I hate hypocrisy.
Among all of the things that annoy me in life, it falls significantly lower on the list than genocide, child abuse, Taylor Swift and mayonnaise.
But it’s a pretty big turnoff.
That is why, from my first sentient moments, I knew I could never call myself a liberal.
Even before I abandoned the Democratic Party ten years ago after a 38-year stint, I knew I wasn’t made out for the progressive life.
And as the party became much more draconian in its standards of who fit and who did not, I realized that there was no place for me in an organization that talked big sentences about human and civil rights, but that insisted on allowing women to destroy their unborn children.
But Democrat and liberal are not interchangeable terms, just as Republican and conservative are not synonyms.
Political parties are forced to abandon purity and prostitute themselves to poll numbers. They call it “a big tent,” except the tent has no place for dissent. It’s simply a way to look better to the tent makers. And conservatives are capable of hypocrisy as well, when they wax eloquent about law and order but celebrate when the president systematically destroys due process because they don’t like “illegals.”
If they loved the law as much as they say they do, they’d stop listening to social media scholars and realize that the U.S. Constitution applies to us all, citizen and stranger, which is exactly the thing that sets us apart in the world.
But overall, I’ve found that I live more comfortably among those on the right, not the extreme right and not the Trump right, but those who speak honestly and clearly about their values. I have never seen that on the left, not even when I lived with them.
When you are outspoken, as I am, you expect to get pushback for your views.
And I have gotten more pushback than the Eagles O line. That’s OK, as long as it comes from an honest place.
But a few recent events reminded me that hate might not have a home in those blue neighborhoods, but doublespeak and dishonesty sure do.
The most glaring: Brigitte Bardot.
The iconic French sex symbol died at the age of 90 this week.
Most of us on this side of the Atlantic know her for her sensual beauty and the fact that she was married to the same man who also snagged Jane Fonda and Catherine Deneuve.
Digging a little deeper and beyond the froth of celebrity, she was known for her lifelong advocacy on behalf of animals. This is what I wrote about her on social media:
“She was that rare beauty who, though cloaked in the frivolous froth of celebrity, cared deeply about humanity. She challenged us to find compassion for the innocent, animals with no voice.
“And unlike many American stars, she retreated from the reflective lights to focus on her mission. Unlike George and Amal, who seem to like the attributes of celebrity as much as advancing partisan “good deeds,” she sought Justice from an apolitical God.
“She lived life according to her own terms. She was callous toward humans and intolerant of those who were useless to her. She was a flawed creature and an imperfect icon. But she was as authentic a human being as ever captured in the quicksilver of film.
“And her beauty was of a sort that, like the flowers, the mountains and the snow, was eternal even as it faded into natural decay. Et Dieu crea la femme, qui maintenant retourne chez Lui.”
My reference to the fact that she was a flawed creature and imperfect icon derives primarily from her horrific treatment of her son who she once compared to a “tumor,” and her two admitted abortions.
That makes her repellent at some profound level. But she was also deeply compassionate, and sacrificed her career, her youth and quite possibly her health to defend one of the two most innocent beings on Earth: animals.
She was very likely the reason they stopped beating baby seals for their fur. She defied her industry, and others, when they told her to shut up. And for that, she deserves praise, and respect in the moment of her passing.
But the liberals just couldn’t help themselves.
NPR, which runs glowing memorials to imperfect dead people all the time. Listen to their coverage of the death of St. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a woman whose ambition and pride kept her on the bench far too long.
This time is was an attempted character assassination with La Bardot by mentioning her opposition to the Islamification of France.
Bardot was clearly thinking of the massacre at Charlie Hebdo when French-born radical Muslims murdered an entire newsroom of journalists who dared ridicule Mohammed.
For that, Bardot is labeled on the left as a hateful woman, a bigot, unworthy. And I received critiques of my mini-obituary of the French star from progressives who said she wasn’t a true humanitarian.
And here’s where the hypocrisy comes in. I decided to play a little game.
I agreed with my critics that yes, she was not a humanitarian because of her two abortions. And, oh dear, they weren’t too happy with that. Because abortion is a liberal sacrament and of course they forgave her this trespass.
But criticize the toxic radicalization of a once-proud culture, one whose blood runs in my own veins thanks to great-grandpa Pierre LaSalle, and she’s a vile bigot, someone who said mean things about Muslims and foreigners and sounded, God forbid, right wing. But killing babies isn’t a problem.
L’hypocrisie, as the French would say.
Please spare me your emails about Christians-and-Trump-and-Epstein-and-MeToo-and-shutdowns-and-ICE and the rest. I have no illusions as to the moral consistency of my fellow conservatives.
But at least the real ones, not the pro-Planned Parenthood frauds, understand that you cannot be pro-abortion and pro-human rights.
And they are also willing to give grace to a 90 year old who went home to the God who created her.
This article originally appeared in the Delco Times.
