Justice With Exceptions: A Critique of Left-Wing Hypocrisy

Justice is a word that should inspire hope, fairness, and impartiality. But lately, its invocation by some politically far-left voices has become a troubling example of hypocrisy. Justice, by definition, must apply universally—otherwise, it ceases to be justice and devolves into tribalism. However, in the rhetoric of some outspoken “woke” advocates, justice is wielded selectively, betraying the very principles it claims to uphold.

Before I begin, let me be clear: hypocrisy is not the sole domain of the left. It exists across the political spectrum. On the right, we often see those who profess unwavering commitment to family values, yet their personal lives tell a different story. Others champion fiscal responsibility but support policies that balloon deficits when it suits their agenda. This inconsistency—paying lip service to ideals while contradicting them in practice—is a human failing, not a partisan one. However, acknowledging this universal flaw does not excuse it. Instead, it underscores the importance of holding ourselves accountable to the principles we claim to uphold, regardless of our political affiliations.

“Justice cannot be for one side alone but must be for both.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

A Distorted Vision of Justice

Consider the recent murder of Brian Thompson, the CEO of United Healthcare. Some voices on the far left claimed this act of violence was justified because of the company’s profit-driven role in healthcare. This reaction mirrors a chilling double standard. The same individuals who demand protection for marginalized communities—like transgender individuals—turn around and condone harm against others based on their wealth or perceived privilege.

This selective morality is troubling. If justice is to mean anything, it cannot exclude individuals based on their occupation, status, or tribe. Targeting CEOs for their roles in profit-driven industries does not align with justice; it represents vengeance masked as morality.

How can you call for social justice and at the same time condone the murder of another person?  Can they not see they are no longer seeking justice in any sense of the word?  What does “social justice” mean for them in this case? It devolves to favoritism for their tribe.  But it goes beyond favoritism into leftist version of fascism.

Now, you might argue that this is no different from capital punishment—that someone who profits off the suffering of others deserves punishment. But this comparison fails to hold up under scrutiny. Capital punishment, flawed as it may be, operates within a framework of established laws, agreed-upon standards of behavior, and due process. It involves a trial to determine guilt or innocence, with safeguards intended to prevent revenge killings and mob justice. Importantly, these laws are not meant to serve the interests of a single group or tribe but to reflect a consensus standard applicable to all. When we bypass these principles and endorse harm based solely on personal grievances or ideological alignments, we abandon justice and regress to chaos. True justice demands impartiality and restraint, not the whims of tribal retribution.

When we bypass these principles and endorse harm based solely on personal grievances or ideological alignments, we abandon justice and regress to chaos.

Hypocrisy in Rhetoric and Action

This pattern isn’t new. When an assassination attempt was made on President-elect Donald Trump, numerous social media posts from the left expressed regret that the sniper had missed. Such rhetoric, rooted in hate, reveals a moral inconsistency: condemning harm to one group while endorsing or ignoring harm to another.

You know you’re not dealing with impartiality or justice when the response changes based on who the players are. Imagine if the presidential candidate targeted by an assassination attempt were a trans woman, and others expressed the same regret about the failed attempt. In such a scenario, those comments would rightly be condemned as hate speech. The outcry from the left would be swift and unequivocal, with calls to cancel the offenders, and in some countries, the posters might even face legal consequences. Yet, when the target is someone deemed undeserving of protection, like a conservative leader or a wealthy CEO, such expressions of harm are often excused or even celebrated. This selective application of outrage reveals not a commitment to justice, but a deeply entrenched tribalism that prioritizes allegiance over principle.

We see this daily in the phenomenon of “cancel culture,” which reflects an authoritarian mindset often associated with the left. Rather than engaging in reasoned debate, it silences dissenting voices through ostracism and economic harm. This behavior starkly contrasts with the inclusivity and equity these same individuals frequently champion. Some have even begun labeling this trend as a form of fascism. Traditionally, fascism is defined as a far-right, authoritarian political ideology marked by dictatorial power, the forcible suppression of opposition, and stringent control over society and the economy. It typically involves centralized autocratic governance, severe economic and social regimentation, and the suppression of dissent through censorship and state control. While cancel culture lacks the formal state apparatus of fascism, its tactics echo the ideological suppression central to authoritarian systems.

This selective application of outrage reveals not a commitment to justice, but a deeply entrenched tribalism that prioritizes allegiance over principle.

