The Tyranny of Rightist Hypocrisy
Insofar as it is possible to have a rational conversation with supporters of the rightists ruling the US, well-intentioned leftists should remember that they have no shame to exploit.
Nearly everyone on the left/right spectrum can agree that political discourse in the US lacks substance and meaning. Importantly for this essay, the two criticisms could not be different in character: from the right, the media is criticized for its overly-sanitized reporting, political correctness (now “wokeness”), and perceived leftist bias, whereas the left criticizes the media by pointing out that most major news outlets are first and foremost capitalist enterprises whose funding sources and need to appeal to a broad audience slant its reporting to the center and right. Pundits and reporters are also conscious of both left and right accusations of bias but choose to alter their reporting to placate only the latter, with actual leftist publications being few and far between in a mainstream dominated by monied interests and corporate propaganda. The biased media culture in the US is reflected in its online spaces as much as it is in the real world, where public forums are hostile to “fringe” leftist ideas such as socialism and unionization but not actual fringe rightist beliefs such as QAnon and vaccine conspiracy theories. Like it or not, rational leftist discourse is beholden to the rightist narrative and must always be reactive to it, because the right is hegemonic in the US. This does not mean our capability for response is limited, nor are we unable to take the high ground and demand some basic recognition of our own terms.
The right has been increasingly couching its arguments in more radical language in an effort to normalize extremism (seen most recently in the many anti-LGBTQ+ bills emerging in Florida, Alabama, Texas, many other states, and the recent backlash against Disney, whose only crime was not vociferously denouncing the LGBTQ+ community at every turn), and our responses to their theatrics do make a difference, if not to the rightists themselves (who are mostly either unreachable true believers or cynics who have a more prurient interest in the success of their ideology) then to observers who might still be undecided. This creeping fascism cannot be allowed to continue unopposed, but the right strategy is necessary to combat it most effectively, lest we fail to strongly repudiate it and only give the regressive ideas more attention.
We as leftists know that the right is incorrect in its beliefs, so how do we proceed in responding to their claims? Do we take the high road and stick to our principles (risking irrelevancy), allow ourselves to get mired in their assumptions (such as that gay teachers might be groomers), accuse them of hypocrisy (many of them are), or try another tact? It is of course unfair that we are trapped in this rhetorical milieu, but the inroads rightists have made against the rights of society’s most vulnerable demands a strategy of opposition that pulls no punches if we wish to save their lives:
Dr. Sujatha Prabhakaran could barely get her words out through the tears.
“As a physician caring for these patients, I know that this guidance from the Florida Department of Health puts youth in harm’s way,” she said, her voice cracking as the tears came. “It’s cruel to use the health care of children and adolescents as a political playground to attack and attempt to erase the trans and gender diverse community from Florida.”
Prabhakaran joined a panel of speakers Thursday for a zoom conference sponsored by the Florida Coalition for Transgender Liberation. The call was a response to DOH guidelines released Wednesday that discourages treatment of gender dysphoria for children and adolescents with hormone therapy, puberty blockers, or social transitioning. All three are treatments medical professionals and members of the transgender community say are crucial to the safety and health of trans youth.
…
Studies conducted by The Trevor Project have found elevated rates of suicide or suicide ideation among trans youth. In 2019, it found 54% considered suicide and 29% attempted it. The Trevor Project found that something as simple as acknowledging a name change had a profound impact.
“Usage of chosen name resulted in a 29% decrease in suicidal ideation and a 56% decrease in suicidal behavior for each additional context in which it was used,” a Trevor Project report said.
Allison Yeager, Executive Director of the Florida Health policy said she sees firsthand how this policy will impact families.
“When I shared the news of this policy with my 12-year-old trans child they said to me, ‘just let me live. Just let me live.’ Our Governor this Session has signed into law the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill which was passed in the name of parental rights,” Yeager said. “But I say what about my parental rights? What about my family’s right to choose what is right for our child without the interference of the state in the name of culture wars? We’re being told that Florida is the freest state. This is not freedom. This is the inverse of freedom.”
When one’s opponents very words are poisonous and deadly, it would seem at first that responding in kind is its own kind of violence. However, reality dictates that we engage with the fact that LGBTQ+ rights are not unimpeachably enshrined in US law as of 2022—if they were unassailable, as they should be, we could afford to ignore the errant ought-to-be-fringe belief that now informs the motivations of governor Ron DeSantis, for example. By all rights, DeSantis should be ranting on a street corner somewhere, ignored by all passersby until asked to leave, and it is an indictment of us all that he is instead a relatively successful politician. With that in mind, how should we hold our noses and engage with this noxious ideas, given that doing so with fists, while justified for groups whose very existence is coming under threat, is all but impossible? It is tempting to resort to personal attacks or to point out the arguer’s hypocrisy out of frustration that the conversation is even taking place, but among the many options we have for responses, it is by far the weakest, and the rightists know this. In fact, their willingness to act as hypocrites and clowns informs a large part of their scorched earth messaging strategy.
