In Praise of Hypocrisy by Nathaniel S. K. Hellerstein 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. Consider de Rochefoucauld's aphorism: "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue." Well put; but 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 exemplar of absolute hypocrisy? I decline to state. (That's so you can judge the case objectively, 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 from amongst 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! Thus I fulminated. Then I paused to reflect. 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, dishonor, criminality, malice, etc.) 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 odious name. Hypocrisy a Virtue 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 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. Max Beerbohm, in "The Happy Hypocrite", defends hypocrisy as an educational device. Practice makes perfect! George Orwell, in "Raffles and Miss Blandish", considers hypocrisy an underrated social constraint. And there's 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 considers 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. 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 idea 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 if 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 we can lesser-evil poor Peter straight into the pit, with Paul and Saul alternately not-to-blame. Note how Paul and Saul, though nominally rivals, still work for each other's best interest. Their crimes justify each other; how cooperative! Clearly Paul and Saul have a lot in common - more than either of them have with Peter. And as for Peter, he has only himself not-to-blame. After all, he got what he didn't deserve. Theoretically Lesser-Evilism fails when Paul and Saul both so obviously wrong that they can no longer justify themselves, let alone 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 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." Contemplate 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 encroaches upon 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_inevitably_ he appointed corrupt regulators." "His foreign policy _deliberately_ endangers national security." "He preaches liberty _because_ he encroaches upon 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. Consequence is not only avoided, it's reversed; the innocent are punished, the guilty are protected, the able are dismissed and the incompetent are promoted. In the hypocrisy-based community, truth is false; and what's more, truth is truth precisely because it is false, and for no other reason. The hypocrisy-based community transcends veracity to attain impunity. O rapture! 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 produce 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 Olympian heights - and Stygian 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 actually did possess the virtue of hypocrisy, then it would be sincere in its praise of that virtue; but that would not be hypocritical. On the other hand, if this essay were _not_, in fact, hypocritical, then it would be concealing its true values by praising hypocrisy, and that _would_ be hypocritical. 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 is two-faced, like hypocrisy itself. Its praises are curses and its curses are praises. 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!