Via Glenn Reynolds, I learned that a woman named Joy Behar thinks that whether Tiger Woods is or is not a hypocrite depends not on whether he failed to uphold the values in which he believes, but whether or not he is "right wing."

"The "View's" Behar: If Tiger Was A Right-Winger He Would Be A Hypocrite."

While I think Behar's argument is ridiculous on its face, what concerns me more is her attempt at crass, heavy-handed political hegemony. Were I a peon being ruled by her, I should be on my knees, thanking her for allowing that believing in being loyal to one's wife is still not considered "right wing" by itself. You have to think other things. The good news is that those who fail to live up to their beliefs in marital fidelity are largely off the hook -- provided that they do not subscribe to right wing ideology!

Once again, the message is clearly that not living up to one's personal standards of morality only rises to the level of the detestable crime of hypocrisy if the sinner is right wing.

What I cannot understand is why Woods isn't just as guilty of "hypocrisy" as anyone else who doesn't live up to his standards of morality. What the Beharists of the world are saying is that if Woods had he been caught, say, listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, he would be a hypocrite for exactly the same conduct that occurred.

This is not merely unfair, it is wildly unfair.

Just to be clear on the facts before I start ranting, if we consider what the man said, there is little question that Tiger Woods did not live up to his own standards:

I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect.

So why then, would Woods have to be "right wing" in order to qualify for a "hypocrisy" charge? This is more complicated than it looks, because while Woods is a celebrity, he is not especially known for being a political person.

Here's what Behar says, (condescendingly, on Woods' "behalf"):

Let me say this about Tiger on his behalf. He has never held himself up as one of these pro-marriage, right-wing kind of guys, who is anti-gay, In other words, the guy is not a hypocrite in his personal life.

Wow. (That means Barack Obama better be awfully careful about even considering cheating on his wife. Unless of course he were to get straight and go with the program on gay marriage, then Behar would forgive him.)

Challenged on this, Behar attempts to explain:

It's like the Larry Craig Syndrome you know where the guy's tapping in the bathroom. Meanwhile he votes against gay legislation.

Got that?

Societal hypocrisy. Whatever might that mean? Beats me. Perhaps it involves not practicing personally whatever it is that you preach politically. In Woods' case, would that mean political advocacy against adultery? Would he really have to go that far in order to be a hypocrite? Or is simply having an opinion that Behar does not like enough? I suspect the latter.

However, there is no getting away from politicized hypocrisy charges, and I plead guilty to leveling them myself. Whenever a leftist gun grabber is caught owning a gun, I am quick to howl gleefully about another leftist hypocrite.

Guns for me but not for thee!

And whenever a sanctimonious Global Warmist is caught running up gargantuan energy bills, or wastefully jetting around the world to one Global Warming junket or another, I'm just delighted to gloat over their hypocrisy too.

Hair shirt for thee, but not for me!

I may be a hypocrite for thinking this, but I see a major difference between, say, gun-owning gun-grabbers or Global Warming energy gluttons on the one hand and philanderers who champion the ill-defined "traditional moral standards" on the other. The former want to literally have the government invade and run huge chunks of your life, whereas the latter, while they seem unable to resist the urge to tell you how to conduct your sex life, in general don't advocate government penis control or orgasm control.

If we assume that both groups are moral scolds, and that there is such a thing as societal hypocrisy, then which group of scolds are the greater societal hypocrites? The scolds who want their moral code imposed with force by the state? Or those who limit themselves to advocating "traditional moral standards"?

The latter might not practice what they preach, but unlike the former, at least they aren't using the government to make me practice what I don't preach and what they don't practice.

I may be a bad boy for saying this, but I'll take a stern moral lecture over fines, jail terms, and loss of freedom any day. (And what bad boy wouldn't?)

Hell, at least I can walk away from a stern moral lecture with my sexual freedom still intact.

(And if my sexual freedom is "sin" to some people, so be it. I'd rather be free and considered sinful by some people on the right than neutered by a manipulative offer of sexual freedom in which sexual deviations are tolerated only as long as they are not accompanied by political deviations. I'm not even sure that such neutering is better than not being tolerated at all, but it's another topic.)