On Monday super-lawyer Alan Dershowitz had something to say about hypocrisy which I believe rings, at least to some extent, true and is worth listening to by all men and women of goodwill.
Is Dershowitz right? Certainly none of us is pure? May only the pure criticize impurity? How about Cindy Sheehan or Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or Franklin Graham or even Pope Benedict? Do any of them claim to be pure?
Jesus Christ himself held up a mirror to the Pharisees, the zealous lawyers of Jewish law, who were ready to criticize him for healing a man on the sabbath in violation the Jewish law barring work on that day. He pointed out to them that they would exempt themselves from this law in times of necessity. His example, their own ox would be pulled out of a ditch if it happened to find itself there on the sabbath. Luke 14: 1-5.
Like the biblical pharisees we are all too ready to accuse our philosophical opponents of “hypocrisy” as if to do so invalidates their arguments as opposed to merely making them human. It is oh so easy to do. Some examples:
Ardent anti-gun advocate Rosie O’Donnell hired armed bodyguards to protect her children. Newt Gingrich pursued President Clinton for perjuring himself about infidelity when Gingrich was himself then actively an adulterer. Barack Obama criticized the Bush administration for unconstitutionally using military power in situations not directly impacting the security of the U.S. and when in power did the very same thing. Sarah Palin strongly defended traditional values while her daughter was bearing a child out of wedlock. Sen. Claire McCaskill strenuously argued for taxing the rich and corporations while her own companies were illegally evading the payment of taxes. Nancy Pelosi, a Roman Catholic, zealously supporting abortion rights for women. Joe Biden advocates for more governmental help to the poor and downtrodden while giving very little of his own income to help the very same poor. Al Gore flies in wasteful and polluting private jets to attend various “global warming” conferences around the world. Michael Moore earns millions of dollars utilizing a system he says is corrupt.
There are innumerable examples of hypocrisy in our political and public classes. Likewise it is rampant in our personal lives and those of our friends and acquaintances. Hypocrisy is the natural state of man. Man, however, has unlimited power to rationalize his own actions to himself. Those who avoid all appearance of hypocrisy are either very good at concealing themselves or perfect. And the latter state is not really an option.
A person can believe strongly in a particular idea of what is right and yet, when confronted with personal circumstances, act in a manner inconsistent with his or her own beliefs. Does this mean that they are wrong in advocating for their particular ideas or does it mean that they are humans trying to do the best that they can? Does acting inconsistent with a principle you hold dear mean that the principle is somehow less true or even false?
It would be too long and arduous a process to analyze even the few examples I detailed above to attempt to determine whether the apparent inconsistencies in the actions of those individuals indicate either: (1) that they do not believe in the principles which they advocate for and advocate them only for political or other expendiency; or (2) that they admit their inconsistency as a human failing and seek forgiveness for their transgressions of the principles which they espouse. Why should hypocrisy, being universal, even be important in our politics? Isn’t it more important to analyze the espoused principles themselves to see if they are well grounded in good policy than to try to determine whether the person who voices principles lives up to the dictates of his or her own conscience 24/7?
We must leave room for honest mistakes and even human weakness rather than always assigning to such behavior the labels of hypocrisy, lying, duplicity and political gamesmanship. For instance, does the commission of a murder indicate that the murderer does not believe that murder is wrong? Does a violation of the speed limit by a person mean that the speeder really thinks all speed limits should be removed? Why do we apparently presume that violation of a given principle by a person necessarily means that, for that person, it is always okay to ignore that principle and hence he or she doesn’t really believe in it? Is perfection the test for voicing your opinion in public?
It appears to me that we pay way too much deference to the news media’s and pundit’s constant harping on charges of the “hypocrisy” of politicians and ideological opponents when what we should be doing is analyzing the merit or lack of merit of the the principle being espoused by judging the arguments for and against it. We prefer, however, to personify these principles in order to justify our own transgressions. If there are no valid standards, there is no bad behavior. We personify these issues because the very imperfections of those advocating high standards exempts us, in our own minds, from striving to achieve those standards in our lives. Judging ourselves against those who espouse high standards yields us a better score than judging ourselves against the standards themselves. Removing all standards upon the justification that nobody’s perfect, however, will inevitably yield rather a bad harvest.
Short and Sweet Blog 