Most people dislike hypocrisy when they see it in others, and I will include myself in that category. I don’t like hypocrisy, and therefore I don’t want to be guilty of it. But that’s not always an easy thing to avoid, as I have learned over the years.
Conservatives love to point out (presumed) liberal hypocrisy in order to prove that they are better than that. (I know. . .that seems like a laughable example of projection, but it still happens.) But I would like to point out that sometimes liberals do wander into hypocritical territory by accident or through carelessness.
From my own observation, I think this occurs most often when liberals are battling against various conservative fantasies that involve the restriction of the freedom of others. Sometimes this battle gets waged under the banner of “freedom” or “choice,” which is perfectly good and proper. People should be free to make their own choices rather than be forced to conform to what Society (or the Law) says (always with the proviso that their choice not do harm to others, of course).
But then I will see some presumed liberal express criticism of those who make a “wrong” choice. A memorable and enduring example of this was when Hillary Clinton was helping her husband campaign for President in 1992. She is remembered for one comment, but she actually made two illustrative remarks in that interview. The first was “I’m not sittin’ here like some little woman ‘standin’ by my man’ like Tammy Wynette. . .” the second, a few moments later, was the better-remembered “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but. . .”
The problem, of course, was that she was making a valid point (saying, in effect, “I am choosing to do this thing rather than the other thing”) but she phrased it unfortunately, as though suggesting that the other choice was a bad choice (and insinuating that the very popular Tammy Wynette was a bad woman). Naturally, she caught a lot of flak for it from conservative women (and men), and that flak was well-deserved. Not because she was wrong—she really wasn’t—but because a good politician needs to speak carefully so as not to be misunderstood, and she messed up on that level. On the other hand, and to her credit, she later acknowledged that she had goofed, and tried to make up for it. And she did that even though the people who jumped on her probably weren’t trying to help her improve. She took that path anyway. Good for her. And there’s the lesson: if you make a mistake and it gets pointed out and you know the critic is right, then you acknowledge it, learn from it, and do better next time. She did all that. And that’s the example I like to point to.
You see, there are liberals and progressives who seem to forget that the freedom to make a different choice is not a requirement to make a different choice. That seems obvious when you say it out loud, but it’s easy to forget when working for change in the real world. There’s a line in the move Mona Lisa Smile that underscores this, when Bill says to Katherine, “You didn't come to Wellesley to help people find their way. You came to Wellesley to help people find your way.”
Oh, but isn’t that just a conservative Republican talking point? It certainly could be used that way, but so what? That doesn’t negate its being a valuable caution. It is very, very weak to answer an argument—even if it’s a popular conservative talking point—by shouting, “You’re a racist, sexist, PIG!” That’s not an answer; that’s just an indication (to the other person) that you didn’t have any actual answer, so all you could do was emote. And don’t we laugh at them when conservatives do that? Yes, but that sword cuts both ways.
So if you notice somebody (possibly even yourself) jumping on a professed liberal who chooses to complete a problematic pregnancy rather than have an abortion, or marry and stay at home to raise her own children rather than pursue an independent career, or be enthusiastically involved with a church rather than eschewing all forms of organized religion. . .try to remember that this person is actually living out the liberal/progressive ideal of making her or his own choice, rather than it being a wrong choice. And if, for whatever reason, you see somebody whose own anti-conservatism is driven more by hatred of the old (all that is old and “traditional,” not just the truly bad parts like racism and the sexist double standard), gently suggest to him or her that freedom of choice means freedom to make any choice that does not harm others, not just the freedom to make “liberal” choices (whatever that might mean). Otherwise you are no better than the people whose spiritual ancestors worked for (and occasionally went to jail for or died for) religious freedom for all, but who now want everybody to conform to their conception of what is “right.”