“One of my political heroes, the eighteenth-century British statesman William Wilberforce, argued that hypocrisy can often be a social good.” -Rick Santorum, It Takes a Family, p. 280
Uh, what?
WOW, that explains quite a bit doesn't it? In defense of William Wilberforce we have not found any other reference to his pro-hypocrisy argument, but we'll defer to Rick on this one.
It must make Rick feel all warm and fuzzy to know that his political hero would be proud of his many examples of hypocrisy. Let's take a look at some very recent examples, shall we?
Rick opposes stem cell research, but takes money from companies that perform stem cell research...
Rick gives Senator Dick Durbin apology lessons...
Rick says comparing Democrats to Hitler was just a joke...
Rick votes to allow the EPA to test pesticides on pregnant women, infants and fetuses...
Rick votes to increase Veteran's Affairs funding and takes credit as the main sponsor, after voting against funding increases 3 times...
Rick advocates for military base closures, and then tries to play the hero when PA bases are slated for closure...
Maybe Rick can explain to us how each of these examples of his hypocrisy constitute a "social good." Because we certainly can't figure it out.
At least we now have an explanation for why Rick seems to be so comfortable being hypocritical. His hero convinced him that its actually a good thing.
Let me add another example of Hyp-rick-risy:
"When he first ran for Congress in 1990, Rick attacked his opponent for moving his family down to Virginia, even running a television ad with footage of his opponent's Virginia home. Then after he was elected to the Senate, Rick moved his own family down to Virginia"
Now I'm completely confused.
The Episcopal Lectionary page biography of Wilberforce says,"He was a major supporter of programs for popular education, overseas missions, parliamentary reform, and religious liberty. He is best known, however, for his untiring commitment to the abolition of slavery and the slave trade."
But his avowed disciple, Rick Santorum recently voted against the Senate resolution apologizing for it's inaction on lynching.
That would be the very definition of hypocrisy.
In addition, although my research was limited, I could find nowhere in the literature any positive reference to hypocrisy by Wilberforce. Making up quotes from historical figures, who are all dead after all and can't defend themselves, is not hypocricy - it's just plain old lying.
I bet Bobby Casey would love that!
By the way, does anyone remember Santorum's taking his and Karen's stillborn child home and making their other kids hold it?
That appeared in an AP story by Lara Lakes Jordan about two years ago, but was never pressed upon Senator Rick.
Something very sick about that...besides, wouldn't that be abuse of a corpse?
If we do nothing else next year but take the scumbag down, it will be a good election.
Is this what Little Ricky is thinking of?
a) Encourage other people to do it, or
b) Pretend he doesn't do it and encourage others not to do it?
The answer, I think, is a), because at least that person is not encouraging others to make his mistake, whereas in b) he's both doing a morally wrong act and encouraging others to make the same mistake.
Put it this way: if a man kills people, and openly encourages others to kill people, his lack of hypocrisy doesn't make him a better person, it makes him worse, because he's compounding the evil act by telling other people to commit the evil act.
Where I differ with Senator Santorum is as to what acts are so morally wrong that everyone should be discouraged from doing them (he's mostly talking about sex, I assume).
It's always interesting to me when a quote is pulled from a book and the stand alone quote is presented as evidence of something untoward, with no contextual reference. Doing such is intellectual dishonesty. So, why would Santorum say such a "horrible thing"? Without the benefit of having read the book to learn the proper context, I did some cursory research on William Wilberforce(what a neat name). He was one of the leading forces in ending the slave trade in England.
An argument can be made that MP Wilberforce practiced a bit of hypocrisy. Though he fought gallantly to end the slave trade, he opposed outright emancipation, "It would be wrong to emancipate (the slaves). To grant freedom to them immediately would be to insure not only their masters' ruin, but their own. They must (first) be trained and educated for freedom." He later joined in the full abolition movement-"Although William Wilberforce is most famous for his work towards the abolition of slavery, Wilberforce was also concerned with other matters."
Another example of his hyprocrisy could be that even though he had become religious and felt he should shun power and politics, he didn't. He was persuaded he could use his position to advance the further good."When he had come to faith, William Wilberforce thought that he should forsake fashionable society, abandon politics, and enter holy orders. Newton, minister of a church in the commercial heart of the City of London, surprised the young convert, by advising him to stay put. He should bring his influence to bear in the circles of power which he already occupied." So, because he stayed in politics(which can be called hypocritical)he was able to accomplish alot of good things.
