In ‘Praise’ of Hypocrisy

        In ‘Praise’ of Hypocrisy
(published in 2011 but applicable again)                    

          What is Hypocrisy?

 

          Hypocrisy is artificial excellence, counterfeit merit and fiat piety. It’s the pretense of having some virtue that one does not in fact possess. Its symbol is the mask, or the bubble; a surface concealing emptiness.

          According to de Rochefoucauld, “Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.” And just what kind of homage? Merely the sincerest form; imitation.

          Most essays about hypocrisy condemn it as a vice, indeed as a corruption of morality itself. They warn us of the hypocrite’s dishonor, criminality and malice. Those moral warnings are admirable; but this essay praises hypocrisy as a virtue.

           I write this contrarian essay in honor of a certain politician. He inspired me by force of example. And who is this avatar of absolute hypocrisy? I decline to state. (That’s so you can judge the case fairly, since you don’t know who I’m talking about.)

          It all started with me fuming at the latest reports. The scandal du jour was particularly stinky, and I’d share it with you now if only I could recall that one outrage out of so many. The crime itself didn’t bother me that much - I’ve grown jaded by their antics - no, what got to me was the criminal gang’s attitude towards their crime. Their sheer effrontery. The cover story was shoddy; they didn’t even try to make sense. What disrespect! What brazen hypocrisy! So I fumed.

          Then I stopped to think. What use was my indignation? Why wear myself out with invective, and to whom was I to address it? To the powerless? They’ll merely agree. To the powerful? They’ll merely ignore. Since it’s pointless and rude to speak truth to power, why not instead say something nice to power? Rather than criticize hypocrisy (and corruption, deceit, criminality, malice, and so on) why not praise it?

          That’s how this essay got started. Therefore I dedicate it to a certain politician so worthy of being honored here that I refuse to stain these pages with his infamous name.

 

           The Virtue of Hypocrisy

          Hypocrisy is a virtue because it is convenient. Hypocrisy liberates word from bondage to deed. It socializes costs, privatizes profit, afflicts the afflicted, and comforts the comfortable. By virtue of hypocrisy, your actions can be judged on the basis of your reputation, rather than the other way around. It’s a double-win; it yields all the benefits of actual virtue, for none of the sacrifice.

          Its opposite, sincerity, yields opposite results; all of the sacrifice, none of the benefit. No wonder, then, that hypocrisy prevails. Both masses and elites prefer it to sincerity. The rich, the poor, the young, the old, men, women, parents, teenagers and children; all play double games. Hypocrisy is universally praised - by deeds, if not by words.

          And why not? Hypocrisy has a kind of integrity; it’s loyal to the principle of self-interest. Mind you, it’s a moment-by-moment illusion of self-interest; it’s doomed to fail, of course; but when it does, why even that can be repackaged as apparent success, and so serve much the same function as actual success. Here we see the self-validating nature of hypocrisy; it simply dismisses refutation. It’s disproof-proof.

          Hypocrisy is a lie, and there are three kinds of lies; white, gray, and black. White lies are harmless, indeed benevolent; they avoid embarrassment and spare hurt feelings. Gray lies are the half-truths that people stoop to in self-defense. They are regrettable but inevitable. Black lies are the brazen lies of a career criminal. They are crimes in and of themselves. Similarly, there are three kinds of hypocrisy; everyday hypocrisy, relative hypocrisy, and absolute hypocrisy.

  

          Relative Hypocrisy

          Others have written ironic praises of hypocrisy; but most focus on the defensive type. Apologetics for hypocrisy follow a familiar line; it’s the lesser of two evils, everybody does it, don’t rock the boat, and so on. Note the de Rochefoucauld aphorism quoted above.

          Even critics of hypocrisy admit its power. Take Disraeli, who said that a conservative society is an organized hypocrisy. Well, at least it’s organized!

          It would be hypocritical indeed to begrudge to others the defensive duplicity that comes naturally to all, including oneself. So let the begrudging begin!

          Relative hypocrisy has one plausible defense; maybe the virtues it undermines aren’t really virtues. Consider Huckleberry Finn, who refused to betray his escaped slave friend, even though that was against everything he’d been taught was right. Huck thought he was in the wrong; but instead it was his whole world that was wrong.

         Commitment to a false virtue is another false virtue. When false virtue rules, then relative hypocrisy is a false vice.

