The travails of Elliot Spitzer (which now include his resignation) spur Roger Kimball to a consideration of the notion of hypocrisy. He gives a limited defense of hypocrisy, noting at least the hypocrite defends decency, while not always being decent. Our modern egalitarianism has little patience with hypocrisy, which is one reason why it holds hypocrisy up as one of the few remaining sins. It is better to be an honest lout, it is sometimes argued, than a hypocritical nobleman. We value the "authenticity" of the unapologetic vulgarian over the struggle toward holiness of the saint.
I find myself in large agreement with Mr. Kimball, although I can't help pointing out I made a similar argument almost three years ago. But then my name is not Roger Kimball so no one really noticed.
Kimball writes:
[H]ypocrisy is essentially an aristocratic failing. It extols "the best" even if the best is generally unattainable.
This indeed is one reason that hypocrisy, among all the vices, is regarded with particular disdain and horror by egaliatarians. A hypocrite publicly upholds noble values and standards of behavior even though he knows he may sometimes fall short of the conduct they require. He does this because he recognizes that those values are worthy of support and commendation even if he cannot always embody them.
La Rochefoucauld's observation that "hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue" will doubtless be trotted out early and often when in the case of Eliot Spitzer and the girls. It is a famous, though often misinterpreted, observation. The epigram has generally been presented as meaning--in the words of one journalist--that "the loudest moralizers may be most suspect." But I believe that La Rochefoucauld meant to suggest that hypocrisy was an implicit acknowledgment of the claims of virtue. Otherwise, why bother with dissimulation?
In his comments, Kimball presents an anecdote regarding German philosopher Max Scheler who 
apparently had a hard time living up to his own philosophy. This puts one to mind of the introduction to C.S. Lewis's The Problem of Pain where he explains that he wanted the book published anonymously as all who knew him would easily realize that Lewis himself so poorly practiced that which he preached in the book. Does this mean that Lewis has nothing to teach us about dealing with the reality of pain and suffering? Surely not. It simply proves that Lewis was a human being; flawed but striving for understanding.
Kimball reminds us of a valuable lesson. Defending a standard while not living up to it is unfortunate. Not having any standards is worse.
Recent Comments