A few years back I remember watching a TV news show on which Sam Donaldson was a host. Sam Donaldson is a very liberal journalist who gained fame back in the 1980's for being the White House reporter unafraid to use his booming voice to shout a question at President Reagan whenever Reagan would return to the White House. Anyway, on this particular TV show Donaldson was decrying various U.S. government subsidies to farmers and ranchers, saying they were essentially handouts to rich farmers and large agri-business firms.
At that point, the conservative panelist pointed out that Donaldson himself owned something like 22,000 acres of ranch land in New Mexico, and that he -- Donaldson -- took advantage of those very subsidies ... the very ones he was decrying earlier.
To that, Donaldson responded with, paraphrasing: "Well, I'm not doing anything illegal. They're tax breaks on the books for anyone eligible to take advantage of."
So here's my question: Is there ever a sensible, logical, rational and ethical argument to be made by those who criticize X while simultaneously taking advantage of X simply because it's legal? Honestly, if you were asked to come up with a cogent defense for Donaldson, what would you have said?
I can't think of good argument. I can think of many based on expediency, convenience or greed. But none where the initial principle remained intact.
No comments:
Post a Comment