Politics & Hypocrisy

Politics demands a great capacity for self-deception, which rescues the politician from hypocrisy. He can normally manage to believe what he is saying for the time it takes to say it. This gives him a certain sincerity even when he is saying opposite things to opposite people. Since he loves to be pleased, he tries to please people back. He genuinely dislikes disagreements with anyone. It interrupts the reciprocal laving of egos; it puts grit in the butter bath.

Garry Wills, Confessions of a Conservative (1979), p. 178

But in reality the best one can ever do with hypocrisy is take a stand for or against one kind or another, not for or against hypocrisy itself. We might regret the prevalence of hypocrisy, but if we want to do anything about it we have to get beyond generalised regret, and try instead to identify the different ways in which hypocrisy can be a problem.

Runciman, David Political Hypocrisy (2018) Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

         . . . .  

Hypocrisy turns on questions of character rather than simply coincidence with the truth. Likewise, though hypocrisy will involve some element of inconsistency, it is not true that inconsistency is itself evidence of hypocrisy. People often do, and often should, change their minds about how to act, or vary their principles depending on the situation they find themselves in. It is not hypocrisy to seek special treatment for one’s own children—to arrive, say, in a crowded emergency room with an ailing child and demand immediate attention—though it may be unrealistic or even counter-productive to behave in this way; it is only hypocrisy if one has some prior commitment not to do so. It is the prior commitment not to be inconsistent, rather than the fact of inconsistency, that generates the conditions of hypocrisy. That, of course, is one reason why hypocrisy is such a problem for politicians. 

Id.  

. . . .

From one perspective the act of concealment makes things worse—it simply piles vice on top of vice, which is why hypocrites are often seen as wickeder than people who are simply, and openly, bad. But from another perspective the concealment turns out to be a form of amelioration—it is, in Rochefoucauld’s timeless phrase, “the tribute that vice pays to virtue.” Hypocrites who pretend to be better than they really are could also be said to be better than they might be, because they are at least pretending to be good. 

Id.

. . . . .

Once we acknowledge that some element of hypocrisy is inevitable in our political life, then it becomes self-defeating simply to try to guard against it. Instead, what we need to know is what sorts of hypocrites we want our politicians to be, and in what sorts of combinations. Do we want them to be hypocrites like us, so that they can understand us, or to be hypocrites of a different kind, so that they can manage our hypocrisy? Do we want them to be designing hypocrites, who at least know what they are doing, or do we want them to be more innocent than that? Do we want them to expose each other’s hypocrisy, or to ameliorate it? 

Id.

. . . .

Clearly, a line needs to be drawn somewhere between the hypocrisies that are unavoidable in contemporary political life, and the hypocrisies that are intolerable. But it is hard to see where.

Id.

Son, in politics you've got to learn that overnight chicken shit can turn to chicken salad.  

Lyndon B. Johnson (perhaps apocryphal)

I share all of the above quotes--and there must be thousands of more like them I could have cited--because I'm perplexed by the issue of hypocrisy and politics. Of course, on a basic level, the politician isn't always enamored of the colleague or voter or donator with whom she or he has to have a photo taken with, big beaming smile and all. They can't really think all of those babies are cute or all those chicken dinners really delicious. Of course not, and even those of us who aren't politicians engage in these venial hypocrisies on a regular basis. So, as David Runciman notes, it's not hypocrisy in general that we can rail against, it has to be certain type or level of hypocrisy--if this is the right word at all--that strongly disapprove of. 

And I have to admit that within certain limits or situations, I appreciate a degree of hypocrisy. Runciman cites the well-worn adage of Rouchcufould that hypocrisy is “the tribute that vice pays to virtue.” And I have to admit on the basis of this adage I've praised Richard Nixon as a better type of crook than Donald Trump because Nixon was at least a hypocrite. He at least tried to cover-up his wrong-doing, and his campaign theme and rhetoric (as opposed to his actions in office) were "bring us together" and other nobler sentiments. (N.B. Nixon was also a great deal smarter than Trump as a politician, as a statesman, and as the head of a government, although the bar of comparison has now been set ridiculously low by Trump.) Nixon was at least a hypocrite. One suspects, even with all of the spiders in his mind, that there was some sense of propriety, perhaps even shame, in Nixon, while Trump seems utterly without a sense of shame and immune to the opinion of others. Of course, these dynamics also play out in the actions of those around these two law-breaking, norm-destroying presidents. In 1974, Republican senators led by Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott and former presidential nominee Barry Goldwater went to Nixon and told him that he should resign because he would be removed from office if impeached. (Nixon resigned before he was impeached, as he certainly would have been had he decided not to resign.) It's hard to imagine from those who recall that time, but the public debate and the conduct of politics for the most part were in a better state under the hypocrite (and crook) Nixon than they are under Donald Trump, with his blatant scorn for law, norms, and principles. Chalk one up for hypocrisy.

