To human society, hypocrisy is a negative trait (see Grant, 1997, pp. 1â2; Hale & Pillow, 2015; Kurzban, 2010). Akin to the contradictions in the US Constitutionâas illustrated in the exchange from Hamilton: An American Musical aboveâthe contradiction that emerges with the betrayal of oneâs espoused principles is a universally disreputable characteristic throughout nearly all communities (Kurzban, 2010), and has been for millennia: a regular character flaw in Greek comedies (Oliver, 1960, p. 24); an engine for subjugation in Taoism (see Aronson, 2003, p. 97); and a sin of horror in the Christian Gospels (see Oliver, 1960, pp. 54â55) and Satanism (Lott, 2006, p. 77). Within the Eighth Circle of Hell in Danteâs Inferno is a ditch reserved for hypocrites who, because of their transgressions, had been damned to forever trudge in tightly packed circles while under the leaden weight of dazzling and golden hooded cloaks heavier than anything humans could make (Canto XXIII: 64â66; see Durling, 1996, pp. 348â349).
The moral hypocrisy in the examples above serves as a vibrant and vital area of interdisciplinary study (see Lott, 2006), with constantly updating volumes of exemplifications in American politics (see Lott, 2006; Stark, 1997; e.g., Rhodes, 2009; Van Natta, 2002). But, moral hypocrisy is not the focus of this book.
Instead, this bookâs focus is on attitudinal hypocrisy.
The wielding of hypocritical attitudes in politicsâthat is, opinions that conflict with and logically contradict each otherâis internalized and weaponized as an off-shoot of moral hypocrisy (Runciman, 2008; see, e.g., Schultz, 2016, pp. 24â25). As illustrated in the accusatory and brazen examples below, the interrogative of âIsnât that hypocriticalâ has served as a leitmotif of American political discourse in syntheses of government intervention or indifference for centuries, in various but interrelated formsâfor example, the supposed violation of government philosophy (viz., limited government versus active government), or the supposed violation of one issue stanceâs underlying logic (e.g., abortion rights and the death penalty). The treachery in the ditch of general hypocrisy still swirls around in this realm, butâas I hope to demonstrate in this bookâit takes very little thought to realize that having logically contradictory political attitudes is not even in the same moral universe as the damned souls of Dante : Instead, the dichotomy of government having a role to play in one political arena but not another is a stipulation of involvement in any society with any type of government and a net positive for American politics. In other words, brandishing attitudes that do not logically fit with each other is an absolute necessity for those who wish to have any degree of an effect on politics in the United States.
But, in spite of attitudinal hypocrisy being a required component of modern democracy and political participation, it has not stopped its use as an attack since even the foundations of the American experiment.
1.1 Illustrating Attitudinal Hypocrisy and Attacks Because of It
Illustration 1: Hamilton on Jefferson. As an early example, Alexander Hamilton attacked the logical inconsistency of Thomas Jefferson and his acolytes for failing to, essentially, think things through, writing in 1792,
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt; yet are against all taxes for raising money to pay it off; they are amongst the foremost for carrying on war, and yet will have neither loans nor taxes. They are alike opposed to what creates debt, and to what avoids it. (Hamilton, 1851, p. 31)
Later, after calling Jefferson âa contemptible hypocriteâ who is, nonetheless, not enough of a âzealot ⌠to do anything in pursuance of his principles which will contravene his popularity, or his interestâ in 1801 (Hamilton, 1879, p. 454), Hamilton was quietly âamusedâ when his synthesis was supported in Jeffersonâs 1803 orchestration of the Louisiana Purchase (Chernow, 2004, p. 671). This series of actions by Jefferson doubled US territory, which, without question, stood in direct violation of Jeffersonâs oft-stated core values, principles, and doctrines of government: constructionism and at-all-costs limitations on federal power (Balleck, 1992, p. 692)âwhich, critically, have also come to define modern libertarianism (Iyer, Koleva, Graham, Ditto, & Haidt, 2012). Jefferson did what he could to keep his close and direct involvement with the Louisiana Purchase plan from being known, because he feared that Federalists would oppose and âattack any sentiment or principleâ that came from him with âbloody teeth and fangs,â and feared âwhat blackguardisms and personalities they make it the occasion of vomiting forthâ (Peterson, 1970, pp. 781â782).
Jefferson was correct in this prediction (Peterson, 1970, p. 782), with most Federalists opposing the Louisiana Purchase , and doing so onâironically and hypocriticallyâstrict-constructionist grounds (Chernow, 2004, p. 671). For example, John Quincy Adamsâwhose own principles of government are âHamiltonianâ themselves (Nester, 2013, p. 304)âwrote in an 1821 diary entry that,
the Louisiana purchase was in substance a dissolution and recomposition of the whole Union. It made a Union totally different from that for which the Constitution had been formed. It gives despotic powers over the territories purchased. It naturalizes foreign nations in a mass. It makes French and Spanish laws a part of the laws of the Union . It introduces whole systems of legislation abhorrent to the spirit and character of our institutions, and all this done by an Administration which came in blowing a trumpet against implied powers. After this, to nibble at a bank, a road, a canal, the mere mint and cummin of the law, was but glorious inconsistency. (Adams, 1875, p. 401)
Incidentally, Adamsâs own presidency began in 1825 with an inaugural address that laid out ambitious plans and policy proposals in line with a philosophy of expansive, powerful government unconstrained by the strict constructionistsâ reading of the Constitution (Nester, 2013, p. 304). This lies in obvious and plain contrast to Adamsâs criticisms of Jefferson for doing just that.
Put simply, Jefferson indeed acted in direct violation of his philosophy of government and was attacked for that violation. But, along with some of the most vehement charges of hypocrisy came elegant exemplifications of hypocrisy.
Illustration 2: Mailer on Buckley. In a 1962 debate with William F. Buckley , Norman Mailer granted Buckleyâs earlier premise on liberal elites â policy failures before calling out the âcontradictory stew of reactionaries and individualists, of fascists and libertariansâ who subscribe to Buckleyâs conservatism at the group level (Mailer, 1963, p. 163). Many within âthe Right Wing,â Mailer contends, are not individualists (p. 167). He continues,
The Right Wing knows better than I would know how many of them are collectivists in their own hearts, how many detest questions and want answers, loathe paradox, and live with a void inside themselves, a void of fear, a void of fear for the future and for what is unexpected, which fastens upon Communists and equal, one to one, with the Devil. The Right Wing often speaks of freedom when what it desires is iron law, when what it really desires is collectivism managed by itself. If the Right Wing is reacting to the plague, all too many of the powerful people on the Rightâthe presidents of more than a few corporations in California, for exampleâare helping to disseminate the plague. (Mailer, 1963, pp. 167â168)
In essence, Mailer argued that the philosophy of small and limited government for which Buckley so vociferously advocated was simultaneously contradicted by the militarism that was also advocated, andâto Mailerâthis was a core dissonance in contemporary conservative thought (Schultz, 2016, pp. 24â25).
Illustration 3: Reed and Ingrahamâs Defense. In mid-April 2013, a debate for the podcast and radio show Intelligence Squared U.S. was held in New York City on the topic of the future of the Republican Party and conservative principles. About one hour in, Ralph Reedâamong the most important organizers behind several iterations of the conservative vot...