"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 7:3-5).
That passage is a classic (and exaggerated for effect) reminder that we humans are hypocrites. A reasonable “definition” is that “a hypocrite is someone who believes they have virtues, beliefs, or feelings they don't actually possess.
Many understandings might emphasize “pretending to have certain virtues,” but the more-common application might simply be that we often fail to live up to our own best versions of ourselves. We fall short, even when aiming at the target.
It is less an epithet (“you’re a bad person) and more an observation about “human nature.”
It might apply when a person’s actions contradict their stated ethical standards. The word is from the Greek word for “stage actor,” which gives you the flavor.
More generally, it simply refers to the failings we humans have when judging others without recognition of our own failings. Consider the oft-heard phrase about “threats to democracy” or the claim of efforts to “protect democracy.”
Lots of logs, we might also say.
Without agreeing in any way with some “executive power” embellishments President Trump might arguably prefer; his personality traits or anything else people may dislike about him, the frequently-heard and heated “threat to democracy” litany is disingenuous and betrays a stunning lack of objectivity.
Or just call it hypocrisy.
One might just as well allege that the actions taken by many who say they are Democrats pose equivalent or greater “threats” to democracy.
Presumably because they see the president as an “existential threat,” almost any excessive remedies can be proposed, including violence of many sorts that overrides our settled governance procedures (elections, non-partisan judicial review, rule of law, “letting the system work”).
But we also have seen other actions, ranging from efforts to disqualify the president as a candidate; politically-motivated impeachments; sentiments to “pack the Supreme Court;” actual suppression of some views; spreading action misinformation; efforts to deplatform opponents and bias in the mainstream media’s reporting.
To be fair, many well-intentioned people will argue their proposals are not extreme; not dangerous to democracy; not extra-legal or inappropriate. In practice, language and action might be just as much an objective “threat to democracy” as anything they believe the president is doing.
AActor | Action | Description | Perceived Threat to Democracy |
DDemocrat Politicians | Use of violent or elimination rhetoric against political opponents | Examples include President Biden referring to "putting Trump in a bullseye" and Rep. Dan Goldman stating Trump "has to be eliminated" (later apologized). Other Democrats have used similar language portraying Trump as an existential threat. | This rhetoric is seen by critics as inciting violence or normalizing extreme measures against opponents, potentially eroding civil discourse and leading to political violence. |
DDemocrat Politicians | Efforts to disqualify political opponents from ballots | Democratic officials in states like Colorado and Maine attempted to remove Trump from primary ballots citing the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause. | Viewed as subverting voter choice and using legal mechanisms to eliminate competition, bypassing the electoral process. |
DDemocrat Politicians | Partisan impeachments and investigations | Democrats impeached Trump twice, which Republicans argue were politically motivated without sufficient evidence. | Perceived as weaponizing congressional powers for partisan gain, undermining the legitimacy of oversight and eroding institutional norms. |
DDemocrat Politicians | Proposals to alter democratic institutions | Suggestions to pack the Supreme Court, abolish the filibuster, or eliminate the Electoral College. | Critics argue these changes would concentrate power in the hands of the majority party, threatening minority rights and balanced governance. |
DDemocrat Politicians | Support for censorship or restrictions on speech | Some Democrats have advocated for social media bans on certain groups (e.g., a Georgia Democrat candidate proposing a 4-year social media ban for MAGA voters). | Seen as infringing on free speech rights, a cornerstone of democracy, to silence opposition. |
DDemocrat-Supporting Media | Spreading misinformation or biased reporting | Liberal media outlets accused of amplifying false narratives, such as the Russia collusion story, or suppressing stories like the Hunter Biden laptop. | Erodes public trust in institutions, polarizes society, and misinforms voters, undermining informed democratic participation. |
DDemocrat-Supporting Media | Inciting division through partisan coverage | Networks like MSNBC portray Republicans as threats to democracy, using inflammatory language. | Contributes to political polarization and hostility, potentially leading to violence and weakening democratic cohesion. |
DDemocrat-Supporting Media | Collaborating with tech platforms for censorship | Pressure on social media companies to deplatform conservative voices or label content as misinformation. | Limits free expression and access to diverse viewpoints, creating echo chambers and biasing public discourse. |
No such criticisms excuse fair assessment of language, tone or action on the part of the president that some find offensive. But neither is it a fair assessment that the main or only threats to “democracy” come only from one side.
They come from everywhere, from all of us, all the time.
