There’s a danger, isn’t there, in taking a high moral stance and I’ve always thought it easier for libertarians and libertines who don’t pronounce on what people are doing but just let it roll.
On the other hand, there is Edmund Burke and the saying about good men doing nothing. It seems to me that when you attempt to take the moral high ground, immediately you are inviting:
1. investigation and exposure of your own moral failings, with the inevitable charge of hypocrisy;
2. resentment from people who know they’re the ones being pronounced on;
3. resentment from people who imagine they’re the ones being pronounced on;
4. counter productivity, in that those pronounced on [or who imagine it] will become even worse, just to spite the wowsers and wet blankets;
5. deep dislike from the average person.
“Just who do you think you are, Mr. High and Mighty?” is close to the usual reaction. Point 1 above is quite interesting and I have some questions.
# Why can’t a morally flawed person speak out on those flaws? Why must someone be a saint before he can say,”Enough of this,” or before he can say something is wrong?
It seems to me that the sinner is in the best position of all to know exactly where his doings are leading or have led. I have particular views on excessively large age gaps between men and women partners and they don’t derive from some Mary Whitehouse horror and outrage but from sheer experience. In the long run, it seriously don’t work, matey.
# Why do those who throw accusations of hypocrisy often conflate mutually exclusive things?
For example, A accuses B of being a slapper. B’s supporters hit back by saying that A made a racist remark in 2003. What the hell has one to do with the other?
And so to Bruni and the seemingly salacious Besma Lahouri. So what if she’s a scandalmonger or not? So what if Dati is a woman scorned or whatever? IMHO, Bruni brought her woes on herself, both by what she did and by accepting Sarkozy.
Plus her attitude and that’s the big one.
I don’t dislike Bruni because of her lovers or because she fondly remembers them – who doesn’t have a warm spot for former lovers? I don’t dislike her because of her psychological problem of low self-esteem, causing her to characterize herself as a “man-tamer” – that’s just Standard Female Complex N1, the normal female angst and ego-massaging about attractiveness.
What I seriously dislike about this woman is that she’ll allow her self-delusions, e.g. that she is a good musical artist or that she is beautiful, to colour her dealings with others and as France’s first woman, her habits are becoming quite a millstone for Sarkozy.
It’s not former lovers per se – it’s taking them on holiday with her husband that’s the matter, it’s the way she lets trip off her tongue the cost of the holiday – 20 000 euros. Why would someone at the top need to do that? It’s the fantasy world she visits on others, as she ages. It’s her dabbling in things in which she has no expertise and then tiring of them and interfering in something else. It’s her wishy-washy leftism. I’d rather have an out-and-out Marxist than her – at least the OAOM knows what she’s talking about and is a committed monster, e.g. Faust at Harvard.
I’m afraid I don’t wish Bruni well – not in her current persona – but people can learn, they can change, miracles can happen. She might even become philanthropic in a genuine way and actually start supporting her husband. One never knows.