A better economic analysis of Congressman Allen's behavior would consider the utility to him and to the larger society of sponsoring policies he doesn't believe in or personally support in order to to attract the support of the religious right. It's "cheap" for a politician to sponsor sexual restrictions (and any other sorts of ideological trash) as long as he believes they won't apply to his private life. In other words, what's the social and personal cost and benefit of pandering, not hypocrisy. In this case, he obviously underestimated the risk factors in his calculation, and it serves him right. I think the social cost of this kind of pandering can be very high, especially when it risks institutionalizing divisive and largely unenforceable policies, while encouraging and empowering intolerant minorities and rewarding unprincipled politicians.

How is it hypocrisy when a person believes that a certain policy, whether taxation, military or social, is good for the entire body politic, including, to the extent practicable, him/herself, and votes to put it in place? Should the vote fail, is it therefore hypocritical for the advocate of that policy not to affectuate that policy as an individual? I believe that a certain level of taxation best accords with the policies I advocate. Should my government disagree, and levy taxes at a lower rate, must I pay more than others (to the government) to avoid the label hypocrite? Since I cannot control (as an individual) the uses to which my taxes are put, I'm clearly not obligated to make such a voluntary contribution to government. And since the charitable contributions (in money or kind) of each of us is subject to such a variety of personal factors, any such calculation would be fruitless. Does my taking time and energy to support Democratic candidates count as a voluntary contribution to foreign aid? I'm afraid the article is reductionist in the extreme.