Pointing out hypocrisy in politics doesn’t work
Pauline Hanson is a hypocrite. Who actually cares about that?
Since the polling surge of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation began at the beginning of the year, I’ve noticed – and been troubled by – how progressive voices and spaces have attempted to combat her support. “Pauline says she’s for the working class, but They Vote For You shows she’s always voted against workers’ rights.” “Oh you reckon Pauline stands for the average Aussie? Well how come she’s taking rides on Gina Rinehart’s private jet?”
Just like liberals in America who are earnestly or urgently or smugly trying to tell the MAGA faithful “Trump promised no new wars but he started the war on Iran!”
These supporters do not care about hypocrisy in their preferred politics. Using it as an argument is a waste of your time.
I use Hanson and One Nation supporters as the example, but it’s true of any group who have an attachment to a politician, political party or movement. The supporters have picked their horse and are prepared to defend it against “attacks” from “outsiders”. Pointing out the contradiction between a politician’s words and their actions might seem like a slam-dunk argument but it ignores the biggest motivating factor: “People aren’t just evaluating facts in politics, they’re also defending identities.”
That one-line explanation from Charlie Crimston — a social psychologist at Australian National University who specialises in politics, morality and identity — should be the lightbulb moment for any progressive, leftist or Labor-voter tempted to debate new One Nation supporters in comment sections online. They do not care to hear it from you.
“When [the hypocrite] is someone from our own political group, we often reinterpret what’s happening or find ways to justify it, because people are strongly motivated to protect the moral image of their group. The more strongly someone identifies with a political side, the more likely they are to engage in that kind of motivated reasoning, defending, ignoring, or reframing apparent inconsistencies,” Crimston tells Zee Feed.
Almost anything can be rationalised if you care about the person enough. I’ve seen One Nation supporters defend Hanson’s joyrides on Rinehart’s jet by saying it’s better than wasting public funding on commercial flights. It’s entirely their right to dismiss the concern, as much as it’s a progressive’s right to care about a billionaire seemingly being in control of a senator. After the arguments back-and-forth, everyone is still on the same ‘side’ they started on.
Why are we so committed to such an ineffective strategy?
