Politik Muka Dua: Topeng Kekuasaan dari Hobbes hingga Orwell

by David Runciman

What kind of hypocrite should voters choose as their next leader? The question seems utterly cynical. But, as David Runciman suggests, it is actually much more cynical to pretend that politics can ever be completely sincere. The most dangerous form of political hypocrisy is to claim to have a politics without hypocrisy. Political Hypocrisy is a timely, and timeless, book on the problems of sincerity and truth in politics, and how we can deal with them without slipping into hypocrisy ourselves. Runciman tackles the problems through lessons drawn from some of the great truth-tellers in modern political thought--Hobbes, Mandeville, Jefferson, Bentham, Sidgwick, and Orwell--and applies his ideas to different kinds of hypocritical politicians from Oliver Cromwell to Hillary Clinton.

Runciman argues that we should accept hypocrisy as a fact of politics, but without resigning ourselves to it, let alone cynically embracing it. We should stop trying to eliminate every form of hypocrisy, and we should stop vainly searching for ideally authentic politicians. Instead, we should try to distinguish between harmless and harmful hypocrisies and should worry only about its most damaging varieties.

Written in a lively style, this book will change how we look at political hypocrisy and how we answer some basic questions about politics: What are the limits of truthfulness in politics? And when, where, and how should we expect our politicians to be honest with us, and about what?

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Political Science

355 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

David Runciman teaches politics at Cambridge.

He writes regularly about politics and current affairs for a wide range of publications including the London Review of Books. The author of several books, he also hosted the widely-acclaimed podcast Talking Politics, along with the series ‘History of Ideas’. Past Present Future* is his new weekly podcast, where he is exploring the history of ideas from politics to philosophy, culture to technology.

*Ideas from the past, questions about the present, shaping the future.

Reviews

[Kerry · Rating 4 out of 5]

WOOO! My brain needed a rest after this one. A little tougher than my average Nancy Drew books. This doozy was written by David Runciman, a professor at Oxford University, where he teaches his class. The chapters are basically summaries of his own dissertations and lectures of the topic of Political Hypocrisy. And hot shit it's good.

In some of the essential points that Runciman seems to be trying to get across, one main one is that not all hypocrisy in politics is evil, the key lies in being able to weed out the politicians and the types of hypocrisy used. Some is necessary to keep the balance of people and politics.

For instance, he uses the correlation of politeness (something I know nothing about). "Politeness by definition, is a dressing up of ones true feelings (of course, it is possible to be motivated by a sincere desire not to hurt someone else's feelings, but if one is sincerely motivated by concern for another, one is being something more than merely polite). And while it does seem crazy to put politeness on par with hypocrisy, the point is that there are several types of "hypocrisy". That it isn't deserving completely of the dirty word it's become. Or, that all of you have been hypocrites at some point for being polite. (except for myself and Sir Charles Barkley).

The worst of political hypocrisy comes when politicians are aware of it. That they have full knowledge of their actions, words an intentions leaning one way when aware that they do not intend to keep with that train of action or even whose beliefs don't correlate with that action. For instance, the candidate who may personally oppose a moral subject, I.e. Abortion, stem cell research, etc. However in their political campaign speak nothing of it bc she knows her more Liberal/Democratic supporters may lose their support of her. Does that not make her a hypocrite? Even more blantantly so if she's well aware that should she be elected she would absolutely vote in her moral favor even though the majority who voted her in would not agree? Hypocrisy is everywhere and it's usually a dirty word. HOWEVER (that word has Howe in it...amazing!) it doesn't have to be.

Referencing back to writings by Orwell, the term dates back to the Greek theater and the word "hypokrisis", which is fitting. Aren't all actor hypocrites by trade? They portray themselves as one persona on stage & screen yet are in fact just playing that role for the public. Politicians fit into that scheme as well as nearly all public figures in order for them to find public support. And the ones that portray their true personas are usually crucified for it. Honesty is a bitch innit?

Should we hate Charles Barkley more for being honest in that he is not a role model? He's not a hypocrite but he's placed in public view which means if he isn't everything society wants him to be he's villafied. But at least he's not a hypocrite. All the worlds a stage homey. And you bet your sweet ass you're on it too.

"Hypocrisy is an Ill-intended act dressed up to look like a well-intended one". We aren't fools, this has undoubtably been the case in serveral administrations of every political level. So is it now that people are so jaded from these malicious endeavors that we cry hypocrisy at the drop of a hat? True, but a lot of hypocrisy isn't malicious. In my own personal view, hypocrisy has it's place in society bc as Jack Nicolausen (a hypocrite by profession) once perfectly quoted "You can't handle the truth!!"

Americans especially cry out for truth, but do you really want to hear it? Do you want to hear Obama sit down and say "let's cut the shit, bc frankly we're in a lot of it and there's really not a damn lot I can do for this economy by tomorrow or just next year. People will be laid off, your babies will starve, many will be seriously hurt & debilitaed by lack of health care and I can't do a damn thing but try to place somethings in place to start the ball rolling, but folks, you aren't going to be woken up tomorrow with phone calls of jobs and economical ease. In fact, you won't be hearing it any time soon cupcakes, just try not to die on us.

Granted I'm not known for my tact, but how do you think the public is going to react to the "we know times are tough but really all we can do is try a couple things and sit here with our dick in our hands" speech? I'm betting Norway will drop another Nobel prize, mostly bc they've already shown us they have a wicked sense of humor in such regards.

