The word has come to mean one who publicly asserts one position while their lifestyle, or personal beliefs are something substantially different. Taken quite literally, the word would mean “one who is less critical.” At first that sounds odd, since the contemporary connotation of hypocrite is a person who offers extreme criticism of others. The difference is in the alteration of our understanding of criticism. The word is perceived today as negative, while in the era of the founders, criticism indicated an open and fair evaluation of the facts. If one was to be perceived as wise, they had to think “critically.” The original application of the word is still seen when one offers a “critique” of a published work.
When looking at political thought today, there are many who are “not thinking critically.” Open opposition to any difference of opinion exemplifies a thought process that is intransigent not critical. A political view that demands acceptance of a narrowly conceived, closely monitored philosophy is by definition hypocritical, even if the party espousing it truly believes and practices what they profess.
The modern Democrat, as exemplified by the 2016 Democratic Platform believes the following:
- LGBT rights are human rights (Editor’s note: The acronym is stated w/o definition which allows for even the most extreme assertions of “rights”)
- The ‘war on drugs’ has led to the imprisonment of millions of Americans, disproportionately people of color, without reducing drug use. (Editor’s note: The phrase “war on drugs” is not clarified, allowing current pejorative applications to stand, and not offering any corroborating evidence)
- The majority of Americans, (Ed: believe) every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion.(Editor’s note: “majority” asserts a fact not in evidence, given the vague definition of “safe and legal abortion”)
- We need to… create a path to citizenship for law-abiding families who are here, making a better life for their families and contributing to their communities and our country. (Editor’s note: this is a reference to all illegal immigrants and is contradictory on its face. If one has illegally entered the country, he is by definition not “law abiding”)
- We must repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) (Editor’s note: 15 U.S, Code, Chapter 105 7901 protects firearms manufacturers and dealers against legal action as a result of the improper or illegal use of their product)
- The greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street must be brought to an end. (Editor’s note: These undefined attributes are applied to all corporate involvement in elections by a party whose candidate has received multiple donations from large corporate interests. Further, the assertion that SCOTUS in Citizens United allowed corporate donations to political candidates is factually inaccurate.**
These six examples are ample illustration that the official positions of the National Democratic Platform lack any reasonable effort to correlate doctrine with logic. Lacking a foundation of critical reasoning, the DNC Platform asserts, and requires its adherents to take positions that are hypocritical by definition.
** Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved July 28, 2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205