Also, as Runciman also states, "though hypocrisy will involve some element of inconsistency, it is not true that inconsistency is itself evidence of hypocrisy. People often do, and often should, change their minds about how to act, or vary their principles depending on the situation they find themselves in. "

I don't think that this point can receive enough emphasis. We can and should and do change our minds--and so should politicians. Emerson--"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"--and economist Paul Samuelson--"Well when eve,nts change, I change my mind. What do you do?" (This quote is most often attributed to Keynes, but apparently this isn't correct.)  That politicians should and do change their minds makes them better, not worse, if they have sound grounds. That is, if they act on grounds other than deception and sheer expediency. However, the public is not quick to pick-up on such distinctions, and you will find politicians pilloried by a bamboozled electorate over changes of mind that were no more than parliamentary maneuvers. (Remember the ridicule aimed at John Kerry for his supposed "he was for it before he was against it" opinion about the Iraq War?) The public, if wise, would want elected leaders, especially legislators, who change positions as events--such as negotiations and novel incentives--change. But ask any experienced politician if she or he would want to try to finesse this point or educate the public about it, and I don't believe you'd find any takers. 

So now to the case in point, the most recent incident that has led to the concept and role of hypocrisy coming so loudly into my mind. I'm referring to the attitude of Republican senators on record stating that a Supreme Court vacancy shouldn't be filled in an election year. We have a large number of senators (all Republican) who've made statements to this effect. (The New York Times has conveniently cataloged their statements here.) And I've addressed this issue concerning my current Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) and two senators from my native state of Iowa, Senators Charles Grassley and Joni Ernst. All of them have (as said of John Kerry) "flip-flopped" on this issue, to put in the kindest term possible. But because of the starkness of his statements, the brazenness of his reversal, and the convenience of Youtube, let's focus on Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Below are two clips of him, one from 2016 (during the refusal of the Republican Senate to consider the nomination Merrick Garland by President Obama) and the second came in 2018, during the Trump administration. 

(Staring at about the 21'30" mark for the second clip.)

Despite what he said in 2016 and in 2018, very soon after the death of Justice Ginsberg, Senator Graham announced that he would support Senate action on a replacement nomination by President Trump even though the nomination process is over and voting for president has begun in some jurisdictions. Graham stated: 

"After Kavanaugh, the rules have changed as far as I'm concerned," he told reporters, referring to the contentious confirmation for Justice Brett Kavanaugh. "We'll see what the market will bear if that ever happens."

Graham also said in a tweet on Saturday he "fully understands" Mr. Trump's desire to move quickly on filling the vacancy.

"I fully understand where President @realDonaldTrump is coming from," Graham wrote, referring to a tweet where Mr. Trump said Republicans had an "obligation" to fill the seat with "no delay."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lindsey-graham-indicates-he-supports-filling-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-seat-ahead-of-the-election/

N.B. The second Youtube clip posted above from The Atlantic Festival in 2018 occurred after the Kavanaugh nomination and hearings. In fact, if you, Kavanaugh hearing process was discussed at length in the immediately preceding portion of the conversation that I embedded above. 

So, is the change in position taken by Senator Graham (and representative of many of his Republican colleagues) hypocrisy or something else?  Does anyone contend that this is a fully justified, principled change in position? If it's hypocrisy, is it the venial kind or is it a more deadly sin?  If it's something more than hypocrisy, does it constitute a lie? Does it constitute an abuse of power? Or is it--or should it be--"just politics" where power (as control) is the entire game and the devil take the hindmost?  

I'm going to adjourn my essay at the enod of the paragraph and ask any reader who would kindly do so to weight in on this topic. I have a tolerant attitude toward most hypocrisy, including that of politicians. (My understanding and appreciation of American politics is greatly influenced by the brilliant early works of Garry Wills, political reporter-classicist par excellence, especially his Confessions of a Conservative (1979) quoted above and Nixon Agonistes: The Crisis of the Self-Made Man (1970). Wills's arguments about elections, bureaucrats, do-gooders, good-doers, and politicians appreciate the political process, including the sometimes maddening foibles of politicians.) Thus, I need to determine how to characterize the actions of the Republican senators. Should I have believed Senators Grassley and Graham and the others? (Their excuses, disclaimers, and "events changed" arguments have all come post facto.) Should I--should all of us--become more cynical? How big a sucker was I to expect some principled consistency (assuming, as I do, that the excuses offered by the Senators are not principled but mere rhetorical figleaves). Do these actions help or hurt the democratic process? To what extent do these actions by these senators represent a degneration of the quality of the democratic process (or not)? Let me know your thoughts. How do we explain, justify, or condemn these positions? 