Suppose an argument takes place that goes something like this:
Rightist statement: We should encourage family values, and that includes marginalizing LGBTQ+ people, for the sake of our children. I do not care that these policies lead directly to their depression and suicide, because the family is worth protecting from change.
Here are the possible leftist responses:
You were seen wearing women’s lingerie, so you are potentially a hypocrite and your argument is invalid (this recently happened to Representative Madison Cawthorn, a “family values” conservative who opposes gay and trans rights).
You were caught in a public restroom soliciting sex from other men, so you are in fact a known member of the community you are trying to marginalize.
You were caught in some other compromising act which is incongruous with your stated position.
The marginalization of LGBTQ+ people is a cynical ploy to drum up donations and votes for politicians who are actually unconcerned with family values.
You are succumbing to peer pressure and media-driven hysteria over “wokeness” and haven’t thought the issue through objectively.
Marginalizing LGBTQ+ children does nothing to facilitate the family values program you favor.
Even if the existence of LGBTQ+ people is anathema to the kind of family values you support, they are still worthy of equal protection and conceding that is part of the cost of living among others who do not share your values.
Marginalizing LGBTQ+ people actually harms your conception of family values in certain ways, so even from that perspective, they are worthy of equal protection under the law.
Your conception of family values is itself problematic or nonsensical and shouldn’t form the basis of a worldview that would limit the rights of others.
Your conception of family values is itself problematic or nonsensical and so should be changed to include groups such as LGBTQ+ individuals.
The marginalization of LGBTQ+ people is a dangerous part of the rightist program to make them invisible and scared to be themselves (the cruelty is the point) and is dangerous in a way you haven’t considered.
I reject the premise that your opinion has any merit whatsoever because it wasn’t based on any kind of consensual deliberation, but rather your religious belief, some specific conception of traditional values, or some other form of irrational thinking which isn’t shared by all.
What is the most effective response, one that avoids ceding even an inch of rhetorical ground? #12 is of course the most correct, but also unconvincing to anyone who doesn’t already have the correct position on the issue. Too often, leftists will resort to one of the first options, noting how scandal-ridden the Republican party is and drawing the conclusion that few of them actually believe in the principles they espouse. This response fails to address the issue, however, leaving it up in the air whether or not the rightist’s point was correct, just undermined by their own indiscretions.
Pictured above: conservative Representative Madison Cawthorn, who was recently “caught” engaged in one of the most wholesome and innocent acts of his life.
Obviously not all social conservatives are rank hypocrites, and the existence of even a few who actually live by the principles they espouse invalidates the argument from hypocrisy. That so many social conservatives are caught in compromising positions is not indicative of anything other than the natural allure of sexual freedom and expression, a recognition which, even if rightists granted it, might equally argue for policies that repress these impulses (see for example the baffling phenomenon of “reformed” LGBTQ+ individuals or ex-gays who would certainly not deny some natural inclinations but find them worth preventing via public policy). Republicans and other social conservatives have no shame, nor are they personally vulnerable in most cases, so charges of hypocrisy have no real effect on them. The best example of this is Donald Trump, a racist, philandering pusher who inherited and misused a fortune from his father (which was set up to dodge applicable taxes) and yet became the most visible face of regressive “family values” since Reagan. Privately he mocks his supporters for their fetishization of the military and religion while publicly posing with the Bible and espousing anti-“woke” policies and opposing trans rights. Nothing inherent in his character devalues those ideas, however, only Trump himself, who has no impartiality to lose.
By calling out hypocrisy, leftists cede the idea that wearing women’s lingerie as a male is wrong or odd, that soliciting sex with strangers is immoral or sinful, that being gay is abnormal or odd in any way, and most perniciously, that the private sexual lives of anyone is the governments’ business. The same eye that scandalizes rightists for their hypocritical transgressions is the one that peers into all of our bedrooms and presumes that it can pass judgment on activities between consenting adults.
That rightists are so often willing to publicly espouse “family values” while privately violating every one of them reveals an aspect of their character that has contributed greatly to their electoral success (though not as strongly as all the amassed capital). They are willing to act clownishly and purposefully abrasive to shut down debate, because they do not care about their own image—they are safe in the knowledge that even some public opprobrium will not harm their careers in the long run (see for example Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, Ray Holmberg, Jim Bakker, Milo Yiannopoulos, the Libs of Tik Tok creator, Matt Gaetz, Trump). This is the safety and security of hegemony and the funding it provides—by shouting the loudest and most ignorantly, rightists are hoping that leftists lose hope and give up, and that is why their brash ignorance is often dialed up intentionally and gleefully. They want leftists to throw their hands up and resign themselves to only a minor role in civil society and are willing to sacrifice their very image to achieve this end because they know they’ll never suffer as a result of their behavior. The same impulse often drives them to paradoxically rely on moral relativism when one of their positions is proven false: they have no valuable internal congruence to appeal to, so inconsistency is immaterial (under any kind of worthwhile deliberative system, a retreat into their own valueless worlds would preclude them from ever crossing into our own, yet bills to marginalize LGBTQ+ individuals do precisely the opposite—“I’ve got my truth, you’ve got yours” is not something a social conservative who wants to tell others how to live should ever say). On the other hand, if a leftist is shown to have conflicting beliefs, this is popularly considered a death knell for everything they have ever thought and been, because leftists value argumentative consistency.