          Absolute Hypocrisy

          But such grace is not the main business of hypocrisy. Defensive hypocrisy is a side effect; a reactive ‘lesser evil’ that’s ashamed of itself; but this essay praises shameless hypocrisy. This essay is about ‘offensive’ hypocrisy, proud proactive uber-hypocrisy, aggressive hypocrisy considered as an end in itself. This essay praises what defensive hypocrisy is defending itself against.

          This essay praises the virtue of hypocrisy; that is, the lack of integrity that calls itself integrity. This is for the people whose one rule is that there are no rules, and whose one God is that there is no God. This essay is in praise of the Absolute Hypocrisy of the Great.

          Absolute hypocrisy is how the powerful get and keep power. It dominates religion, politics, and commerce. We wage war for it; we make peace by it. Absolute hypocrisy is planned, systematic, ruthless, ambitious, unbalanced and self-righteous. Absolute hypocrisy deludes absolutely. It is not a bug, nor a feature; it is the operating system.

          Relative hypocrisy is to absolute hypocrisy as the guilty alibis of a normal crook are to the proud brags of a hardened sociopath. Relative hypocrisy evades its contradictions; absolute hypocrisy flaunts them, indeed makes them the core of its argument. Relative hypocrisy lies whenever it must; absolute hypocrisy lies whenever it can. The point is to overwhelm the victim’s capacity for critical thought. Enough little lies can build a Big Lie. Thus absolute hypocrisy is a crime against reason itself. Its ideal is doublethink.

          All those who aspire to absolute hypocrisy must eventually explain why up is down. If they pass the test, then power is theirs, and they have nowhere to go but up - or in other words, down.

          Up is down because that’s convenient. Once up is down, then yes is no, and false is true, and best of all, failure is success. (Or, to be precise, your failure is now theirs, and their success is now yours. How convenient for you, but not for them.) Once up is down, then facts are no longer stubborn, indeed are no longer facts.

          One stubborn fact remains; that although it’s convenient to you for up to be down, it would not be convenient to you for others to know that’s why up is down. No, up must be down for reasons entirely unrelated to you; so up is down for reasons that are not reasons. How fitting, for a crime against reason.

          Absolute hypocrisy is passionate. It defies logic, law, ethics, duty, honor, common sense, common decency, and all self-restraint. Most people can’t even imagine such debauchery, nor that such vice would call itself virtue. Most people are too sane, too humane, too decent to even dream such nightmares, unless they witness it themselves, with their own waking eyes. Thus absolute hypocrisy is educational, for those who survive it.

          It has certainly taught me a lot, lately.

          Lesser-Evilism

          There’s a fine line between relative and absolute hypocrisy. Consider the case of Lesser-Evilism.

          “Choose the lesser of two evils”; that’s the classic advice of the hypocrite sage. As a compromise it is perhaps forgivable. It doesn’t pretend that its choice is good, just that the alternative is worse. An uncomfortable doctrine; it promises at best a holding action, more likely a disorderly retreat.

          But now consider this mutated version of that advice: “The lesser of two evils is therefore good.” This theory, which I call Lesser-Evilism, is very convenient; for it guarantees a foolproof path to virtue. To be good, you need only be other than somebody else who is worse.

           So if Paul steals $2 from Peter, and if Paul and Saul are rivals, then isn’t Saul justified in stealing only $1 from Peter? Even Peter will agree that’s only half as evil. And if Saul then kicked Peter, then wouldn’t Paul be in the right if he retaliated by merely slapping Peter? Another lesser evil!

          Why stop there? $10 is less than $20; vandalism is not as bad as arson; armed robbery isn’t nearly as scary as kidnapping; and so on. The possibilities are endless! In fact Paul and Saul can lesser-evil poor Peter straight into the grave, with Paul and Saul alternately not-to-blame.

          Note that Paul and Saul are rivals in name, but they’re partners in practice. Their crimes justify each other. Paul and Saul have a lot more in common with each other than either of them has with Peter. And as for poor Peter, he has only himself not-to-blame. After all, he got what he didn’t deserve.

          You’d think that Lesser-Evilism would fail when Paul and Saul are both too obviously wrong to justify themselves or each other. But that is precisely when hypocrisy becomes absolute, and doublethink takes over. Lesser becomes greater; so Lesser-Evilism becomes Greater-Evilism, and the race to the bottom accelerates towards its goal.

          The trouble with Lesser-Evilism is that you can never be sure that the lesser evil is lesser; but you can always be sure that the lesser evil is evil. (If you weren’t, then there would be no talk of lesser evils.) Thus Lesser-Evilism tends to revert to Evilism; the belief that all evil is good. Evilism is, of course, a core hypocritical value. Once you accept it as a moral axiom, then all else follows.

