Hypocrisy is a common vice that may initially seem harmless; after all, hypocrisy doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. The Puritan glued to a pornographic video is punished in the very act of being exposed. However, it's true that sometimes hypocrisy scandalizes and, therefore, harms others. This is the case with people from whom exemplary behavior is expected. That's why the most reprehensible hypocrisy has always been religious hypocrisy, to which today we could add that of politicians.
The American philosopher Judith Shklar addressed hypocrisy in her work on ordinary vices and explained that, for most people, this is the gravest sin: one can forgive a thief or a liar, but there is a resistance to forgiving a hypocrite for all the hypocrisy.
However, Shklar warns that this extreme view of hypocrisy can be, in the long run, pernicious. Demanding excessive exemplarity from people of public importance, or else being accused of being hypocrites, ends up turning their private behavior into the central aspect of their activity, neglecting what is truly important. This is often seen in the political sphere, where debates today focus more on personal disqualification and questioning the moral integrity of rivals than on the specific political proposals they make. Needless to say, this is a serious mistake. A political leader will be a good ruler or not depending on the decisions they make in the exercise of their functions, and the fact that they have had an extramarital sexual affair or live in a snobbish neighborhood will have little influence on this.
This kind of criticism is increasingly common, in part because it is easier to personally discredit a rival than having to study their political program and make counterproposals. But it's not just a matter of laziness. Unfortunately, it has a lot to do with what reaches people the most. It's easy to get bored during a budget debate in parliament, but gossip catches everyone's attention, and once it spreads, it gives rise to accusing politicians of anything, even if their responsibility is unknown. This is nothing new. Politics has always had an emotional side that must coexist with rational discourse, but today the latter seems increasingly marginalized.
Taken to this extreme, Shklar may end up being right when he says that a certain amount of hypocrisy isn't bad. It's far from obvious that eliminating hypocrisy and demanding total honesty is a good thing. If everyone knew what the president of his constituents, the priest of the faithful, or the teacher of the students really thought, it wouldn't make their jobs any better. Or does anyone believe that family life would improve if children knew what their parents really think of them?
What we internally think about people and things belongs to each of us, and in many ways, it should remain that way. There will always be inconsistencies between what we say and what we do, and we will be accused of hypocrisy. That's not a problem either. If we encounter someone who claims to be so upright as to avoid this risk, we can be sure that either they're lying to us or we're dealing with a fanatic with high self-esteem.
