Accusing Republicans of Hypocrisy Is Pointless

Fascists believe hypocrisy is a moral good.

You can find an index of all my substack posts on fascism here.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been secretly accepting gifts and trips from big money donors for decades, Pro Publica reported today. Democrats have been predictably, and rightfully outraged. And much of this outrage has taken the form of charges of hypocrisy. “Best believe, if Revlon sent Sonia Sotomayor a bottle of NAIL POLISH, and she didn't disclose it, Gym Jordan would have her impeached by Memorial Day,” Elie Mystal, the Nation’s Justice correspondent wrote on twitter.

Mystal isn’t wrong; Republicans would criticize Sotomayor or Kagan if they were as wretchedly unethical as their despicable colleague.

Nonetheless, Republicans aren’t exactly being hypocrites. They’re being fascists. Which, to be clear, is worse.

To be a hypocrite, you have to espouse values which you then fail to follow through on. Joe Biden is a hypocrite when he says he believes in sovereignty for the District of Columbia, and then signs legislation pushed by Republicans to strip DC of sovereignty over their criminal justice code. He said he believes in sovereignty, then he acts to destroy that sovereignty. That’s hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is bad because it’s a lie and because it’s a betrayal of principle. But hypocrites at least acknowledge that the principle is good in itself. A hypocrite may say, “you shouldn’t take bribes,” and then take a bribe. They have done something they know is wrong.

Republicans though, don’t really accept at this point that fairness and justice are virtues. They’ve largely abandoned any commitment to an impartial morality. The party has become increasingly fascist—and fascists think morality should be adamantly partial. Hitler disdained humanism or universalism. He believed that all morality rested in the volk. The core of ethics was loyalty to the in-group. The in-group, for example, deserved all the wealth of the state. Robbing from a German gentile was wrong—but robbing Jewish people and expropriating their wealth was good. Murdering German gentiles was wrong, but the more Jewish people you murdered, the more virtuous you are. There was no hypocrisy in the inequity, because inequity was considered a good.

Americans are very familiar with this logic. The Constitution openly declared that enslaved people were 3/5 of a person. US courts, de jure and then de facto, wouldn’t accept testimony from Black people. Police show on a regular basis that they believe that Black people’s lives have little value. That’s not really hypocrisy; it’s more like a sincere commitment to bigotry.

Thomas shows that this in-group/out-group distinction isn’t just racial; it’s also partisan. Republican Christofascist in-groups are defined by race, religion, heteronormativity, wealth, and various other markers which build on prejudice and political alliances. The upshot is, though, that Republicans are considered above the law, and anything they do to consolidate power and crush their enemies is fine, while Democrats are debased illegitimate filth, who abrogate their rights just by existing. When Trump insists that elections are “rigged” against him, that’s what he means. People who vote against him aren’t real Americans, so their votes, by definition, don’t count.

Charges of hypocrisy are often meant to win arguments with moderates and the press. The media finds hypocrisy easy to adjudicate; reporters don’t have to evaluate morality themselves, but can simply point out that someone has failed to live up to their own stated standards.

The problem is that charges of hypocrisy assume, and rely upon, a communal morality. Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin, for example, responded to the Pro Publica report by saying that the Supreme Court needed enforceable ethical standards.   The problem is a lack of oversight; more checks and balances can keep everyone to the same moral code.

But what if the person or the party in question doesn’t believe that a single moral code exists, or that it applies to them? What if our justice system has been hijacked by Christofascist radicals who fundamentally don’t believe that the public has any right to restrain them or question them?

Personally, I think there’s not much point in talking about the hypothetical hypocrisy of House members if Democratic justices behaved this way. Instead, we might be better served by pointing out that this sort of entitled, sustained, arrogant disregard of ethics and accountability is consistent with a court that strips pregnant people of bodily autonomy, and consistent with a Justice who sexually harassed women in his office. This Court majority is an illegitimate rogue bastion of fascism, hate, and oligarchy. It doesn’t need better ethics. It needs to be disbanded.

You can find an index of all my substack posts on fascism here.