Is hypocrisy compatible with political success?

I wish to suggest that with only rare exceptions, it is almost impossible for a hypocrite to be elected to statewide or national office - Senator, Governor, or President.

Before stating my argument, I would ask that we relegate to some other thread the case of Mark Sanford, although his recent adventures inspired me to think about the issue. Here, I prefer to focus on claims of hypocrisy related to policy disagreements exclusive of private behavior. I've already mentioned elsewhere why I'm not yet convinced of Sanford's alleged hypocrisy, the Clinton impeachment proceedings notwithstanding, and I'll be happy to defend that position, but I believe it would distract from the principles I try to enunciate here. Please bear with me.

Years ago, I enjoyed a brief stint as an actor, until the military draft decided it had a better claim on my time. On discharge from the Army, I abandoned acting as a career and went on to other forms of make believe. During my thespian days, I became schooled in the so-called "method" style of acting, made famous by such luminaries as Marlon Brando, Paul Newman, and many others. The underlying principle of the "method", accepted by most actors including those who did not formally endorse it, involves a simple principle - in order to be most convincing on stage, an actor must imagine himself or herself as the character in question, in the circumstances of the play, and then use that imagination to respond emotionally as well as physically to those circumstances. To illustrate, if the situation is one that evokes anger, you must imagine it happening to you, and the anger will follow. Method actors are not schizophrenic, and realize they are acting, but while acting, they allow themselves to believe in the drama the playwright set out for them.

Why has method acting been so successful? Simply because an audience can tell the difference between an actor who is sad or angry, and one who is merely trying to act the way a sad or angry person acts. To phrase it even more generally, a skilled actor knows that while performing, he or she must truly believe what the playwright asks the character to believe, and not merely pretend to believe it.

Actors are not unique in the ability to believe what they must  in order to succeed. Almost all of us have this talent to some degree - we manage to convince ourselves our arguments are valid when it serves our interest to do so. Only a small minority seem at times to lack this talent. These are individuals who go by the name of "scientist", and at least while practicing their profession, often seem unable to believe anything except what the data and logic at their disposal compel them to accept.  Outside of science, however, most scientists seem as capable of advantageous believing as the rest of us.

Pretending to believe something can sometimes fool an audience as long as the audience is not also exposed to someone whose belief is sincere. That is exactly the type of competition politicians face. How then, should someone with political aspirations proceed? Given a policy controversy, he or she might practice emulating the gestures and intonations of a sincere believer, or instead practice how to truly believe in the position best suited to political advancement. In my view, most politicians, like method actors, have found that learning how to believe works far better than learning how to pretend believing. That is why I tend to doubt that many hypocrites can match true believers in competition for high public office.

What does the logic underlying policy positions have to do with these character traits? Almost nothing, in my opinion. Imagine that Senator X claims to be a champion of the average American family, and then advocates tax breaks exclusively for the corporations and the wealthiest members of the electorate. Can you believe those tax breaks are best for working Americans? Maybe not, but Senator X can. He may get there via logical contortions that would challenge the most double-jointed of performers, but he manages to do it, which is why he is a Senator, while others holding the same views have failed to advance politically.

The reason I make this argument is that I suspect much rhetoric and emotional energy is wasted on denouncing politicians as hypocritical when the more important question is whether what they profess, sincere or occasionally insincere, stands the test of logic and reality. In my view, it will always be more effective in a political debate to challenge not an adversary's sincerity, but rather the merits of the position he or she advocates.

The danger of accusing politicians of hypocrisy is that through their ability to believe what serves their purposes, they will convince the public your accusation is false, thereby distracting from the merits of the case, where you may have the upper hand.