In today’s political climate, a striking pattern of inconsistency is evident among both Democrats and Republicans. This phenomenon is not new but has been increasingly visible in recent years. The behavior where politicians endorse outcomes when they are favorable but denounce the processes when unfavorable is rampant on both sides of the aisle.
In an article on Above the Law, commentator Mark Herrmann critically examines this behavioral duplicity. From contesting election results to vilifying judicial decisions, politicians seem to adjust their principles based on the outcomes. When an election result is favorable, it’s deemed fair; when it isn’t, it’s immediately labeled as rigged. Similarly, judicial decisions are celebrated when in favor and dismissed as biased when adverse.
To illustrate, Herrmann points to former President Trump’s stance on judicial rulings. When the Supreme Court ruled in his favor regarding presidential immunity, it was a “great Court.” Conversely, when a New York judge ruled against him in a business fraud case, the judge was dismissed as a “crooked hack.” Such contradictory behavior is not isolated to Trump.
President Biden has also exhibited a similar duality. Initially, he benefitted from the support of political elites who helped secure his nomination by encouraging competitors like Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar to step aside. However, now when the same elites suggest it may be time for Biden to make a political sacrifice, he expresses frustration with their interference. Such inconsistency mirrors the very hypocrisy he might criticize in others.
This selective acceptance of polls further underscores the issue. When polling data indicates a lead, it’s reliable, but when it shows a deficit, it’s suddenly flawed and untrustworthy. This discrepancy exemplifies the broader trend of truth-denialism and selective belief pervasive among politicians.
While some assert that occasional deception might be necessary in politics—such as Roosevelt’s handling of the prelude to World War II—there is a critical distinction between strategic non-disclosure for national security and blatant self-serving hypocrisy.
It’s essential for legal professionals and corporate leaders to recognize these patterns of inconsistency as they navigate the turbulent waters of political influence and public policy. For a more detailed examination of these behaviors, you can read the full analysis by Mark Herrmann on Above the Law.