A Fate Worse Than Immorality
Sure, being immoral or supporting immoral policies can be alienating to voters. But it seems that far more alienating than that is to have inconsistent beliefs.
Whenever there is an argument on an issue, the side that demonstrates the other side’s hypocrisy usually beats the side that claims the other supports something deontologically unjust.
The main reason for this phenomenon is that to call others out on deontological, moral grounds requires true adherence to those beliefs. When that purity does not exist, the original ethical rules laid out seem to be holier than thou, coercive, and unfair. The resulting disgust is far more personal to the person being called out than the alleged immorality they support is.
Some people still think it’s okay to wear blackface to portray black characters. Usually, though, they aren’t particularly offended when someone says that doing so is immoral. But assuming the person calling out that immorality is a Democrat, the person who supports wearing blackface likely will feel much more committed to their support for blackface if they know about Ralph Northam.
Of course, the immorality of blackface hasn’t changed. But what has is the moral claim of those who oppose it.
Many similar examples come to mind of public figures keeping support from people who find something they did offensive. Beyond Northam, this could similarly apply to Andrew Cuomo’s sexual misconduct or . On the right, Donald Trump’s infidelity, mistreatment of veterans (at least those who don’t agree with him), and lackluster secrecy regarding classified information are all examples.
I’d argue that you get even more strong of a disdainful response from policy hypocrisy than from “famous person you held to a different standard” hypocrisy. Why? Because you on your own cannot get Ralph Northam or Andrew Cuomo or Donald Trump out of office, but you can change which policies you support.
Where policy hypocrisy becomes difficult is that usually both sides are mirror images of the hypocrisy. Republicans claim cancel culture has gone too far, and in the name of “free speech”, they oppose people being fired for controversial or offensive things they said in the past. Democrats would likely point to Colin Kaepernick, who was cancelled and should not have been jobless.
Both sides use arguments that are inconsistent, such as saying in one case that “free speech doesn’t apply to private employers, and it’s up to them to decide” and on the other that “people shouldn’t be fired for their political beliefs.”
Of course, you can come up with nuanced reasons for supporting one and not the other. But those aren’t always the arguments that are made. Instead it’s usually something more like the two arguments above, which seem like a single, moral rule that can be applied to all situations equally.
There are many more examples. Republicans happily say “my body, my choice” when it comes to vaccines or masks. In doing so, they are pointing out that Democrats hold opinions on these two issues that conflict, and thus are holding anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers to a double standard. Obviously, those same Republicans are holding people who get an abortion to a double-standard too. But the pro-choice crowd, as a result of not being able to foresee all the possibilities in the future, chose a markedly unnuanced slogan to support abortion.
Foreign policy is usually the best example, especially with increasingly partisan opinions about Israel, China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, and others. Each specific country obviously is in a different situation and has a different relationship with the US. But unless you remain painstakingly committed to a perfectly nuanced opinion, likely a smart politician could accuse you of supporting a double standard.
Calling out hypocrisy only really works when you agree with a side on one of the issues being compared and not the other. Otherwise, it’s usually a way to increase the disdain for the other side on issues that seem to matter a lot to some people. It’s base politics, not persuasion.
