The Hypocrisy Trap in American Politics

One of the easiest arguments we find consistently made in American politics today, by everyone from citizens utilizing social media, to political pundits with significant platforms, to elected politicians, is the charge of "Hypocrisy" against the other side. It's not surprising why this is such a seemingly valuable argument:

1) It's incredibly easy to make, as it requires one real (or perceived) instance where an individual didn't abide by their implied or explicit values.

2) It's very effective because everyone has at least a tenuous understanding of hypocrisy and everyone is equally turned off by it.

3) It requires no rigorous and comprehensive analysis, a single example is enough to prove the charge of "hypocrisy".

However, it's important to recognize that this kind of argument has two major flaws:

1) It's so disingenuous and shallow it can be leveled at anyone for almost any reason.

2) It's mirror opposite, particularly in politics, exists practically all of the time.

FLAW 1: It's so disingenuous and shallow it can be leveled at anyone for almost any reason

"President Trump claims to be a capitalist, but he passed a socialist farm bailout"

This is a perfect encapsulation of the "Hypocrisy Trap". It's absurd to suggest President Trump is a socialist. President Trump doesn't stop being a capitalist because he passes some social programs, any more than President Obama does. Neither are 100% socialists and neither are 100% capitalists. Both have passed policies that economists would define as "capitalist" and both have passed policies that economists would define as "socialist". However, the pointing out of "hypocrisy" muddles that fact, reduces distinctions to footnotes, and creates false equivalencies. A way to avoid the "Hypocrisy Trap", is to instead focus on a broad-ranging analysis of policies, executive orders, statements, and explicit ideologies in order to get a 3-D, sophisticated, understanding of each President's position(s). Unfortunately, the 1st flaw of the "Hypocrisy Trap" almost always results in a willingness to dismiss a position entirely once it's been labeled "hypocritical". In the above example, we would sidestep the need to fully and objectively assess the socialism/capitalism components of a President's entire record, and discuss the relative merits of each, because we can use reductionist logic to call Trump "hypocritical".

FLAW 2: It's mirror opposite, particularly in politics, almost always exists.

This can best be explained by utilizing some examples:

1

Left: "President Trump is a hypocrite because he claims to be a capitalist, but he passed a socialist farm bailout"

can be countered with

Right: "Democrats are hypocrites for claiming to support socialism but attacking Trump's farm bailouts"

or

Right: "Democrats are hypocrites for attacking Trump's farm bailouts while passing their own socialist programs."

2

Right: "President Obama is a hypocrite because he also deported lots of people and he attacks President Trump for his hardline immigration policy."

Can be countered with

Left: "Republicans are hypocrites for claiming to support deportation of illegal immigrants but attacking Obama who deported a lot of illegal immigrants."

or

Left: "Republicans are hypocrites for attacking Obama's immigration policies but they've been unable to stop illegal immigration for decades"

These kinds of back-and-forth accusations of Hypocrisy don't do much to argue whether the policies themselves are productive, counter-productive, affordable, or not. Even worse, they imply false equivalencies between two political parties and two Presidents who have proposed wildly different policies.