ABSTRACT Title of dissertation: FLIP-FLOPS, DOUBLE STANDARDS, AND OTHER POLITICAL SINS: A CITIZEN’S GUIDE TO HYPOCRISY IN POLITICS Jason Port Stonerook, Doctor of Philosophy, 2020 Dissertation directed by: Professor Karol Soltan Department of Government and Politics People detest hypocrisy, and one of the reasons people hold politics in such low regard is that politics appears rife with hypocrisy. The proliferation of hypocrisy in politics can leave many feeling disenchanted and cynical about political affairs. Yet even those with a strong aversion to political hypocrisy are likely to admit there are occasions when an act that has been characterized as hypocritical is actually acceptable in politics. In some cases, the offense of hypocrisy may not be very serious, or conditioned by circumstances; in other cases, the accusation may not even be valid. This study examines the question of when hypocrisy is more or less acceptable in politics. This issue is explored through a series of case studies drawn from events that occurred in American politics between 2014-2016, an era characterized by high political polarization, high-stakes showdowns between congressional Republicans and the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama, the 2016 presidential primaries, and 2016 presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The study is organized by type, with a focus on basic violations of principle; logical inconsistencies; double standards involving partisan competition; discrepancies between the public affairs of public officials and their private lives; and flip-flops. The study finds that the most useful and powerful accusations of hypocrisy are those that effectively assert that a political figure has inappropriately prioritized narrow partisan concerns over a broader commitment to principles related to democratic norms, the exercise of civic virtue, and public-spiritedness. FLIP-FLOPS, DOUBLE STANDARDS, AND OTHER POLITICAL SINS: A CITIZEN’S GUIDE TO HYPOCRISY IN POLITICS by Jason Port Stonerook Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2020 Advisory Committee: Professor Karol Soltan, Chair Professor C. Fred Alford Professor Sarah Croco Professor Michael Hanmer Professor Christopher W. Morris © Copyright by Jason Port Stonerook 2020 Table of Contents Table of Contents………………………………………………………………….………ii List of Figures……………………………………………………………….……………iii Introduction: The Ties That Bind …………………………………………………………1 Hypocrisy as a Political Problem ………………………………………………….3 Literature Review………………………………………………………………...13 Political Hypocrisy, Public-Spiritedness, and the Crisis of Democracy…………20 Methodology and Organization ………………………………………………….30 1. The Torture Report ……………………………………………………………..........43 2. Supreme Rationale …………………………………………………………………...64 3. The Consistent Life Ethic ……………………………………………………………74 4. The Latte Salute …………………………………………………………….………..97 5. Confirmation Bias …………………………………………………………………..112 6. Settling the Score ……………………………………………………………….......139 7. The Kissing Congressman …………………………………………………...……..152 8. Uncommon Core ……………………………………………………………………168 Conclusion ……………………………………..…………………………………….…190 Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………201 ii List of Figures Figure 1: Billboard featuring Robert Redford by BigGreenRadicals.com ………………..5 Figure 2: Photo of Robert Redford from BigGreenRadicals website ……………………..6 Figure 3: Occupy Democrats meme (XL Pipeline/Cliven Bundy) ………………………93 Figure 4: Photograph of Barack Obama/“The Latte Salute” ………………………….....98 Figure 5: Photograph of George W. Bush/“The Scottie Salute” ………………………...98 iii INTRODUCTION The Ties That Bind The first guest on the October 25, 2012, episode of CBS’s Late Show with David Letterman was businessman and television personality Donald Trump. Trump had become a fairly frequent visitor to the Late Show following the 2004 debut of his reality TV program The Apprentice but had been boycotting Letterman’s show for over a year after the late-night host called Trump a racist for questioning the legitimacy of President Barack Obama’s personal educational achievements. Only after Letterman apologized to Trump on-air did the real estate mogul agree to return as a guest.1 After discussing their falling out and Trump’s obsession with Obama’s birth certificate (Trump often speculated Obama had not been born in the United States and was therefore ineligible to serve as president) Letterman shifted the conversation to Trump’s endorsement of Republican Mitt Romney for president. With the 2012 presidential election less than two weeks away, Trump reiterated his support for Romney by praising the former Massachusetts governor for his tough rhetoric on China, a