Over at the First Things blog, there is a good discussion of the nature of hypocrisy, analyzing the charges against the South Carolina governor and adulterer Mark Sanford. First, Joe Carter:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines hypocrisy as “The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.” The British literary critic William Hazlitt once explained, “He is a hypocrite who professes what he does not believe; not he who does not practice all he wishes or approves”
By all appearances, Sanford does indeed believe in marital fidelity. His failures so far are due to his behaving in a way that does not comport with those values; a matter not of hypocrisy but of moral inconsistency. Such consistency is essential—particularly for democratically elected representatives—for establishing and maintaining trust. This is why private behavior has such public implications. The marital infidelity of a elected officials strong signal they are untrustworthy: If a man cannot be trusted to keep a sacred vow to an intimate, how can I trust him to keep his word to me, a stranger?
What we should expect of an elected official is that they be a person of integrity—that their character be a morally consistent whole. A person who is free of contradictory ethical impulses and actions is more likely to behave in a manner that is trustworthy. Even if we disagree with their views, we can deduce how they will act and make our judgments about them accordingly.
Sanford believes that there is an objective moral standard and that his sin (his word) was a result of his external actions being inconsistent with his internal beliefs. Many of his detractors, however, believe that because all moral standards are subjective and internal, behavior can’t be objectively immoral, it can only be inconsistent. For people like Maddow, Sanford’s flaw is not that he acted immorally, but that he expected others to adhere to a standard that he himself failed to keep.
Now, Francis Beckwith:
Ironically, the real hypocrites seem to be Rachel Maddow and like-minded critics. For given their view of liberal autonomy and the sanctity of “personal choices,” it seems fair to say that they really do not believe that outsiders can condemn the judgments and private acts of others since Maddow et. al. do not actually believe there is one correct view of a rightly ordered life. Yet, Maddow and company do not hesitate to issue stern judgments about the inconsistency between the beliefs and the behaviors of people like Sanford, as if there was one correct view of a rightly ordered life. But, as we know, Maddow and company really don’t believe that. Consequently, they, and not their objects of ridicule, are the real hypocrites.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In