A Word About Hypocrisy

The recent elections represented the rejection by the American people of a kind of philosophy of self-presentation that has dominated the landscape for more than a decade. This is the philosophy that appearance is everything. If something can possibly be represented in a negative light, then it becomes in fact a bad thing. Atrocious behavior covered with heartwarming justifications becomes good behavior.

After the Ted Haggard incident I noticed quite a few articles using the phrase, "the defense of hypocrisy." In justifying the atrocious hypocrisy of Haggard, some argued that it is better to promote righteousness even if you yourself cannot live up to it.

We can see the sense in that. It is good to remind ourselves frequently of our ideals. For instance, it's not bad to be exposed to statements reminding us of the importance of marital fidelity. Maybe in a moment of temptation those words will ring in our minds and we will resist. And if the person making the statement can't live up to it, well, the concept is no weaker for that, really. In this sense, a little hypocrisy doesn't hurt anybody, and it is important to establish what our values are, in a public way, so we may all agree that we abide by them (even if we don't sometimes).

But I see two types of problems with getting behind hypocrisy as a justifiable end in itself.

For one, imagine a President who campaigns on promises of national security, and then does nothing to make the country safer. He ignores the country's real enemies and wastes military power and prestige attacking a random nation that posed no threat. He appoints nincompoops to pivotal positions of authority, and supports them as they make uninformed and self-serving choices that weaken the country's security. He promotes un-negotiated contracts with his campaign donors, allowing them to profit without limit from the government's war policies. And all the while, the President carefully nurtures a state of fear, of the expectation of danger, in the population, in order to preserve his own position.

Is there a defense for that kind of hypocrisy? I can't think of any. Someone who behaves like that is a traitor and should be charged with their crimes.

Another difficulty with defending hypocrisy is evident in the Ted Haggard situation, which is monstrous and huge. The President of the National Association of Evangelicals, a man who tireless campaigns against gays, turns out to be gay himself, violates his marriage vows and the trust of his congregation to indulge himself in pleasures that he actively denounces in others.

Some have argued that Haggard was a positive force in our society in sum, because of his constant promotion of good moral behavior, even while he himself was incapable of keeping his own counsel.

Is this a good defense of hypocrisy?

Haggard's opposition to gays was an atrocity, given that he himself knew, personally, in his heart, that attraction to members of your own sex is not something you can pray away, that it's not something you choose, and that, as his own personal choices reveal, it is not in itself harmful. In another world -- a world without people like himself -- Ted Haggard could have found a partner that actually attracted him, he could have lived a life filled with love instead of pretense. There would have been no harm. But because of the hypocrisy of the intolerant few, Haggard couldn't allow himself to do that. Popularity was more important to him than love, and so he put on the uniform of the enemy and declared war on those who were, we find out, just like himself. He is a traitor of another kind.

He could have done so much good. It would be so good to have a man who understands the Bible, who loves God as we don't doubt he does, take a stand, an upopular position, that promoted love and acceptance instead of bigotry.

He was too small to do that. He could talk about morality, but when it came to doing the right thing he didn't have the strength of spirit to act. He has been revealed as a moral coward, because he attacked that which he knew in his heart was not wrong.

There's nothing wrong with saying good things, even if you can't live up to them. Our society has values, we believe in peace and strength and fairness, every one of us, even if every one of us, in certain moments, fails to be peaceful, strong, or fair. There's nothing wrong with making statements of those values, even if they are hard to live up to.

What we have rejected is the idea that the statements are a substitute for behaviors. We are emerging from a nightmare where statements of goodness masked corruption, greed, and the perverse pleasure of lying for the sake of lying. I think of the leader of the Christian Coalition taking bribes to allow forced abortions among the slave-women of the Marshall Islands, even while he was going out denouncing abortion -- leaders taking bribes to promote the casinos while preaching against gambling -- contractors raking in billions of dollars for "reconstruction" that was never done.

It is human to strive and fail sometimes, not hypocrisy. But to mask hatred and greed in heartwarming cliches is criminal. America was gullible, we let this cloud come over us, but it is lifting now. I am proud that TeachTheFacts.org has been a little part of the movement that is slowly but surely turning the country around -- but let us have no illusion that the battle is won. We have a long, long way to go yet.