Hypocrisy Vs. Compromise
By Tom Adkins (10/19/04)
Hypocrisy - professing beliefs that one does not hold. Compromise - settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
If compromise is the first arrow politicians suffer upon political battle, “Hypocrisy” is the first accusation from the lips of political challengers. Then, when does compromise become hypocrisy? And vice versa? In the 2004 Presidential race, we have two men who starkly illustrate the difference.
Upon election, George Bush assembled an education bill, then a prescription drugs program for seniors. Both expanded costs, but took control from government. Conservatives grumbled. Liberals moped. Yet Bush produced excellent examples of necessary and wise compromise.
But once 9-11 smacked the dozing American electorate, President Bush recognized the threat of worldwide terrorism, and declared war.
So did John Kerry, enthusiastically supporting the war. Until he found himself trailing the strident anti-war candidate Howard Dean in the Democrat primary. Suddenly, Kerry became the “even-more-anti-war candidate,” espousing diametrically opposite opinions of earlier rhetoric. His audacious and unapologetic hypocrisy worked. He won.
But once he out-liberaled Dean, Kerry found himself on the fringe margins of the electorate, if not sanity itself. And turned 180 degrees. Again.
It would be difficult to list all the positions and evidence in an encyclopedia, let alone an article. But here goes…
Domestically, Kerry insists he won’t raise taxes on the middle class, while his “tax the rich” scheme directly attacks small business, the greatest engine of economic growth and employment. He claims he’d solve exploding trial lawyer health care costs by merely shifting massive litigation costs to government. And there’s that massive gap between his tax hikes and his government programs. That’s before the economy slows from a higher-tax burden.
But on the war against terrorism, Kerry’s documented hypocrisy is unbridled. He doesn’t even bother to hide it. In the first Bush vs. Kerry debate, he declared, “I’ll never give a veto to any country over our security” within minutes of stating, “You have to pass the global test…” …explaining needed approval from the French and Russians. He professed, “I’ve had one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat, he needed to be disarmed.” Then, “Saying there were weapons of mass destruction doesn’t make it so…” He professed “nothing but respect for Tony Blair and the Brits” after labeling allies “window dressing to the greatest degree,” and “bribed and coerced.” He complains we wasted $200 billion in Iraq, after appearing on "Meet The Press," demanding we increase funding to “whatever hundreds of millions that it takes to win.”
His infamous, self-contained flip flop, “I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it…” is actually small potatoes. After viewing the same evidence as Bush, Kerry voted for the war, then claimed Iraq was the “wrong war, wrong time, wrong place,” directly accused the President of lying, (then denied it) stating Bush “made a colossal error of judgment.” This, after admitting “Even knowing there was no threat, I still would have voted for the war,” and “Those who doubted that we are not better off today, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be President.”
Now, Kerry hedges “I would have done it very differently, building a world coalition.” Yet he voted against Operation Desert Storm, the greatest coalition in world history.
Perhaps most insulting is Kerry’s long career of successfully emasculating American intelligence, even proposing an intelligence cut after the first World Trade Center attack. Now, we must endure his proclamation that George Bush bungled intelligence. And Kerry despicably attacks Bush on the economic devastation that followed.
Then, John Kerry claims he’s trying to tell America “the truth.”
Kerry’s flip flops aren’t merely astounding. They’re dangerous. If Kerry attains office, insulted allies will question current and future commitments. World dictators breathe a sigh of relief. The crooked United Nations won’t face consequences. The corrupt arrogance of the Western Europeans will be rewarded. Terrorists will have victory.
It’s one thing to have an honest change of heart. It’s another to change a position on a dime. Certainly, Bush has remained steadfast. Sadly, Kerry is proving that well-delivered hypocrisy can often challenge poorly delivered wisdom. But for those who vote for soulless hypocrites like John Kerry, there is a definition as well: Fool. Look it up.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Tom Adkins