More on Grassley & his Abject Ilk

 

This is the statement by Senator Chuck Grassley about going forward with filling the seat on SCOTUS before the next inauguration. Please do read it. It raises these points:

1. Do you remember the "King's X" on the playground from when you were a kid? You know, when someone offered you a deal and you took it, only to get shortchanged because the kid pulls his hand from behind his back & says "I don't have to, I had a King's X"? Why did this come to mind? Keep reading.

2. In his statement, Grassley grows about the voters electing more Republicans to the Senate in 2018 after Trump appointed Gorsuch & Kavanaugh. Consider this from THE ATLANTIC:

"Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the United States Supreme Court by a vote of 50–48, with one senator absent and one abstaining. Only one Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, voted with the solidly Republican majority, which represented just 44 percent of the country’s population. Indeed, when Americans last voted for their senators (over a period of six years), Democrats won the popular vote by more than 8 percent. It’s that disproportionality—and the reality that a majority of the country’s population is represented by just 18 senators—that is driving concerns about the Senate’s ability to function as a representative body in a changing America." [Full link to the article: https://www.theatlantic.com/.../senators.../572623/ ]

3. Grassley now says that it's okay to approve a nominee after presidential voting has begun because the Senate & the President are of the same party, there's no "divided government" (although he neglects to mention that this president lost the popular vote and that the Republican Senate majority represents as a distinct minority of the U.S. population and of the votes cast for Senate seats.) But I digress. Here is a portion of Senator Grassley's letter to me in March 2016 that lays out his argument for the "Biden rule," as he labels it.

Grassley wrote:

"As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I take very seriously the advice of my predecessors, on the appropriateness for the Senate to withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court, should the President not follow the example of his predecessors, such as President Lincoln, who abstained from making a nomination during a presidential election year until after the people voted. In 1992, while serving as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, then-Senator Joe Biden spoke on the Senate floor about the proper actions of the Senate in this very circumstance. My friend and colleague stated "Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself...Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue."

I share the concerns of my friend Vice President Biden. We know that a nominee will not ultimately get confirmed, and because election season is well underway, no matter the qualifications of any potential nominee, the hyper-political environment would cause harm to the court, to the nominee, and to the nation.

It is important to remember that Congress is a coequal branch of government, and our founders sought to protect each branch of government from undue influence from either of the other two."

[The entire letter is here: https://sngthoughts.blogspot.com/.../senator-grassley... ]

Perhaps, when reading Grassley's letter to me and then his most recent statement, you know why I was reminded of the "King's X" and, I must add, playground arguments. Of course, I learned not to trust those who used the "King's X." And I learned from my parents that "everyone else does it" isn't a valid excuse for my choices, not in an adult world. And I don't know that I ever floated the "they WOULD do it" argument that Senator Grassley usus in his attempt to justify the actions of himself and most of his Republican colleagues. I knew my (Republican) parents well enough to know that the "they would do it" excuse wouldn't fly (and would only elicit greater sanctions for me). My, how times change.

Well, here you have it: Grassley in 2016 and Grassley in 2020. Do you see the "King's X?"

SNGTHOUGHTS.BLOGSPOT.COM

Senator Grassley Replies re Supreme Court Nomination & My Open Response

My Letter to Colorado Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) About Filling the Ginsberg Seat Before the Next Presidential Term

 21 September 2020

Dear Senator Gardner: 

I’m writing to you about whether it would be appropriate to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Ginsberg before the beginning of the next presidential term. I read in the Washington Post that “The Colorado GOP senator said in 2016, after Justice Antonin Scalia died, that “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/18/gop-senators-who-will-decide-ginsburgs-vacancy/ & the link to the original quote in the Denver Post https://www.denverpost.com/2016/02/18/cory-gardner-hardens-stance-on-supreme-court-obama-should-not-pick/ ). I trust that the Denver Post quoted you accurately. But much more importantly, I hope that you made that statement in good faith and with a sincere belief that this was in the best interest of our republic. I know that for me and for millions of other Americans, if the Senate approves a nominee before the inauguration of a new term for President Trump or the beginning of a term for President Biden, it would be a slap in the face to we voters. Further, it would provide additional grounds for Americans to disbelieve whatever any politician says, all to the degradation of our democratic system. Also, as a lawyer, I’m deeply concerned about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.  This type of midnight appointment would further cripple the esteem upon which the legitimacy and efficacy of the Court depends. 

American voters were told four years ago by Republicans that even early in an election year, they--the voters--should have a say in the selection by waiting to fill a vacancy until after the beginning of a new presidential term. Now some of your colleagues want to rob the voters of this prerogative because they fear losing power as a result of the upcoming election and hope to maintain control by ramming through a judicial nomination that will be opposed by so many. 

