There are two types of hypocrisy, one of which I have no praise for: The sort of hypocrisy which is essentially lying -- that is, explicily claiming one thing and doing yet another. For example, Gary Hart. And, to be fair, there appear to be a few lesser-known examples on the other side of the aisle -- Dan Burton, perhaps. This sort of hypocrisy, the sort which prompted the name (the term means "two-faced") is certainly not a good thing.

But this isn't what's usually meant by hypocrisy any more. Instead, 'hypocrisy' is more often invoked in cases like Bill Bennet's: When a person says virtue is a good thing, but is revealed to be flawed. (Even though they never claimed otherwise.) Hypocrisy, here, is healthy and good. I encourage it.

Since when did one have to be perfect in order to hold an ideal? I think its a good thing to be polite. Am I always polite? Of course not. Am I a hypocrite? Of course. Is that good? Yes: it is better to hold an ideal, even when we fall short of it, than to decide there is nothing worth striving for, there is no good, no bad; no right, no wrong. Hilter and Mother Theresa -- just an arbitrary preference.

And in the end, those are the only choices we are left. Morality is absolute, and does not depend on our opinion today, or is relative, and all is just a matter of opinion. You can't have it both ways -- only one.

Pick.

Some people tout a virtue until they break it. Extramarital sex is wrong -- until we have it! Recreational drugs are bad, unless we are taking them now. Smoking is bad -- but if we're smoking, its a right, dang it. Does right and wrong depend on what we did this week? Isn't it possible for us to admit that there are ideals for behavior which are higher than our current ability to achieve? Or must we always set the bar lower than our worst week in order to avoid 'hypocrisy'?

It's odd that critics are so quick to snap at Bennett. I thought gambling wasn't a vice -- its good for the children, creates jobs and helps the economy! From what I've heard, Bennett never claimed gambling to be a vice, and never held forth himself as a paragon of virtue.

Isn't a bit hypocritcal to be claiming there are no absolute morals and then condemning a man for behavior neither you nor he holds to be wrong?

Again, that's the kind of hypocrisy for which I have no praise.

To everyone else: Please, feel free to hold morals which you don't achieve. Don't give up on your ideals just because you fail -- have something to work towards. If you drop the ideal, the vice will gain even more power over you. (If we say there's no point in being polite, for example, we actually become unbearable to be around.)

Believe in a few virtues you don't achieve today.

The world needs more of this kind of hypocrisy.