good article. 

I agree with one of the first comments on this thread: Trump has nothing to do with conservatism and never did.  He is about using a fellow leftist to push back on some of the more egregious offenses of the left, using leftist tactics, and throwing in a few at least conservative sounding items, which tend to confound and quiet conservative reservations.  I think I've just described populism. 

Populism is a political style of action that mobilizes a large alienated element of population against a government seen as controlled by an out-of-touch closed elite that acts on behalf of its own interests. The underlying ideology of the Populists can be left, right, or middle. Its goal is to unite the uncorrupt and the unsophisticated (the 'little man') against the corrupt dominant elites (usually the orthodox politicians) and their camp followers (usually the rich and the intellectuals). It is guided by the belief that political and social goals are best achieved by the direct actions of the masses. Although it comes into being where mainstream political institutions fail to deliver, there is no identifiable economic or social set of conditions that give rise to it, and it is not confined to any particular social class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

Having said that, I have to admit I enjoy seeing Trump deploy the methods of the left against the left.  But, as several posters here have eloquently pointed out, we need to remember and stay true to conservative beliefs.  I consider myself reminded.

I would also like to point out that the unrelenting Trump-bashing creates the opposite of the intended reaction.  Trump is going after other leftists, I/we like it and the bashing creates a negative sense and begins to sound only like sour grapes.

[Smokin Joe]

Would you concoct a story out of thin air that would force Nancy Pelosi to resign in disgrace?  Yes I would.   

No. As much as that woman disgusts me, I would think there was enough real to get her to resign in disgrace. If not, and there were no actionable offenses, then finding someone guilty under false pretenses is just plain wrong, no matter how much their politics and persona disgust me.

Would you convene a grand jury and put Hillary Clinton on trial even though it is guaranteed to set off one king hell of a fire storm?  Yes I would.  What about a grand jury for Eric Holder?  In a heartbeat.

Yes! Absolutely. A Grand Jury has the power to investigate and indict, and what's more is fully Constitutional. Let the chips fall where they may.

These are all incredibly tough decisions that come with a ton of negative consequences.  At the end of the day each boils down to a personal moral decision.  Sometimes the end justifies the means.

Not if the means are dishonest. You become what you revile. There is no moral decision in investigating wrongdoing and prosecuting such if it exists. In Hillary's case, in Holder's case, it is almost a given, but there is no dishonesty in looking for and prosecuting what is found. Let the evidence speak.
That's a world different from fabricating a story to bring someone down, which would be no different than Dan Rather spewing over fake (but accurate) National Guard memos.
I have more faith that wrong will be punished in the end, enough so that I won't get in line with those who practice it.

[Hondo69]

Not if the means are dishonest. You become what you revile. There is no moral decision in investigating wrongdoing and prosecuting such if it exists. In Hillary's case, in Holder's case, it is almost a given, but there is no dishonesty in looking for and prosecuting what is found. Let the evidence speak.

That's a world different from fabricating a story to bring someone down, which would be no different than Dan Rather spewing over fake (but accurate) National Guard memos.

I have more faith that wrong will be punished in the end, enough so that I won't get in line with those who practice it.

I get it, and not all that long ago I was 100% right there with you.  What's more, I'm personally happy there are a lot more people around with your viewpoint than there are with my own, deeply jaded viewpoint.