While many of your Republican colleagues are doing an about-face,  thereby making themselves out to be the more than just typically hypocritical, but downright craven and abject. But not all of them are supporting this rather desperate and shocking grasp at raw power (in the face of what they fear is a sinking ship). I want to point out that your colleague (and my former senator), Charles Grassley, seems to be sticking to his principles. If he continues to do so, along with Senators Collins and Murkowski, you would be in good company. Perhaps others would stand for principle. 

In the end, if you and enough of your colleagues choose the high road, it will benefit the Court, the Senate (as an institution), and yourself.  

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I will eagerly watch for your decision. 

/s/ 

Stephen N. Greenleaf

Sunday NYT Round-up

Here's what I found interesting in the paper today:

1. Ground meat. Okay, Devotay restaurant in Iowa City gets a shout-out for its lamb albondigas in the article, so that makes it fun. (Haven't had them yet, but might have to.) But the article gives some sound advice. Don't waste, and use good, appropriately raised product. Yea, yum. I luv Iowa Guru's delicious lamb burgers from the grill, and brats--oh, yea.

2. Gary Taubes on the "carbs make us fat" hypothesis. Taubes is a first-rate science writer, and this piece, in his modest way consistent with his respect for the discipline of science, furthers his argument that all calories are not created equal and that carbs (simple, mostly white), cause us to get fat.

3. The 'Busy Trap'. Point well-taken. I especially like the Arthur C. Clarke quote. However, to most Americans, this would seem immoral.

4. Tom Friedman on John Roberts's majority opinion. I remain agnostic about Roberts's motives. Perhaps civic virtue, perhaps a desire to preserve the standing of the Court, perhaps he responded to compelling legal arguments--or all (or none) of the above. It was good to see a decision that did not split along strictly ideological lines, that did not privilege the position of Justice Kennedy, and that did uphold Obama's health care plan. And while, I, too, oppose "hyper partisanship", compromise strictly for the sake of compromise or to "meet in the middle" isn't good enough. Sometimes you do have to stand your ground and fight (and risk losing). The Republican Party's main agenda seems to be to defeat Obama, not to move the country in a sensible direction. That's bad, very bad. Democrats, even with Bush, whom no real Democrat could have regarded well, didn't spend all of their time trying to undermine for electoral advantage, I don't think. I hope that voters this fall recognize that.

5. Jim Holt, "Is Philosophy Literature?" . Fun piece that attempts to show some literary merit by the analytic camp. A tough sell, I think, but he makes a case.

6. This review of America the Philosophical by Carlin Romano intrigues me, despite a luke warm review. America, this big, sprawling land of many cultures and traditions, does think, sometimes deeply, sometime quite shallowly, but if we spread our net widely, we find some thinkers worth considering. It seems that Mr. Romano tries to capture this great enterprise, and for this reason alone it seems a worthwhile endeavor.

7. One bummer: is Texas real?  Or to put it more accurately, and fairly to the (I hope) non-crazy majority there, are Texas Republicans crazy? Well, yes, but . . . My goodness, this is mind-bogglingly stupid and more than a bit alarming. Read this & think about it (I don't think that Texas Republicans did).

Moyers & Colbert

First, for some background for any younger readers (if there be any). Bill Moyers has been a staple of thoughtful, insightful television journalism since the 1960's. He seems to bring a thoughtful, learned, yet modest and inquiring attitude to each interview, whether it be a woman on the street or someone of the highest learning or office. His initial program will feature two political scientists (Jacob Hacker of Yale and someone from Berkeley), and then he'll do someone on the street, and with each interview he seems to speak to the palace where the individuals are at and draw the most from them. Having him back on the air is good news, indeed.

His interview with Colbert shows he's lost nothing much with his advancing age (good news to those of us not far behind him!). He goes toe-to-toe with Stephen, and in the end, leaves Stephen a bit speechless. Fun viewing.

One side note: Are corporations "people"? Moyers got it right when he said "persons", not "people" (that's Mitt Romney). Colbert got it right when he cited the nineteenth century Santa Clara case decided by SCOTUS. Both sides have to be correct in some sense. Of course, on one hand, corporations are not individuals; on the other hand, corporations are organizations of individuals (human individuals, no androids allowed as of yet) that must have some legal standing and, yes, rights. If group entities, corporations (profit and non-profit), partnerships, married couples, churches, etc. don't have some legal rights as "persons", we're in deep trouble.

The Citizens United case (and I admit to not having read it) does trouble me, but it has to do more with the equation of money with speech than with the characterization of a corporation as a "person". I define "person" as a entity with legal rights under our Constitution--I don't equate person in this context as an individual. (To go further, distinguish a "soul" (religious), a "self" (philosophical/psychological) and an "individual" (biological)--it all depends on what you're asking and why. In any event, the equation of money with speech is a brutalization of our political discourse, and a sad chapter in this history of SCOTUS. (Perhaps more on this later.)