country Trump said had been “ripping our heart out” while “we do just nothing to protect ourselves.” Trump had become a loud and reliable critic of China, routinely denouncing the nation for manipulating its currency and “stealing” Americans jobs.2 Letterman had come prepared for this line of argument, however. After some banter, Letterman produced a set of shirts and ties from Trump’s clothing line: Letterman: Now where were these made? Trump: These were made—I don’t know where they were made, but they were made someplace, but they’re great. … Number-one-selling tie anywhere in the world…. Letterman: [Holding up the shirts] Where are the shirts made? Voice (Off-camera): Bangladesh. Letterman: Bangladesh. 1 Trump: Well that’s good. We employ people in Bangladesh. That’s good. Letterman: Ties. Where are the ties made? Trump: [The people of Bangladesh] have to work too. Letterman: These are beautiful ties. Trump: They are great ties. Letterman: The ties are made in, where, China? Voice (Off-camera): China. Letterman: The ties are made in China. Letterman then looked at Trump, who grinned and nodded his head sheepishly, first to the host and then to the camera. The audience swelled with laughter, cheers, and applause. Letterman couldn’t keep a satisfied smile off his face. As the segment came to an end, Trump defended his business practices by arguing it was very difficult to find products in the United States that weren’t made in China given the way the Chinese government toyed with its currency. Letterman countered by stating he had no objection to people anywhere in the world finding jobs but would prefer that American companies prioritize the hiring of American workers. Letterman then suggested Trump shut down the “Donald Trump factory in Beijing” and “put up a tie factory in Jamaica, Queens.” Trump replied he would love to.3 Four years later, Trump would be running for president himself at the top of the Republican ticket. With the issue of trade a cornerstone of his campaign, Trump promised to get tough with China, bring back outsourced manufacturing jobs, and either terminate or renegotiate trade deals he contended hurt American workers and the American economy.4 To undercut this message, his Democratic opponent, former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, used Trump’s Late Show appearance in one of the most effective television ads of that campaign.5 The ad (titled “Someplace”) simply replayed footage of the exchange between Letterman and Trump with few edits or captions, allowing the raw, unmediated, and now seemingly scandalous 2 event to speak for itself. Clinton’s ad implied Trump was not a principled protectionist but instead a grandstander raging against a problem he was actually complicit in perpetuating. And if people found that convincing—that Trump was not what he claimed to be on one of his signature issues—they just might begin to doubt Trump’s devotion to the rest of his beliefs. In other words, the ad wanted to convince viewers that Donald Trump does not practice what he preaches. That he does not put his money where his mouth is. That when he points an accusatory finger at others, three point back at him. That he is all talk and no action. That he is a hypocrite. Hypocrisy as a Political Problem People detest hypocrisy. Or at least that’s what we like to tell ourselves. The word “hypocrite” is not a compliment but rather a pejorative. It wasn’t always that way. The origins of the word “hypocrisy” can be traced back to the ancient Greek theater, where an actor distinct from the chorus was called a hupokrites. The term was purely descriptive and carried no moral weight, but it is easy to see how a word used to describe someone acting a part while wearing a mask (as was the custom in Greek theater) could be repurposed to chastise those accused of presenting themselves as something they were not.6 Hypocrisy had acquired its pejorative nature by the time of Christ, as is evident in the Gospel of Matthew when Jesus condemned a group of Pharisees as hypocrites for attempting to flatter him with what he considered to be duplicitous and insincere expressions of admiration designed to lure him into a trap that would either diminish or eliminate him as a rival moral authority. By pretending to be 3 better than they actually were in order to win the approval of others, this group of Pharisees came to exemplify the classical definition of hypocrisy.7 Today, the word “hypocrisy” is commonly used to condemn a wide range of behavior, including violating held moral principles, acting illogically, excusing oneself from standards one believes other similarly situated people ought to follow, promise breaking, and concealing one’s true