Prometheus 6

The hypocrisy option is the tendency for a society to resolve an irrepressible difference through hypocrisy. During the 1970's and 1980's, a certain European country had an absolute ban on abortion.  It was (and still is) totally illegal there.  However, it was very easy for a woman to make a daytrip to a neighboring country where abortion was not only legal, but very easy to obtain for a small fee.  Please note in passing that European countries have national health services that pay most of the costs for medical services that are legal. So the unnamed country where abortion was illegal, was passing off some of the cost of health services to its neighbor, while assuming a principled stand against abortion.  The hypocrisy option contributed to this country's lower taxes, while allowing it to avoid a potentially devastating political clash over abortion.  And the best part of it was, it was hard to prove that the leaders of this Pro-Life republic where hypocrites, since they could hardly be criticized for allowing their female citizens to travel next door whenever they had an unwanted pregnancy.

Needless to say, if the US Supreme Court upholds the South Dakota "pro-life" legislation, then probably 17-22 states will do the same as the unnamed European country mentioned above.  Some people on on both ends of the political continuum will perhaps even think this is a more satisfactory state of affairs than what we have now.  

Another application of the "Hypocrisy Option" is, naturally, in the field hilariously called, "Race Relations."  You could have a society in which Whites zone off huge swathes of the public realm to non-Whites.  When this became inconvenient or embarrassing, public spaces were desegregated, and then privatized.  Entrance into the commons could be restricted by private agency, albeit using ingenious and easily-hid methods.  

Long ago, I noticed that a huge number of people, especially white people (disclosure: I am white--JRM) who ostentatiously self-identify as Christian, are not merely poor imitations of Christ, but the worst imitations of Christ in the world.  I mean, Jesus held up a standard of human conduct that was impossibly high, but it's ironic that people who remind you constantly that they are Christian, are of all people the LEAST in compliance with this standard.  I would think that they might be as bad, or perhaps slightly better on average, than the control group.  Instead, they are uniformly horrid specimens of the Christian walk.

I also noticed that political candidates who are civil libertarians (as opposed to anarcho-capitalists, or economic "libertarians" [sic.]) are more likely to suffer from scandals affecting their personal conduct, than the extreme opposite.  The case of Jessica A. Simpson, Southern Baptist and proud supporter of wholesome family values, or Jimmy Swagart's resilient career, are obvious other examples.

Why does hypocrisy work so well?  Part of it has to do with the lying subtext of hypocrisy:

Are they lies—or are they merely exaggerations, misleading statements, mistakes, rhetorical excesses and so on? Linguists study such matters. The most startling finding is that, in considering whether a statement is a lie, the least important consideration for most people is whether it is true! The more important considerations are, Did he believe it? Did he intend to deceive? Was he trying to gain some advantage or to harm someone else? Is it a serious matter, or a trivial one? Is it "just" a matter of political rhetoric? Most people will grant that, even if the statement happened to be false, if he believed it, wasn't trying to deceive, and was not trying to gain advantage or harm any one, then there was no lie. If it was a lie in the service of a good cause, then it was a white lie. If it was based on faulty information, then it was an honest mistake. If it was just there for emphasis, then it was an exaggeration. Lakoff, Don't Think of an Elephant (2004) p. 76.

However, Lakoff (tactfully) ignores an alternative reason why deceit administrered through hypocrisy might not only be accepted in certain circles, but actively demanded: if a class interest is determined to gain or keep some advantage for itself, then it fears any open rejection of a moral value--a rejection that may well take the form of demanding that the class actually act consistantly with that value.  

The fanatic, in other words, is outraged at the world is so ungrateful for his indispensible advice that it actually has the temerity to demand that he comply with it himself.