Hypocrisy Considered As A Human Failing

Jonah Goldberg has an amusing column about how Democrats are using Senator Craig's bathroom antics as a tool:

Since most on the Left think Craig’s alleged sexual liaisons are perfectly benign, they shouldn’t object. “Who are we to judge?” and all that. Rather, the Left claims it hates Craig’s hypocrisy, not his behavior.
From Rush Limbaugh’s drug use to Bill Bennett’s gambling to the long list of Republican politicians who’ve thrown a few earmarks and riders into their marriage vows, the Left has chosen to denounce the perceived hypocrisy rather than the behavior. The indictment sometimes loses its punch in the details. Bennett never inveighed against gambling, for example.
But that misses the point. The Left claims to hate “moralizers.” So any failure to live like Jesus while telling others to follow his example is an outrage, even the defining challenge of our lives. (In 2005, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean pledged, “I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy.”)
One solution to the hypocrisy epidemic, of course, is to have no morals at all. You can’t violate your principles if you don’t have any. Another solution: simply define down your principles until they are conveniently consistent with your preferred lifestyle. My own perfect moral code would mandate a strict regimen of not enough exercise, too much scotch and a diet rich in cured meats.

More to the point, Goldberg points out that hypocrisy isn't a failure of an ideology, but a failure of individuals, using the example that I mentioned a few days ago--John Edwards asking us all to sacrifice, and give up SUVs--but he hasn't done so. What really bugs me, however, is how many liberals do things just as hypocritical as family values politicians playing footsie in the men's room--and they do it and say it in public, with no sign of shame:

You don’t even have to give up traditional religion, so long as you now define the teachings of your faith in perfect compliance with the Democratic platform.
Why, just look at John Kerry. In 2004, the Democratic nominee repeatedly insisted that his religious faith is “why I fight against poverty. That’s why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That’s why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.” Great! But when it comes to, say, abortion, consulting one’s faith is a no-no: “What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn’t share that article of faith.”

I happen to agree that concern for the poor is a Christian value, and even government providing some basic level of subsistence is a Christian value. It is also a conservative value; American and English government has been doing so since the Elizabethan Poor Laws. Contrary to what a lot of ignorant liberals and conservatives want to believe, the New Deal wasn't the beginning of governmental assistance to the poor. The real dispute is about what is the most effective way to provide that assistance, what level of assistance is obligatory, and whether particular programs help the poor--or encourage destructive behaviors.

But a politician who claims to be a Christian, and therefore has a moral obligation to use governmental power to care for the poor and the needy is in no position to suddenly claim that the government has to ignore Christian values when it comes to defining marriage, or prohibiting obscene materials, or punishing sexual immorality. There might be pragmatic arguments for why and how the government writes these laws. There might be a case for writing laws that reflect a societal consensus about these issues. But pretending that Christian values require the government to care for the poor--and ignoring those values when it would offend the immoral minority--that's not principle. It's hypocrisy, no different from preaching against homosexuality while sneaking off for your afternoon session of homosexual sex.