Another thought to add to my deconstruction of the facile right-wing “hypocrisy” attack against any progressive daring to live in the world as it presently exists – you know what’s real hypocrisy? Attacking someone for something you do yourself; and claiming that something you support is wrong when done by your opponents.
For example, Senator Eric Abetz’s attack on GetUp! Abetz opposes legislation restricting individual donations to a particular size and requiring fair disclosure – but he attacks GetUp! for a large donation (that they immediately and openly disclosed). Abetz is also a member of the Liberal Party, which receives large donations, in secret, all the time. In other words, he’s attacking GetUp on grounds with which he apparently doesn’t agree, and for stuff he does himself.
That is hypocrisy. Not what GetUp! has done.
Moved On 
“Another thought to add to my deconstruction of the facile right-wing “hypocrisy” attack against any progressive daring to live in the world as it presently exists –”
Jeremy what is your point?As I see it they’re both hypocrites.If you want to change the system you have to walk the walk.I know I’m getting into my dotage but, your past analogies have the equivalence of telling an alcoholic he shouldn’t drink with a glass of whiskey in your hand.
Jeremy, I don’t think it’s fair to criticise this direct descendant of a convicted Nazi war criminal as an hypocrite.
Abetz and his party are happy to corrupt democracy by taking all manner of secret donations from unknown sources.
They have never called for any kind of disclosure laws and, therfore, are not acting hypocritically.
They’re simply acting true to form.
Cheers
Hmmm. Wonder what Abetz’s position will be wrt CANDo, the Cory Bernardi set up conservative simulacrum of GetUp? Especially if they want to donate to the Liberal Party. Hmmm.
“Jeremy what is your point?As I see it they’re both hypocrites.If you want to change the system you have to walk the walk.’
Lynot, did you read my other post? Did you understand it? Particularly this bit:
“Now, this definition of “hypocrisy” misses an important point – these advocates are arguing for changes to be applied universally – they’re not arguing that they should apply to “everyone but them”. That would be hypocrisy – them saying it should be applied universally but refusing to abide by it when it happens. But presumably when the status quo does change, these people will be happy to follow the new rules, and I’ve yet to see any evidence that they won’t. The point is that they’re not arguing for such restrictions to be applied arbitrarily in the interim, depending on a person’s political views, thereby fundamentally distorting the conduct of the debate – so there’s no conflict between what they practise and what they preach.”
Get it? They’re not advocating for something to apply only to them, they’re advocating for something to be applied universally. In the meantime, being the only ones living by those rules would cripple their ability to advocate for change.
Marek –
“Abetz and his party are happy to corrupt democracy by taking all manner of secret donations from unknown sources.
They have never called for any kind of disclosure laws and, therfore, are not acting hypocritically.”
Not by taking those huge secret donations. But by taking those huge secret donations and attacking GetUp for taking a large donation. And by attacking GetUp for taking a large donation whilst arguing in parliament that it’s okay.
“Get it? They’re not advocating for something to apply only to them, they’re advocating for something to be applied universally. In the meantime, being the only ones living by those rules would cripple their ability to advocate for change”
Got it.No worries I now see your point.Some body should be noting the money donated to the NSW Liberal party from big Tobacco Companies.That is an hypocrisy that would be impossible to calculate.The Premier that received the donations at the time, is on record as saying”smoking was harmless”
That’s not so much hypocrisy as something akin to corruption. Taking money and then advocating something absurd on behalf of your donor – that makes you a voice for hire, and undermines your credibility on every other subject.
But it’s not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be claiming that you take cancer-related deaths very seriously and are determined to tackle the issue, and then taking money from a tobacco company in return for slowing that process down.
No Jeremy, you’re not geting my point.
The Liberal Party is not lobbying for reform to political donations, but GetUp! is.
The charge of hypocrisy relates to GetUp’s perceived difference between what they advocate and what they actually do.
By receiving political donations, the Liberal party is acting consistent to their policy and therefore are not subject to charges of hypocrisy in pointing out GetUp’s inconsistency.
However, as I pointed out in the earlier thread.
The Liberal party’s charges are wrong because GetUp is not a political party with candidates and the ability to draft legislation.
There is no chance of them corrupting the poilitical process because they are not in power.
The minute they start fielding candidates, then they should be held to a different standard, and hopefully that standard will be the one which they are now advocating.
Cheers.
I agree with Marek – Abetz is not criticising Getup for taking a big donation, he is attacking them for being hypocrites.
It is therefore incorrect for you to state that “he’s attacking GetUp on grounds with which he apparently doesn’t agree” since he’s not critical of political groups taking big donations.
Jeremy: ” any progressive daring to live in the world as it presently exists “
You mean like the hypocritical celebrities who lecture us on the need to make do with less while continuing to enjoy their extravagant lifestyles and scar the planet with their massive carbon footprints?
Marek: “There is no chance of them corrupting the poilitical process because they are not in power.”
Not sure about that. Getupthemselves! are certainly players in the political game. And they are no doubt buying influence with those politicians who benefit electorally from their advertising campaigns.
It might be more accurate to say that Getupthemselves! seeks to achieve their political objectives indirectly rather than by gaining political office themselves. A bit like the crony organisations of the Soros Shadow Party.
If an advert might be less effective coming directly from a union, then have the union donate to Getupthemselves! who put their name to the ad. The Koch brothers would be proud of this MO.
It took me a moment to realise splatterbottom was attempting humour with ‘Getupthemselves’. I just thought it was poor grammar and/or spelling.
Hilarious.
You know, the more I see of how GetUp operate, the more I like them. They’ve been polling members quite vigorously on the subject of whether they should accept donations, to what extent, what kind of laws they’d like it to push for etc.
I’ve never seen a lobbying organisation so closely tied to what its members actually want.