Debra J. Saunders

It's so convenient. Under the anti-Bennett criteria, conservatives' personal lives are open to scrutiny, while liberals' private lives are nobody's business. Somehow, there was no hypocrisy in Bill Clinton's womanizing, when he posed as a committed spouse. There's no hypocrisy in journalists opposing the Patriot Act because it infringes on an individual's right to privacy while they expose the private pastime of individuals of a different mind.

But I digress. What I really don't understand is why Bennett's critics are enraged at what they consider hypocrisy. If it's wrong to extol virtue, it should be wrong to condemn a vice like hypocrisy.

Yet, there was the smug, disdainful and intolerant Slate columnist Michael Kinsley bashing Bennett for being a hypocrite, as well as "smug, disdainful, intolerant" in his support of virtue.

In fact, the Bennett story reveals an active jihad against moral standards in America. If Bennett never extolled a virtue, if he never commended honesty or fidelity, if he didn't try to live up to ideals concerning hard work and self-discipline, his privacy would be sacrosanct. Since he believes in something, however, he's a target.

There's no voice that sounds more "holier-than-thou" than that of a critic complaining that someone thinks of himself as "holier-than-thou."

Debra J. Saunders

TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Due to the overwhelming enthusiasm of our readers it has become necessary to transfer our commenting system to a more scalable system in order handle the content.