Is this what Santorum is talking about? I don't know. I'd have to read his book and do more research on Wilberforce. So should others.
Links
WIKI
NEWTON
From what little I've read of Wilberforce, I don't think he's a bad choice to be a hero to someone.
I had no intention of reading Santorum's book but I may now. I'd like to see the context of the other quotes he has been castigated for. My guess is that I will find the same thing I have found with this quote taken out of context.
The context of that quote in the book is that he is arguing that it is beneficial for bad people to tell others how to behave correctly. Do you need to be told how to live your life by Rick Santorum, or anyone else?
Further more, no one said that Santorum said a "horrible thing" so your quotation marks are completely misleading.
Hypocrite, thy name is Santorum; thy Party is Republican.
More to the point was that I found several examples in which Wilberforce tried to eliminate behavior he had become convinced was hypocritical. (see http://www.evangelicalalliance.org.au/election/ChristiansinPolitics.pdf for example )
In no way does the term "hypocrisy" fit the two examples Grey Warrior provides. The Sherlock dictionary on my mac provides two definitions of the word: "an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction [syn: lip service] 2: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have." Grey Warrior's use of the word to describe W'force's position on slavery would brand nearly everyone who was anti-slavery back then but Americans John Brown and Frederick Douglass as hypocrites. As for his political effort, I fail to see any hypocrisy whatsoever, unless changing one's mind is ipso facto hypocritical.
Wilberforce's son, Samuel, by the way, is well-known to historians of science as Thomas Huxley's foil at a famous debate in which Huxley trounced Wilberforce by defending Darwin and riduculing Wilberforce's ideas. See here. The son was not held in as high esteem as apparently was the Dad: his nickname was Soapy Sam which alluded to his slippery [ie less than entirely direct] debating tactics
In re: quoting out of context: If anyone was quoted out of context here it was probably William Wilberforce. By Santorum.
One final, thought, a speculation. I see there is something called the Wilberforce Forum, which is associated with Watergate felon Chuck Colson (Colson claims to have "found God" after going to prison, but -hypocritically-not enough to have good feelings towards Mark Felt). Perhaps Santorum confused something they wrote with Wilberforce himself?
This is the important part of his statement.
"But if the end be effected, surely it is only an unnecessary refinement to dispute about the means. It is even to forget your own principles; and to refuse its just place to solid, practical virtue, while you assign too high a value to speculative opinions."
Here is the full quote,
"Commemoration of William Wilberforce, Social Reformer, 1833 It seems to be an opinion pretty generally prevalent, that kindness and sweetness of temper; sympathizing, benevolent, and generous affections; attention to what in the world's estimation are the domestic, relative, and social duties; and, above all, a life of general activity and usefulness, may well be allowed, in our imperfect state, to make up for the defect of what, in strict propriety of speech, is termed religion. Many, indeed, will unreservedly declare, and more will hint, the opinion that the difference between the qualities above mentioned and religion, is rather a verbal or logical, than a real and essential difference; for in truth, what are they but religion in substance if not in name? Is it not the great end of religion, and, in particular, the glory of Christianity, to extinguish the malignant passions; to curb the violence, to control the appetites, and to smooth the asperities of man; to make us compassionate and kind, and forgiving one to another; to make us good husbands, good fathers, good friends; and to render us active and useful in the discharge of the relative social and civil duties? We do not deny that, in the general mass of society, and particularly in the lower orders, such conduct and tempers can not be diffused and maintained by any other medium than that of religion. But if the end be effected, surely it is only an unnecessary refinement to dispute about the means. It is even to forget your own principles; and to refuse its just place to solid, practical virtue, while you assign too high a value to speculative opinions."
Author: William Wilberforce
Does Mr. Opus Dei, the gentleman (sic) from Pennsylvania practice what he preaches?
Santorum says, “The argument is, yes, we need to help other people. But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we're trying to do with other programs is, we're setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They don't want to judge. They say, oh, you can't judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if you're taking my money and giving it to them. But it's this whole idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if it's my money, I have a right to judge.” AP Interview 4/23/2003
“Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” Luke 18:22
"1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” Matthew 7:1-3
Santorum was right about one thing – there is a place in public life for hypocrisy. It’s right in his living room.
Sen Specter is a co-sponsor of the legislation in the Senate; it is also cheaper for the gov & will help when Boomers start needing long-term care.