The Case For Hypocrisy

Much to the chagrin of Obama purists, the new administration continues to face snags when it comes to upholding its own self-imposed standards, namely those pertaining to former lobbyists and tax-illiterate cabinet appointees. With each new executive lobbyist waiver--such as those granted to Raytheon's William Lynn, Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids' William Corr, and Goldman Sachs' Mark Patterson--and with each new tax mistake--such as HHS nominee Tom Daschle or Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's IRS debts of $128,000 and $34,000, respectively--critics will cry hypocrisy and defenders will wax apologetically about pragmatism and breaking eggs to make an omelet. But in many contexts, aren't these instances of hypocrisy and practicality one and the same?

The administration's explanation for repeatedly breaking its own lobbyist rule or for turning a blind eye to cabinet appointees' blemished records is that the ends justify the means--that these picks are the most qualified, experienced and befitted individuals for tackling the problems that we collectively face. One may broadly label these exceptions as unscrupulous continuations of the past eight years, but to do so would be missing what is most important. The Bush administration plagued itself with unsavory ideological and political hiring standards, resulting in religious fundamentalists running science agencies and tractably corrupt political homunculi filling the ranks of the Justice Department. The difference between then and now is the difference between ideology and optimal practicality. Obama has often stressed this monumental, thematic departure for his administration. And indeed, it cannot be stressed enough.

The Obama administration, at least in some of these cases, should be lauded, not excoriated, for ignoring its own rules. Yes, breaking one's own rules is hypocritical. But it is hypocrisy as the means to a practical end. The problem with the Bush administration was not only that its hiring standards were politically asinine, but that these standards were almost never ignored. Had the ideological parameters for a government job under Bush been relaxed, the policies on a range of issues, from global warming to torture, may very well have been unrecognizable to what we actually ended up with (global warming is an unfounded myth; torture is kosher).

H.L. Mencken once described an idealist as "one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup," and the new administration is demonstrating that it has no desire to make rose soup. None of these exceptional appointments under the Obama administration are intransigent ideologues such as we've seen in the past. Rather, they have all gone to lengths to divorce themselves from any conflicting interests and to rectify any past, "honest mistake" transgressions. They have humbled themselves and made sacrifices where necessary because they value the opportunity to lead solution-driven agendas that will hopefully reverse the ideology-driven course of the past.

The argument for "ends that justify the means" is often perversely associated with Niccolò Machiavelli, and the nightmarish implications his philosophy carries. But Obama is no champion of regicide and ruling through fear. His unsavory means are nothing more than hypocritically breaking his own, self-imposed rules to the pursuit of practical ends. The executive order barring lobbyists was an important symbolic gesture, but it was by no means practical or even necessarily feasible.

The exceptions that have been made for Lynn, Corr, and Patterson do not appear to be outwardly political or ideological in nature. And the "tax and nanny issues" for Daschle and Geithner, though each basely stupid on its own merits, do not really have that reek of malfeasance or hubristic neglect that seems to be emanating ever-forth from the towers of Wall Street. Indeed, Obama's presidency carries unprecedented symbolic weight. But it is neither in his interest, nor the country's, to be overly hamstrung by self-imposed symbolic gestures. In cases where solution-driven practicality and symbolic momentum do not align, the administration is wise to forego the latter in the interest of "getting things done."

Follow Stuart Whatley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stuwhat84

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

A more truthful explanation. Politicians in the heat of campaign will cynically anything need to get elected. The hope is that people will forget... Or
People can be found to justify the abandonment of campaign promises. Worked for Bush. Doubly so for Obama.
Hows that for the end justifying the means.

[mmonarch]

Well, we all know what would have happened if Bush nominated these people. If you want to talk about a case for hypocrisy LOL, that would be just about every post on this whole blog.

[likesfacts]

The "means justifies the ends"??? I could read no further. Pitiful.

[MagisterLudi]

agreed,

[Stuart Whatley - Huffpost Blogger]

It's a shame you chose to read no further. Consequently (but predictably), you missed the entire point:

"The argument for "ends that justify the means" is often perversely associated with Niccolò Machiavelli, and the nightmarish implications his philosophy carries. But Obama is no champion of regicide and ruling through fear. His unsavory means are nothing more than hypocritically breaking his own, self-imposed rules to the pursuit of practical ends. The executive order barring lobbyists was an important symbolic gesture, but it was by no means practical or even necessarily feasible."

