We like to believe in noble ideals such as free speech, tolerance, democracy, and critical thinking. We condemn authoritarianism, censorship, and dogmatism. Yet when those principles collide with our own comfort, beliefs, and group identity, they often crumble. Across political, social, and cultural lines, individuals and institutions that loudly champion certain freedoms carve out exceptions for themselves.
This is not simply hypocrisy. It is human nature. Humans are innately inconsistent and conflicted, and George Orwell wrote that power tempts us to embrace the very tools we once denounced.
Abstract ideals are seductive because they seem absolute and pure. John Stuart Mill’s classic defense of free speech, for example, insists society benefits when even offensive ideas are heard. However, when ideas cut against our deepest values, our commitment falters. “Free speech” quietly shifts into “speech I approve of.” “Tolerance” becomes “tolerance for my side, but not for theirs.”
Institutions and the Challenge of Consistency
Even organizations founded to promote and defend principles struggle to follow them consistently.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), once a viewpoint-neutral champion of freedom of speech and the press, is now criticized for selective advocacy. Today it often champions causes aligned with progressive ideology while opposing other forms of expression. One prominent ACLU lawyer promoted book banning, a shocking reversal of its historic stance.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), founded to combat religious dogmatism and promote freethinking, now expects strict ideological conformity on issues surrounding gender identity. Members who offer different perspectives are treated as heretics who must be condemned and censored. Critics note that, ironically, this resembles fundamentalist religion.
The Unitarian Universalist Church, which publicly champions democracy, inclusivity, non-creedalism, and free expression, no longer practices what it preaches. Dissenting voices within the church have been suppressed and even punished, censorship is imposed, and political orthodoxy takes precedence over open inquiry. The democratic processes it advocates for society have been undermined within the church itself.
Groups within the political right display the same patterns. Some within the Republican Party who claim to defend small government, free speech, and individual liberty increasingly support book bans, speech restrictions, and laws targeting civil rights. They invoke “freedom” as a rallying cry but wield the power of the state to impose their own moral agenda. Some groups that decried cancel culture as a left-wing menace practice it themselves when in power. Promises of fiscal restraint vanish amid record deficits, and moral outrage is applied only to opponents.
Even scientific institutions are not immune. Once respected as neutral arbiters of facts, journals such as Nature and Scientific American have been criticized for letting political ideology influence what they publish.
The Consequences of Carving Out Exceptions
Exceptions do more than reveal hypocrisy. They endanger principles themselves. Suppressing speech we dislike sets precedents others will exploit, leading to cycles where today’s powerful become tomorrow’s silenced. Selective defenses of freedom erode the very liberties we claim to uphold.
The Psychology and Politics Behind this Hypocrisy
Why do people and institutions betray their own principles? Psychology shows hypocrisy is not always deliberate but arises from how the mind works. Social psychologist Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance shows people experience discomfort when actions clash with stated values. To reduce this tension, we rationalize exceptions, convincing ourselves that “this case is different.” Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt observes, “We are intuitive politicians, constantly seeking to justify ourselves and manage our reputations rather than pursuing truth.”
Hypocrisy is not just psychological. It is also about politics and power. Orwell wrote that political language often exists to disguise inconvenient truths. Institutions invoke noble ideals to bolster authority, then carve out exceptions to protect influence.
Partisanship intensifies these pressures. Loyalty to “the cause” often overrides loyalty to universal ideals. The ends are believed to justify the means, and longterm ideals are undermined for short-term political gains. Morality and ethics become a team sport, with principles wielded as weapons rather than even-handed guides. In such an environment, hypocrisy and corruption are not anomalies, they are inevitable.
Partisan politics is a poison to organizations that claim to be impartial, broad-minded, and universal in scope. Groups such as the Unitarian Universalist Church, the ACLU, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and science journals depend on credibility built on free thinking, open inquiry, and even-handedness. When they allow partisan agendas to shape which principles they uphold and which they set aside, they undermine their own foundations and lose credibility.
The Broader Cost of Institutional Hypocrisy
When institutions betray the principles they publicly proclaim, the damage extends far beyond their own walls. Hypocrisy erodes trust not only in the organizations involved but also in institutions more broadly, weakening public confidence across the board.
The Unitarian Universalist Church has shrunk sharply in recent years as more members have come to see a large gap between its proclaimed ideals and its organizational practices. The ACLU and FFRF face declining respect as their stances appear inconsistent. Political parties and media outlets lose credibility when they betray their values, fueling cynicism. Scientific institutions lose public support when objectivity appears compromised. Over time, repeated failures create a generalized skepticism.
On the Other Hand, Exceptions Can Point Out the Limits of Principles
There are always nuances and gray areas. Exceptions often reveal the limits of abstract principles themselves. Broad slogans such as “freedom for all,” “no censorship,” or “tolerance always” cannot account for every real-world situation. The moment we make fair exceptions, we acknowledge that our rules are incomplete, context-dependent, and often in conflict with other values.
This does not excuse hypocrisy, but it does remind us that principles are human constructs, imperfect and open to revision. The act of exception-making, in this sense, is both a betrayal and an admission of complexity.
Recognizing this dual truth, that hypocrisy is both a human failing and a window into the limits of our ideals, calls for humility. Rather than pretending our principles are flawless or pretending we always follow them, we must acknowledge their fragility and strive to apply them with consistency, honesty, and self-awareness, while also acknowledging the detrimental cost of our hypocrisy.
References and Further Reading
The ACLU Retreats From Free Expression by former ACLU board member Wendy Kaminer
The ACLU Has Lost Its Way by law professor Lara Bazelon
The Regrettable Dogmatism of Freedom From Religion Foundation Free Inquiry
Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and the ‘new religion’ of gender ideology by Government and Public Service Professor Valerie M. Hudson
Standing on the Side of Power: Essay on the Unitarian Universalist Church by UU minister Rev. Munroe Sicafoose
How the UUA Manufactures Consent by UU Minister Rev. Gary Kowalski
Even While Railing Against It, the Republican Party Has Become a Champion of Cancel Culture (US News and World Report
How Scientific American sacrificed science for progressive politics, New York Post
Scientific American Dedicates Itself to Politics Not Science by biology professor Jerry Coyne
The Root of All Hypocrisy Psychology Today
How (and Why) Power Corrupts People Psychology Today
Can We Still Trust the Experts? The Siren Song of Influence: How political partisanship and advocacy lower public trust in scientific institutions
Great piece. What I wish is that everyone would allow free speech for everyone, and be loud about their own beliefs and values if they want, but never try to force their values on others. But of course, as you point out, this is too simple. One obvious example: someone might have the idea that slavery is not wrong, and while they perhaps should be able to say they think that, no one should actually let them enslave anyone. Everyone else should force their no-slavery values on them.