The Libs of Tik Tok example is instructive here. This Twitter account, long known for reposting supposed leftist content from other sites to ridicule and draw attention to it, has become a powerful force in right wing politics, even being credited as a key part of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill. The Republicans who patronize this account reveal that they are mostly interested in bullying those they feel are different, which is consistent with their vocal opposition to barely-existing programs like Critical Race Theory and “wokeness” in education. On April 19, the owner of this account was outed by reporter Taylor Lorenz, and reactions to the doxxing on the left have been mixed, though mostly supportive:
On Tuesday, Washington Post internet culture reporter Taylor Lorenz came under fire for revealing the identity of a woman who has been cowering behind her computer screen to share anti-LGBTQ content anonymously. The woman, Chaya Raichik, is, according to The Post, responsible for Libs of TikTok. It’s an influential account that has more than 600,000 Twitter followers (according to The Post’s reporting, it was suspended on TikTok for violating community guidelines) and has been amplified by public figures like Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Glenn Greenwald and Meghan McCain, as well as others on the far right.
The account has called for teachers who come out to their students to be “fired on the spot,” called people who don’t conform to traditional gender identities mentally ill and accused people who teach children about LGBTQ identities of abuse. It has been suspended by Twitter twice for engaging in targeted harassment.
There are many reasons it’s inappropriate to publicly expose a person’s private information — a practice known in internet parlance as “doxxing.” But this isn’t one of them.
Let me be clear: Doxxing can be dangerous — or even deadly. There are many people who should be able to share information anonymously online. For example, to document their experiences as transgender people if they fear discrimination or even violence for openly sharing their identities. Exposing such people can put their safety in danger. And it’s never acceptable to share people’s private contact information online, like their phone numbers or email addresses, since this could be used to harass them in “real” life.
But there’s no justifiable reason to protect the identity of someone like Raichik on social media so she can spread this kind of intolerance with impunity. The public has a significant interest in knowing who is behind accounts that have major influence on public discourse about important issues, like Libs of TikTok. For example, we now know that the Russian government has tried to use social media to stoke racial tensions and promote domestic discord in the U.S. to weaken our country.
This is a correct interpretation of online anonymity and doxxing, which is different in outcome for publicly important individuals, as well as for rightists and leftists. If a right-winger gets outed, they are safe and likely to get rewarded (indeed, Raichik now has hundreds of thousands more followers on social media, a monetized Substack account, a partnership with The Babylon Bee, and an outpouring of righteous sympathy from the right-leaning media). In contrast, outing a left-winger might cost them their jobs, their safety, or their homes. In addition to this, Raichik’s influence on politics elevates her to a person of public interest whose identify should be revealed to all (contrast this to the looming possibility that LGBTQ+ teachers could be forced to resign because they were outed to the school). Rightists know they are protected even from what should be negative attention, and they know that the same tactics are massively successful against leftists. The Libs of Tik Tok creator is just the latest disposable useful idiot in their quest to normalize extremism.
In order to take part in a reasonable discussion, the barrier for entry should naturally be a minor effort to make oneself aware of the issues, but this would at the onset preclude such inanities as QAnon, “grooming,” and alternative medicine from entering the discourse. If we are being honest, it would also preclude the free market from consideration, as it is plainly and obviously nothing more than a vehicle for the already-rich to acquire even more wealth while destroying the planet, but in 2022 capitalism and other inanities are in control of our destiny and we are unfairly trapped by their ascendancy. Whether this was a foregone conclusion or not is immaterial, but it is undeniably the case that rightists are being heard and must be responded to in some way. Having grown soft with power and material comfort, they are shameless and immune to character attacks, but their words are no more valid than their character. The right response must not admit any validity in their arguments, and the right strategy is deplatforming and ostracizing the voices of hate while working to enshrine minority and LGBTQ+ rights as inalienable—instead of posing a threat to their existence, politicians like DeSantis should be consigned to grumbling privately about the groups he hates to his like-minded friends. This is why a revolutionary socialist government is the only real option to protect everyone from the vagaries of anti-“woke” mass hysteria and fascist manipulation of public opinion. In the meantime, we only have our words and actions to count on, so they should at least be effective and not beholden to bad faith actors.