Sadly, the greater portion of the comments and hate mail I've received regarding this piece are from people who didn't even read it. This is in no way a blanket argument for "ends justifying the means". Rather, the ultimate point is that Obama should not have imposed such restrictive rules on himself in the first place. The "ends justifying the means" argument is almost always inherently ideological in nature, making the Obama case ironically backward. I seek here to point out this ironic reversal. Obama's hypocrisy on this matter seeks to shun blind, symbolic ideology for pragmatism's sake. The administration's argument is that these appointees are "uniquely qualified" and that this trumps embarrassing blemishes on their records. Only time will tell if this is a wise decision. I, for one, do not think the recent speed bumps merit such obloquy as they have received. Thank you, everyone else, for your comments.

[MagisterLudi]

Cognitive dissonance alert!
Quotes:
1."This is in no way a blanket argument for "ends justifying the means'"
hmmm
"Yes, breaking one's own rules is hypocritical. But it is hypocrisy as the means to a practical end. "
"His unsavory means are nothing more than hypocritically breaking his own...rules to the pursuit of practical ends."

But this is EXACTLY what Machiavelli refers to in The Prince.

[MagisterLudi]

Oh, we're sorry, it is not a "blanket" justification, it's only a pillow case justification.
Why that's a horse of a different color.

[Wesneeds]

I'm in conflict here now as a "purist" Obama supporter.

I am beginning to wonder if this is an attempt to appease the Republicans . I can still hear the Hardball interview between Chris Matthews and some poor inept, in over his head Repuke on the day Ex President "Shrub" gave that speech on the floor of the Knesset and was attacking Obama's commitment to ending this "never should have been fought" war in Iraq. The poor pundit was calling Obama an appeaser and didn't know the definition. That didn't surprise me. What did whack me over the head in the article above though was a simple thought. There was promised a great change and right now based on the definition of the word appease, I'm beginning to wonder if he can pull the "Executive" Branch out the muck and quit kissing up to the failed Republican Brand that has failed this country.

Are his advisors too worried about how they will be perceived even before history is written? Because, I have to tell you that it isn't going to matter if there is noone to write the history of our country if it falls by the way-side. My message to Obama : "Don't blow it , dude."

[vedder110]

Do all promises transmute from practical to symbolic when they are broken?

[VHammon]

Honest mistakes are one thing. Geitner's failure to go back and pay the taxes that were owed ethically but not legally (since too much time had passed) until called upon to do so for this nomination is a reflection of his values. We can expect those values to be reflected in his approach to his work. And, we should surely have enough evidence by now that sleazy, sloppy ethics lead to decisions that do not serve our country best.

We are a nation of over 300 million. I believe that there are people who uphold and practice the highest ethical standards and who have the practical experience and wisdom for all our highest positions of leadership. I'm tired of false choices for either practical people or ethical people. We can have both when we demand them.

[demockracy]

See Ralph Nader in his documentary "An Unreasonable Man" to see where perfectionism leads. Nader actually had several of his people in the Carter administration (Joan Claybrook was one). Unfortunately, he couldn't set aside his insistence on immediate action, and literally did not speak with Claybrook for a couple of years. Howard Dean says of such people "They're unwilling to make the kind of compromises needed to govern." Nader's stubbornness is an asset and a detriment.

Meanwhile, check out Jimmy Carter's recent interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99875313) with Terri Gross for some really amazing modesty. He does not begrudge the loss of the presidency because he didn't bomb Iran. He's happy the hostages came back safe and no innocent Iranians suffered. Now think of Nixon / Cambodia, Reagan / Nicaragua, Bush 43 / Iraq... See the difference? Wow!

[rf-hawaii]

Paying taxes late is not a crime in most cases. If the taxes in question are paid (including necessary penalties) then what is the problem?

Should we hold politicians taxes to the same standards we hold sexual predators?

That's ridiculous.

[MagisterLudi]

"The Obama administration, at least in some of these cases, should be lauded, not excoriated, for ignoring its own rules"
Astonishingly misguided statement.

