On Hypocrisy

Yesterday, I made a crack about how hypocritical I was being to criticize Ezra. But I was also thinking about something else: How tiresome the accusation of hypocrisy is: Not because it isn't always true, or because it isn't always relevant, but because you can always find examples of hypocrisy, everywhere.

The favourite on the right these days is to claim that Canada needs to fight with the Americans in Afghanistan because of the years we've spent talking about human rights and peacekeeping. Not "walking the talk" in this case, the right argues, is simple hypocrisy.

My response: So what? Hypocrisy doesn't matter if consistency would have us make the wrong choice.

For another example, I turn to Dean Baker, who points out that the US Congress is beginning to strip oil companies of some of their subsidies. Specifically, Congress is unilaterally imposing higher royalties on oil. This leads Baker to write:

To an outsider from another planet, this proposed renegotiation of offshore energy leases might look similar to the recent renegotiation of energy leases in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela that have prompted such outrage from the media.

Yes, the US government is acting shockingly rational, like Chavez and Morales.

So is this hypocrisy? Arguably. But it's also the right thing to do from a policy point of view. The better argument about hypocrisy is this: When our previous statements don't match our present behaviour, it's just as likely our previous statements were wrong, not just our present actions.

So American hysteria about Morales or Chavez nationalizing the oil industry was just the usual capitalist histrionics, which lasted exactly until the US government was in the same position.

This argument also calls in to question Canada's rhetoric about peacekeeping, doesn't it?