Why do the very people who routinely rail against the moral relativism of others turn to it themselves to cover for their own transgressions and those of their group?

I’m talking mainly about Meta-ethical and Normative moral relativism here. American politics got me thinking about this, but I would bet it is true among all cultures and all topics of interest that touch on the moral behavior of mankind.

But specific to politics, there are those who want to condemn various common human behaviors that are, at worst, victimless crimes. Whenever opposed, they claim that those defending the behavior they do not personally like are guilty of moral relativism. But raise a criticism about dishonesty in their own political rhetoric or their level of vitriol in political attacks and low-and-behold, moral relativism comes into play. All politics is dirty, they say. All politicians do nothing but lie. All politicians smear others equally. There is no way to measure the objective truth of who resorts to these tactics more often.

Come on! Are we to believe that George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower were exactly like Richard Nixon or Spiro T. Agnew. Are we to believe that politicians who ended up convicted of multiple felonies are exactly as honest as politicians that spent their entire adult lives in public service with never the slightest taint of scandal? I don’t believe that for one minute. I don’t believe that it’s impossible to say which politicians or parties resort most to attack dog strategies. I don’t believe its impossible to determine which politicians and parties rely more on Big Lie politics to advance their agendas. Heaven help us if it really is impossible to determine such things. That would mean we would always have to fall victim to every new scam and lie that comes along.