 

Curing the Yet-Somehow Disease

 

          Such is the healing convenience of absolute hypocrisy that merely admitting its existence can ease a troubled mind. Consider this anguished cry:

         “The bill is called the Clear Skies Initiative, and yet it increases air pollution.”

          Consider the mental turmoil expressed by those two words, ‘and yet’. They evoke cognitive dissonance, shock, awe and confusion. The speaker is stunned by the mighty chasm between rhetoric and reality.

          Fear not, O sufferer; relief is at hand. Know that absolute hypocrisy exists; and in the light of that revelation, contemplate this statement:

          “The bill is called the Clear Skies Initiative, and therefore it increases air pollution.”

          From ‘and yet’ to ‘and therefore’; that’s one small verbal step, and one giant mental leap. Clarity replaces confusion; what had made no sense before, now makes perfect sense. Reason is no longer violated by the contradiction; instead it is vindicated. The mind, re-energized, rejects paralysis. Blessed release!

          Consider these cries of pain:

“He promised smaller government, but instead

he made government bigger.”
“His party preaches fiscal responsibility, yet somehow

their budget is unbalanced.”
“He is eager to send others to war, even though

as a youth he dodged the draft.”
“He promised reform, but paradoxically

he appointed corrupt regulators.”
“His foreign policy ironically endangers national security.”
“He preaches liberty even as he works against it.”

Compare them to these bold roars:

 

“He promised smaller government, so of course

he made government bigger.”
“His party preaches fiscal responsibility; and that is why

their budget is unbalanced.”
“He is eager to send others to war, precisely because

as a youth he dodged the draft.”
“He promised reform, so naturally

he appointed corrupt regulators.”
“His foreign policy deliberately endangers national security.”
“He preaches liberty because he works against it.”

          From bondage to liberation, merely by observing hypocrisy. Imagine then the effect of participating in hypocrisy!

          Sublime Hypocrisy

          The hypocrisy-based community offers perfect freedom from responsibility. It revels in the triumph of the whim. Under its care, consequence is reversed; the innocent are punished, the guilty are protected, the able are ousted, the incompetent are rewarded, the virtuous are cursed and the vicious are blessed. By the power of pride, true is false and false is true, upon command. The hypocrisy-based community transcends veracity to attain impunity. O rapture!

          You cannot find a more ancient creed than Hypocrisy; nor one more faithfully practiced by the reputable; nor a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

           Hypocrisy has the strength of ten because its heart is impure. Hypocrisy destroys virtue in order to save it; for what profit it a man to save his own soul, but lose the world?

           What mere saint can rival Hypocrisy? For a saint can only redeem the repentant; but Hypocrisy rewards its worshippers without insisting that they change their ways. Why, then, bother with meddlesome saints? What need for repentance when you have Hypocrisy?

          What mere angel can rival Hypocrisy? For an angel is a messenger, serving the truth; but Hypocrisy is its own boss, self-made, telling its own truths, creating its own reality. Hypocrisy is worship of itself, by itself, and for itself. Hypocrisy rushes in where angels fear to tread.

          What mere creator can rival Hypocrisy? For a creator offers possibilities, but Hypocrisy offers impossibilities. It proclaims a luxurious mirage, spurious by design, free of meaning, ruled by whim, fraudulently concocted out of Hypocrisy’s own emptiness. What mere creator would dare to emit such chaos?

          Whom then shall I compare Hypocrisy to? Beyond saint, beyond angel, beyond even creator...

          Whom could I possibly compare it to but...

          ... a certain politician, here unnamed!

  

          This Essay is Hypocritical

           Compared to such celestial heights - and abysmal depths - of duplicity, most mundane deception is naive candor. How anticlimactic, then, for this essay to end by denouncing itself!

          For consider this essay. It praises hypocrisy as a virtue - but does it possess that virtue? I say that it does just as much as it does not!

          For if this essay is hypocritical, then its praise of hypocrisy would express its own values; but that would be sincerity, not hypocrisy. On the other hand, if this essay is not hypocritical, then its praise of hypocrisy would be insincere, and that would be hypocrisy.

          If this essay is hypocritical, then it is sincere. If it is sincere, then it is hypocritical. Therefore this essay is as hypocritical as it is not. It sums to zero. Like hypocrisy itself, it has two faces. Its praise is ridicule and its ridicule is praise.

          That is why you, dear reader, need not take this essay at face value. You are free to misinterpret this essay any way you please.

          How convenient!