Posted by
GFC on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:25:19 PM
"Hypocrite" is a powerful word. It has the power to delegitimize one so labeled. But, this word is often misused in the modern political environment. Often the label is used where no true hypocracy exists, yet despite that, it can destroy the perceived hypocrite.
Consider the example of the drunk who supports laws restricting the availability of alcohol. Is such a person a hypocrite if he abstains at all times knowing he can't handle the drink? No. What if he drinks from time to time? No. Is he a hyprocrite if he gets plastered on a regular basis? No. Why isn't he a hypocrite? Because he knows that alcohol causes great damage to himself and others and wants to see the end of that damage. His failings and inability to do that which he knows or believes to be right do not make him a hypocrite.
Constrast this person to the man who holds political office. This man passes laws banning alcohol, yet has his own personal stash. He tells himself and others "I don't have a problem with it, so I don't need to follow the law." Never mind that others can also handle their alcohol as well as this politician. There is one standard for the general public and another for this man.
A more realistic example in today's political climate is the politician who denounces CEO's for their greed and decadance. They shouldn't have private jets, stay in fancy hotels, drive nice cars, live in mansions, have servants or dine on expensive cuisine. This very politician may well enjoy every one of these perks, but it is ok for him. He is the servant of the people so his exesses are tolerable.
Or consider the union leader who continuously deplores the greed of the business owner who takes advantage of the common worker. The evil owner stays at nice hotels, has meetings in places like Vegas and Orlando, and keeps from the workers their fair compensation. Ignore the fact that the union leader makes considerably more than the ordinary worker (the ordinary worker who incidently pays the union leader's salary), frequently uses the dues paid by the worker to jet off to conferences in places like Vegas and Orlando free of charge, stays in nice hotels while there, (again this is paid for by the worker) and spends a good deal of the time golfing and luxuriating in a manner remarkably similar to the evil business owner. Never mind the fact that the worker buys the union leader's car and pays for his gas. It is the owner who is evil for paying the worker rather than charging the worker. It is the owner who is evil for enjoying the very same perks the union leader enjoys. It is the owner who is evil despite the fact that he gives the worker gainful employment.
Leaders in communist countries often have a standard of living that far exceeds that of the normal worker. They are working for the people's benefit. They are ensuring that the evil wealthy business owners don't get more than the fair share. But they have a different standard for themselves. There may be something very wrong with the privileged and wealthly business owner, but there is nothing wrong with the privileged and wealthy government official.
Each of these are examples of true and despicable hypocracy. These people have one standard for themselves and another for everyone else. This hypocracy isn't just to be found in economic issues, but is to be found in social and moral issues as well.
It is easy to call an adulterous politician who supports family values a hypocrite, but often this may be a mischaracterization. Does he hold one standard for himself and a different one for everyone else? The politician who acknowledges that he is wrong is no hypocrite. The true hyporcrite is the politician or reporter who excoriorates the adulterer while carrying on his own affair believing there is nothing wrong with what he is doing.
Pornography is a widespread scourge in our society today. Undoubtably many who oppose pornography and would wish to see its prevalance diminish struggle with the desire to view it. They may often lose in this struggle. Does this make them hypocrites? No. They know that it is wrong, that it brings destruction to their own life as well as to those who create it. They would like a world where the temptation has been removed and they will no longer succumb to it. The hypocrite is the one who calls for bans, yet finds nothing wrong with his own collection. He says others shouldn't have it but permanately exempts himself from that same standard.
No one who holds high moral standards is able to live up to them at all times. We all have weaknesses and shortcomings. We all fail to live in the manner we know to be right. This does not make us hypocrites.
Some have very low standards of personal behavior. They never fail to meet their standards because the standards are so low that failure is not possible. The person with the high standards who fails from time to time is not a worse person than the person who perfectly follows his nonexistent standards. Often it is the person with no standards who is the hypocrite. He finds nothing wrong with a libertine sexual life, yet condemns those who fail to live up to their own high standards regarding sexuality.
All to often in today's political debate we listen to hypocrites who hold one standard for themselves, who openly and unabashedly engage in the very behavior they condemn, and hold a very different standard for others. At the very same time we ignore and delegitimize people who know what is right and who want to do what is right because these people sometimes fail to do what is right.
Many, not wanting to seem hypocritical, won't speak out against things they know to be wrong because they struggle with those very same issues. But what is wrong with trying to push society in the right direction, with trying to create an environment in which it will be easier to overcome the destructive temptions with which we all struggle? A person pushing for that which he believes to be right, should be constantly vigilant in his personal life, yet the unavoidable stumble from time to time should be a cause for silence and disengagement. He should instead pick himself up, dust himself off and continue on the path toward that which is right taking care to be vigilent lest he stumble again.
Those who are tempted to dismiss the "hypocrite" ought to be careful before doing so. Is the flaw true hypocracy, or has the man simply failed on occasion to do that which he knows is right? Is he constantly fighting against his personal temptations and seeking improvement? If he trying to hold himself to the same standard he seeks for all? If so listen and help as he pushes for that which is right. Support him as he fights his personal tempations.