“Sane-Washing” and Hypocrisy in 2024 American Politics

Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For the judgment you give will be the judgment you get, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.

Matthew 7:1-5, NRSV Updated Edition

            Did Jesus utter a contradiction by saying not to judge and then immediately attacking hypocrisy? Apparently, the statement was not a command: “Do not judge!” Rather, it was pragmatic in saying that one who judges others can expect to be judged by the same standard. It amounts to a variation on the Golden Rule: expect to be treated by others in the same way you treat them.

            When he turned to hypocrisy, Jesus clearly was talking to opinion leaders who were actively criticizing him by standards they violated far more than he did. I think this was the punchline of the passage: “You guys aren’t very smart for criticizing me for things you don’t live by. In fact, you are blind to how everyone knows that you are a hundred times worse.”

            As a lifelong Southerner with roots on the farm but living mostly in cities, I came to terms with many forms of hypocrisy clothing itself in hallowed Southern conservatism. When its core is revealed, white male dominance and its fragility are the foundation being defended with sanctimonious conservative rationality. Fear, anger, and hatred are the emotions behind the hypocrisy that is camouflaged as reasonable skepticism. But hypocrisy is not limited to the South, where conservative Democrats opposed to civil rights (who were segregationists through and through) became Dixiecrats, then George Wallace supporters, then Reagan Democrats, and finally true-blue conservative Republicans and Freedom Caucus radical conservatives—covering up their fundamental racial and xenophobic prejudices with claims of respectable conservatism.

            Hypocrisy was on display in an article in the New York Times dated September 11, 2024. The lead of the story was: “For weeks, undecided voters have been asking for more substance.” The point was that a cohort of so-called undecided voters that had been consulted over and over by the Times were skeptical of Kamala Harris’ debate performance because she didn’t satisfy their desire for more flesh on her proposals. Strangely enough, they didn’t discuss Donald Trump’s lack of policies.

            Throughout the 2024 election cycle, the Times has repeatedly “sane-washed” rambling, unhinged, incomprehensible, and terroristic speeches by Donald Trump by summarizing them in ways that made it appear as if rational arguments were being presented, as would be expected in an ordinary election campaign. And now the Times reporters are presenting statements by so-called undecided voters as reasonable skepticism of Kamala Harris as they weigh the choice with Donald Trump.

            The words of Jesus reveal the hypocrisy that is involved. These undecided voters are talking about a speck in Kamala’s eye as on equal terms with the lumberyard of two-by-fours sticking out of Trump’s eyes. How do you compare Harris’ lack of fine details with statements by a candidate who knows nothing at all about policy as he utters one obvious falsehood after another. As usual, his performance was marked by terroristic threats issued by the nation’s most prominent domestic terrorist. Honestly! The instances in which Trump’s comments led directly to violence or terroristic threats that undermine our institutions are numerous. He added to them during the debate when he unleashed his terrorist followers on Springfield, Ohio, and its legal Haitian community.

            When newspaper reporters publicize with a straight face the rational doubts of undecided voters as something to be taken at its face value while disregarding the utter hypocrisy and nonsense of ignoring the psychological meltdown of an aging and confused terrorist, I believe that credibility and basic integrity have been seriously compromised.

            Voters who do not want to admit their true reasons for opposing someone can easily find ways to raise the bar higher than a candidate can reach. Behind this indecision is hypocrisy as they deny their motives for preferring someone else who can’t possibly meet the bar they set for the opposing candidate. The truth is that we have a choice between a competent female who is black and an overt terrorist who is an aging white male. Our national dilemma is equivalent to the time when Jeremiah entered the temple to proclaim the imminent conquest and destruction of Jerusalem because of bad political choices. Self-deception when making important decisions leads to hypocrisy. The words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:1-5) are in the prophetic tradition of Jeremiah’s proclamation (Jeremiah 7:1-15) and both statements apply to our present dilemma.

            People will be people. Polls have been flawed since the emergence of Donald Trump because lots of his supporters hide their real opinions and prejudices. The Times has been an example of supposedly reliable media inviting the public to play the game of pretending that plausible sounding explanations are to be accepted at face value. In ordinary times, such deception may seem harmless. No such excuse can be tolerated when one of the political choices promises to unleash personal vengeance and undermine the most sacred limitations on power built into our constitution.

            Another way of applying Jesus’ words to the 2024 election is to demand that equivalent standards must be used to judge all candidates. It’s time for hypocrisy to be called out for the unseemly prejudices that are being hidden in plain sight. We are living in Jeremiah times when truth must be proclaimed in all modern equivalents to the holy temple in Jerusalem.

References:

Jeremy W. Peters, Jack Healy and Campbell Robertson, “Pundits Said Harris Won the Debate. Undecided Voters Weren’t So Sure,” New York Times, September 11, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/us/politics/undecided-voters-react-debate.html?searchResultPosition=2

On Sane-washing: https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/debate-double-standard-media-sane-washing-trump-means-harris-must-be-twice-as-good-218950213512

About the Author

Edward G. Simmons is a Vanderbilt Ph.D. who teaches history at Georgia Gwinnett College. He is a Bible scholar, Unitarian Christian, and veteran Sunday School teacher in Presbyterian Churches. He is the author of Talking Back to the Bible and two chapters in The Spiritual Danger of Donald Trump: 30 Christian Evangelicals on Justice, Truth, and Moral Integrity edited by Ronald J. Sider. His latest book is Values, Truth, and Spiritual Danger: Progressive Christianity in the Age of Trump. Dr. Simmons is an energetic speaker for education, religious, and civic groups of all ages. He may be contacted at the following email address: egsimmons6@gmail.com.