Call me a hypocrite. I am guilty, certainly. But this excellent essay explains better than I possibly could why I am a social and fiscal Conservative, why I think same-gender marriage is wrong, why I oppose abortion on demand, why I oppose socialized medicine, why I am a hypocritical, judgmental, racist, bigoted, homophobic, money-grubbing capitalist, and most always vote Republican. It has been beautifully and thoughtfully expressed in Mr. Prager's essay. I urge you to read his complete lecture and think about it the next time "hypocrisy" or any of the other derogatory epithets that are typically flung at us religious conservatives comes to mind. But much more importantly, read it before you vote in the next election. Please?
See:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL515.cfmThe American Tradition of Personal Responsibility
by Dennis Prager
Heritage Lecture #515
which reads, in part . . .
"We need ideals even though people do not always practice them, and even though advocating ideals means that people will inevitably be called hypocrites when they do not live by the ideals that they profess. Hypocrisy, when so understood, is a positive thing. It means that at least you have a value that can render you hypocritical. I therefore have very little problem with hypocrisy. The only alternative is for there to be no ideals. Only then could no one be a hypocrite.
. . . What is unique about our society? The United States was a socieiy founded on the almost unique belief that who your ancestors are is far less important than who you are. This was a monumentally important belief about the worth of the individual.
. . . Along with this individualism came individual responsibility: Just as I am rewarded for my good behavior, I am accountable for my bad behavior. This belief was a result of the individualism just described and of the Judeo-Christian ethic that also animated the founders of this country. Essential to Judaism and Christianity is the notion that you are accountable for your behavior-to God, ultimately.
. . . One source of the onslaught against personal responsibility and accountability is secularism. As a secular individual in a secular, multi-ethnic society, to whom will I be accountable? Without a religious code, a religious community, a God, or a homogeneous secular ethnic community, to whom am I responsible? Obviously, only to the authorities--but what if I can elude the authorities?--and to myself.
. . . In America today, much of society holds that we are responsible only to ourselves. We have interiorized everything: We-nothing outside of us-and how we feel--not how we behave--are all that matter in assessing us. As a result, we are witnessing the death of a very important socializing tool-stigma.
. . . Without accountability to an outside authority or standard, and without stigma, the only remaining responsibility is to self Self-which may have once meant one's conscience but now simply means one's feelings-has become for many people the one standard of behavior: If I feel good, the act is good. I have no accountability to anyone or anything but my feelings.
. . . So, then, how could there be any personal responsibility if all that matters are me and my feelings, since I am then accountable to me and only me? Not to society. Not to God, a religion, parents, or teachers. To no one. That is what has happened in America. That is why there is moral chaos. Feelings are all that matter, not behavior. I cannot be judged, and I cannot judge you. That is the way we've raised a generation.
. . . As defined by one major dictionary, "tolerate" means "to allow without prohibiting or opposing; to permit." As now redefined, "tolerate" means "not only to permit, but to approve."
. . . It is virtually impossible to hold such a position today, however. Tolerance of homo*_*_*_*_*_*uals without full acceptance of homo*_*_*_*_*_*uality renders you a "homophobe," and discussion is thereby ended. If you state that male-female love should be society's ideal, you are deemed so morally inferior as to be unworthy of dialogue.
. . . The onslaught against individual responsibility takes yet another form-opposition to competition. Personal responsibility means that just as you have the right to succeed because of your actions, you will be able to fail because of your actions. In America today, however, there is a movement to have no one fail.
. . . That is why there is a war against excellence. Excellence means that I am graded-and being graded, like being judged, implies that I am responsible for what I do.
. . . I was raised with middle-class values such as, "You better save. If you make money, put some of it away. There may be a rainy day." The modern attitude in America is that when there is a rainy day, others should, and will, supply umbrellas. In the meantime, therefore, borrow and spend as irresponsibly as you want.
. . . This opposition to personal responsibility was recently manifested in the arguments for national health care. Its proponents argued that preexisting medical conditions should not be considered an issue in obtaining health insurance. But if that is the case, why ever buy insurance? I will purchase insurance only once I get sick. It is another form of relinquishing personal responsibility-"I do not have to plan while things are going all right for me." Now, of course, it is a problem when people have preexisting conditions from childhood; and there are other areas that need reform. But think philosophically for a moment: If a preexisting condition cannot be a factor in whether you get insurance, why get insurance until you get the condition?
. . . James Baldwin, the black novelist, once said that sometimes, when he gets into an impish mood at a cocktail party and wants to find out quickly which whites are racist, he says some particularly stupid thing, and any white who tells him how brilliant it was, he knows is a racist.
. . . That is why I consider liberal racism the most dangerous and pervasive form of racism in America today. Of course, there is right-wing racism. And it is evil. But it is obvious and relatively rare. Liberal racism, however, is more pernicious because it is far more ubiquitous.
. . . Finally, you can have responsibility only if you have standards. I mentioned this earlier with regard to a code of ethics-if you're not responsible to a God or a religion or some code above you, you cannot be held responsible for your behavior.
. . . There is one other way in which we have obliterated standards, and therefore responsibility. We have substituted compassion for standards. Whenever there is a conflict in America between compassion and standards, compassion wins lest, again, we judge you.
. . . Finally, you can have responsibility only if you have standards. I mentioned this earlier with regard to a code of ethics-if you're not responsible to a God or a religion or some code above you, you cannot be held responsible for your behavior.
. . . To demand that people take personal responsibility for their behavior is extremely difficult. It doesn't come naturally to any of us. Perhaps the case for it can best be made by using other words to describe the assuming of personal responsibility. Those words are "growing up."
Thank you.
