Hypocrite or Human?
Many years ago I attended a conference that featured a debate between George Will and Cokie Roberts on the competence of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Will gave Clinton low marks, citing a variety of unethical actions that were the basis for his rating. Since it was framed as a debate, I expected Roberts to rebut at least some of Will’s assertions, but she acknowledged that Clinton had repeatedly behaved unethically in office. What she disagreed with Will about was the relevance of Clinton’s unethical actions to his performance as president.
Whatever your feelings about Bill Clinton, most readers of HOW Online probably agree with George Will that it’s important for a leader to be of good character — to be able to inspire others, make ethical decisions and be a credible role model. However, since no one is perfect, circumstances will inevitably arise that require leaders to take action on moral issues in areas where the leaders themselves are far from paragons of virtue. For example, a colleague of mine, who is an alcoholic, makes frequent visits to schools and churches to speak out against the evils of alcohol. Does that make him a hypocrite? Certainly he is espousing one thing while — occasionally, when he falls off the wagon — doing another. But does that weaken the power of his arguments, or his moral standing to make them? Might not the opposite be true — that my colleague, precisely because he is in the grip of the evil he decries, is a more credible spokesperson for his point of view?
Consider the case of Sen. Larry Craig, who apparently was caught in the act of inviting homosexual contact, yet votes as a social conservative and speaks out in favor of “traditional family values.” He is being labeled widely as a hypocrite, but in what way does his case differ from my colleague’s? Does the senator really believe in traditional family values? Apparently. His voting record is consistent and he has been married to the same woman for a long time. Did he flaunt his (allegedly) homosexual tendencies publicly? Quite the opposite.
On the other side of the aisle, John Edwards has been ridiculed and called a hypocrite for lamenting the hard life of the poor, though he has large sums of money himself (and spends it on things like expensive haircuts). But if wealthy politicians cannot speak out against poverty — and since politicians who aren’t wealthy seldom get elected — who is there to enact legislation to improve the conditions of the poor? Similarly, if politicians must prove themselves to be of the finest moral character before they create laws that are ethical and just, we probably won’t see many laws passed.
Corporate leaders, to be worthy of the title, must articulate a set of values, and drive and reinforce behaviors that are consistent with those values. Will these leaders personally exemplify all the values they espouse? Probably not. If they seek to influence the behavior and values of others, does that make them hypocrites? Yes, if they openly flaunt and show contempt for the values they recommend. But it’s important that we not write off those leaders who truly believe what they are espousing, even though, being human, they sometimes fail to walk the talk. If these people too are belittled as hypocrites, and their precepts disregarded, there may be no one left to lead the rest of us.
Last 5 posts by Steve Kerr
• Offensive Speech - March 17th, 2008
December 7th, 2007 at 6:09 am
This is a great posting. It certainly made me put down my martini long enough to answer, and that’s rare for a blog (come to think of it….very few things make me put down my martini). And yet, I found myself needing to point out the counter-argument. The issue is not what you do versus what you say. It’s about being an integrated person. Being an integrated person means that you say WHAT you do, and then preach whatever you like. My objection to Larry Craig wasn’t his homosexual tendencies. It was the division within himself that scares me about him as a leader of anything or anyone. If he, or your alcoholic friend said, or Bill Clinton, were to say, “I have this weakness, so I know what I’m talking about,” I’d have no problem with whatever they do or preach. But in all cases (John Edwards is a different case, I think) they lie to themselves and to their intimates and that inner division of self is a danger to all. If you cannot publicly (or at the very least, privately to your family!) admit your weaknesses, then you are leading a compartmentalized life and you are capable of acting from a partial place within yourself. You lack the compassion, the grounded view of what it means to be human that makes you a reliable and believable leader of others. Jimmy Carter is frequently shamed for his “I have lust in my heart” comment, but it remains true that he radiates a kind of wholeness, an integrity, that is unmistakable in the public arena. No, integrity (internal integration) is not a sufficient criterion for leadership…but it’s necessary. I’m not sure this is an issue of ethics. It’s about the human dimensions of leadership.
Back to my martini.
Now you may wonder why I’d be drinking a martini at 8:07am. I’m not (though if I were I’d admit it). It’s just that I wrote the above last night and realized I hadn’t yet sent it this morning. And that’s the truth.