What Good Is Cake If You Can’t Eat It? Prescriptions for and Conclusions About American Attitudinal Hypocrisy

Abstract

After conglomerating the eclectic empirical and aesthetic concoctions of the previous chapters, what conclusions can be drawn? Broadly, the deep distinctions between social issues and economic issues are tough to overstate; what drove either category of issue hypocrisies was typically rooted in ideologically interactive effects and fundamental dispositional divisions. As a result, I discourage all who are even negligibly politically engaged from attacking one another for wielding contradictory attitudes—and not just because the 2016 electorate had absolutely zero people with non-hypocritical attitudes (viz., the pot calling the kettle black). Instead, I celebrate attitudinal hypocrisy because it is mostly uncontrollable and universal to political ideology. Though it has its limits (e.g., prejudicial attitudes and avoidance of scientific progress) and its drawbacks (e.g., unprincipled people with political power), attitudinal hypocrisy is an important research avenue and an important part of including oneself in a political community.

My candle burns at both ends;

It will not last the night;

But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends—

It gives a lovely light!

—Edna St. Vincent Millay (1922), “First Fig”