"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding."
Marshall McLuhan

[CommonSense NYC]

"The Obama administration, at least in some of these cases, should be lauded, not excoriated, for ignoring its own rules"

jaw,.. meet floor. WOW. just wow.
Change I cen believe in!!!!!
Uhhhhrack Faux-bama

[RButler]

If bailed out CEOs getting big bonuses is 'shameful' then so is Obama's easy disregard for his own rules. Someone should point that out to him. It's all part of the same system.

[RButler]

It would seem to be the easiest thing in the world, for this administration and anyone else, when in doubt, FOLLOW YOUR OWN RULES OR PROMISES. But, nooooooooo­oooooooooo­ooooo!.

He's just another politician like some of us have been saying for over 2 years. He's being breaking his own rules in just 2 weeks and we've got 4 years to go. Wanna bet on him not breaking any more? I didn't think so. This is really a training program for his supporters----in making excuses. As they get better and better the broken promises will get bigger and bigger.

[JeffKolakowski]

To quote: "…The executive order barring lobbyists was an important symbolic gesture, but it was by no means practical or even necessarily feasible."

Are symbols used only as subterfuge then? Announce a bold policy to bar lobbyists right after the inauguration when everyone is listening, then break the rules when you know most folks are off to life-as-usual.

Not feasible to find enough non-lobbyists to appoint? As all bloggers and internet junkies know there are many people out there who have never worked for a lobbying firm who know a helluva lot more than the lobbyists do, because they are not merely interested in the well-being of a particular industry. They work primarily in the interests of the country. Obama could have used his own rule, which was lauded by many, to use as polticial cover to find people outside of the mainstream with which to incporporate real “change.”

What is not practical about finding people who have real solutions, and not a desire to serve the same old special interests and mind-sets that have caused us so many problems? I guess it is not practical if your desire is to please the establishment in ways that benefit yourself.

This guy cannot be serious.

[GHO]

Please tell me you wrote this article as a satire...PLEASE!!!! You can not seriously be backing the notion that hypocrisy is good. Obama had to know he would be nominating these guys and that they were lobbyists. He should never have trumpeted a "no lobbyists" rule before immediately breaking it.

For a guy (and team) who did such a great job managing image during the campaign, Obama seems to have lost all track of appearance now that he's in office. Even if these nominees are good choices of the jobs, he has to recognize the appearance of impropriety, hypocrisy, and business as usual. Is anyone actually vetting these nominees at all?

[zippy01]

If Obama is allowed to make standards, then violate them, why parade those standards in front of us and tell us you represent change? It is, in fact, worse than making no such standards since now he's made himself a liar. Why have rules at all if the ends justify the means and rule breaking doesn't matter. This is NOT "change" but the same old same old. Mayhaps Obama wasn't quite what everyone thought? A duplicitous politician? Never! Ha Ha Ha. Saw this one coming.

[STATESMAN1]

THIS TYPE OF THINKING IS WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE AND NOTHING IS CHANGING! ALL WE HAVE DONE IS REPLACE A BUNCH OF SELF SERVING, UNETHICAL REPUBLICANS WITH TAX EVADING, HYPOCRITAL DEMOCRATS. AT THE END OF THE DAY WHERE DID ALL THE STATESMEN GO?

DOES ANYBODT REALLY BELIEVE THAT A HIGHLY EDUCATED FINANCE GUY LIKE GEITNER COULD DO HIS OWN TAX PREP FOR YEARS, INCLUDING SCHEDULE C, AND THEN FAIL TO PAY SE TAXES? OR THAT DASCHLE COULD MAKE $200k AS A LOBBIEST AND NOT INCLUDE IT AS TAXABLE INCOME.

COME ON CITIZENS - WAKE UP - THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA NOT TO PUT HIS FOOT DOWN AND REQUIRE HONEST, ETHICAL PEOPLE TO SURROUND HIM AT THIS TIME! A TRUE STATEMAN LIKE LINCOLN OR FDR WOULD DO IT - SO SHOULD OBAMA.

WE WANTED CHANGE - LET'S FORCE OUR NEW RPESIDENT TO GIVE IT TO US!

[camper65]

Do the words "Moral Relativism" mean anything to anyone?

[tonkamatthew]

Waiting for people who are perfect might take forever ? Finding smart people who learn or atleast
admit mistakes seems to be the kind of government worker we need.