Look at Hitler signing the Neville Chamberlain Peace Treaty in 1938, which he CLEARLY had no intention of keeping. Technically that makes him a hypocrite of the worse malicious kind. But really if you listened to his speeches of the time, he made it clear his contempt in signing any such thing. But it's what the public and masses demanded. NOT to justify Hitler and his actions in ANY way, but he was pretty descriptive in his contempt for any such Treaty.

The issue really isn't hypocrisy. Bc we're all hypocrites. It's justice. It's if what our leaders are doing is with our best intentions in mind. THAT is more of how politics should be approached in my insanely intellectual opinion. Make your opinion on politics one way or another, I'm not leaning you either way (vote for Howe 2024) but make it EDUCATED. Don't get your ideals from ONE news source read them all before you start casting stones. But remember when your casting the "hypocrite" stone at someone...that you're guilty of being one at points too.

I like the analogy, if only for it's lure witty and crudeness of Bentham's allusion to gas. No one likes gas emitting from another person...best to keep what you truly had inside to yourself, until you can release that whopper in private or to your poor significant other and loved ones. :) (I apologize to that significant other and my family. You may have been victimized.)

Overall, this is an extremely enlightening book and amazingly well-referenced. But Runciman has some poetic flare as well that makes the medicine go down a bit smoother. He even uses the phrase "seductive little truths about politics & character" Which I got a little tingle after reading... don't judge me.

A quote I like to surmise it all with: "Hypocrisy & anti-hypocrisy are joined together to form a discrete system, so that it is never a question of truth versus lies; it is, at best, a choice between different kinds of truths and different kinds of lies"

Get some!

[Tom Calvard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hypocrisy is a fascinating topic, and in my view it's surprising that there are not more books on it.

Runciman's approach I found a little dense and difficult to follow at times. He tends to focus on historical events and key political figures, thinkers and books from one chapter to the next. There is great rigour and detail, but sometimes the arguments become a bit subtle and twisting to follow. Then again, hypocrisy is a pretty subtle and twisting topic.

I find Runciman's broad thesis and position convincing - that hypocrisy is inevitable in democratic politics, but we need to think about which types and degrees of hypocrisy to be most concerned about and why. Hypocrisy is not quite the same thing as lying, and there are many different types and degrees of fakery, half-truth and deception. Sometimes we get a bit too hung up on the wrong forms of hypocrisy, and miss important alternative judgements, and/or risk becoming other types of hypocrites ourselves in the process.

I particularly enjoyed the Conclusion and 2017 Afterword, which related hypocrisy a bit more clearly to current affairs and more recent world events and changes in political discourse.

[Paul Sand · Rating 3 out of 5]

[Imported automatically from my blog. Some formatting there may not have translated here.]

Since Pun Salad makes so much of phonies, especially those running for president, it seemed natural to check out Political Hypocrisy by David Runciman. Those looking for cheap laughs at the expense of hypocrites needn't bother; the book is a serious treatise on how views on hypocrisy have evolved over the past 400 years or so in Britain and America.

Runciman takes it a chapter at a time, in roughly chronological order. He starts out with Hobbes and Mandeville, then moves on to the American founding fathers, concentrating on Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams. There's a chapter on Bentham, followed by an analysis of Victorian authors Trollope, Morley, and Sidgwick, then (most appropriately) George Orwell. A concluding essay wraps things up, and Runciman comments insightfully (for a Brit) on the current crop of American presidential candidates.

Runciman makes the valid-enough point that we are all hypocrites, since we know the good, and uphold the good, and yet do not often enough do the good. Most Christians know this, for as long as they've been able to understand Romans Chapter 7. So hypocrisy is a potentially universal charge, and one that just about anyone can make, and (hence) such charges are likely to be extra-hypocritical themselves.

What a muddle! But Runciman does his best, making fine philosophical distinctions among various phyla of hypocrisy, and showing that it's (OK, fine) a necessary evil—and sometimes a positive virtue—in liberal democratic polities. That doesn't mean we should be resigned to it, but it helps much to be aware of the nature of the beast.

Most interestingly for recent events, Runciman considers the hypocrisy of Bill and Hillary Clinton. He makes the point that they're hypocrites of completely different flavors.

All politicians lie, but some, like Bill Clinton, are able to lie easily because they are able to persuade others, and themselves of their underlying sincerity. Bill Clinton was a faith-based politician, his faith being limitless faith in his own goodness of heart. Hillary Clinton is nothing like this; her public persona is too obviously an artificial construct, designed to protect her from her own weaknesses as a politician and a human being (notably a lack of warmth), of which she is clearly all too aware. This is why, in a semi-confessional age, it will be considerably harder for her than for her husband to get elected. But it also means that there is less danger in her case that there was in her husband's of becoming self-deceived. With Hillary Clinton there seems little possibility that she, any more than anyone else, will lose sight of the fact that she is a hypocrite. Hillary Clinton appears to be a mixture of what Mandeville calls "malicious" and "fashionable" hypocrisy, of personal ambition and a desire to pander to the electorate.

Explains a lot, I think.

But—reader, beware—it's not all as punchy as that. For full appreciation, the book (early chapters especially) require a familiarity with British political history that I didn't have. The chapter on Orwell was probably easiest going, since I, and I presume many readers, know Orwell's work and history better than (say) Mandeville's.

Runciman makes the interesting point that, for all Orwell's concerns about hypocrisy, his 1984 dystopia is one in which hypocrisy has been stamped out. Big Brother is a brutal liar, but he's not at all concerned with hiding this reality behind a mask. When the populace is told "we've always been at war with Oceania", there's no effort to "spin" the truth that way. Truth is irrelevant and everyone knows it.

[Rebecca Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fantastic, broad-sweeping, intellectual account of the problem of hypocrisy in political life, and how it has been discussed in the history of political thought