It’s easy to see why some are calling this behavior fascist. While there may not be a single dictator, there are momentary dictators—ideological influencers and professors—who take turns wielding power through their collective outrage. From TikTok posts to classroom lectures, these figures issue their proclamations, and their followers, without a moment’s thoughtful consideration, rush to enforce them. Then, a new influencer steps in, and the cycle begins anew. It’s a cunning strategy: the movement perpetuates itself while forcing any opposition to play an endless game of ideological whack-a-mole.

The Moral Myopia of Selective Justice

Disagree with the woke crowd, and you’ll often find yourself accused of inheriting the sins of long-dead white male patriarchs, as though guilt is a transferable property. They claim the moral high ground, but their selective application of “justice” undermines any legitimate claim to moral superiority. To be fair, I’m not suggesting that anyone truly holds the moral high ground—we all have flaws and blind spots. However, it is the height of hypocrisy to posture as morally superior while unapologetically engaging in the same injustices they condemn. True integrity requires consistency, not selective outrage that serves only to bolster one’s ideological tribe.

It often appears that their ultimate aim is not justice but elevating their tribe above all others, fueled by an underlying jealousy of others’ success. The irony is palpable: many far-left activists who denounce greed as the root of societal problems fail to see how envy—a form of greed—drives much of their own rhetoric. Their jealousy of others’ wealth, status, or influence becomes a moral pretext to justify harm, whether through ostracism, economic sabotage, or outright vilification. This envy masquerades as virtue, but in truth, it reveals a deeply flawed moral compass, one that prioritizes resentment over genuine fairness or equality.

True Justice vs. Selective Justice: A Higher Standard

True justice stands in stark contrast to the selective justice we see so often today. Rooted in Christian doctrine—and echoed in principles of other traditions like Buddhism—it demands universal compassion and fairness, extending even to those we may deem unworthy or morally questionable. Christ’s call to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39) and to love even your enemies (Matthew 5:44) sets a standard that transcends tribalism. This form of justice does not prioritize the needs, desires, or grievances of one’s own group; instead, it rejects harm against anyone, whether they are marginalized individuals or affluent CEOs. It is impartial, selfless, and unwaveringly fair.

Selective justice, by contrast, undermines its own legitimacy. It erodes moral authority by bending the principles of fairness to serve tribal or ideological ends. This is not justice—it is tribal vengeance, cloaked in the language of righteousness. If we are to build a truly fair and just society, we must strive for justice that is blind to personal biases, indifferent to the identity of the individual, and focused solely on addressing the wrong behavior in need of correction.

“The foundation of justice is good faith.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero

True justice aims not for revenge, but for rehabilitation and reconciliation. It seeks to heal rather than harm, to unite rather than divide. It reminds us that justice, when applied unevenly or selectively, becomes injustice. A fairer world is possible, but only when we embody the principles we claim to uphold, applying them universally with love, humility, and a steadfast commitment to true fairness.

Advocating for Justice Without Abandoning Accountability

While this post calls for true justice, it’s important to clarify that accountability is a key component of fairness. CEOs and corporations must be held to ethical standards and challenged to use their wealth responsibly. In a free market society, the most effective way to influence change is through our spending habits. Boycotts, activism, and dialogue are constructive tools that empower individuals to demand fairness without resorting to harm or violence. However, the challenge lies in participation—most people are reluctant to alter their purchasing habits, and as a result, little changes. Yet, in a free society, this inertia reflects the will of the people, however imperfect it may seem.

This stagnation often frustrates those who view corporate profits as unfairly derived from the suffering of others. In their disillusionment, they become susceptible to the rhetoric of “15-minute dictators”—those influencers or ideologues who stoke outrage and incite destructive action. When this happens, the call for justice devolves into calls for harm, dragging society into a downward spiral of chaos.

But this spiral is not inevitable. We have the power to reverse it by fostering love, compassion, and constructive solutions. Hate never leads upward; it only pulls us further into division and despair. If we truly want justice, we must reject the allure of vengeance and instead choose paths that build bridges, encourage reform, and inspire positive change. Only through compassion and a steadfast commitment to fairness can we create a society where justice prevails.

Conclusion: Justice, Hypocrisy, and the Path Forward

This post has explored the complexities of justice, highlighting the dangers of hypocrisy and selective morality within modern discourse. While injustice and greed are legitimate concerns, the response must always uphold the principles of fairness, accountability, and compassion. Selective justice—applied inconsistently or tribally—erodes moral credibility and leads to division, resentment, and chaos. True justice, in contrast, transcends personal biases, seeking not revenge but rehabilitation and reconciliation.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

We’ve examined the pitfalls of cancel culture, the misplaced outrage that fuels it, and the need for ethical accountability in society. While frustrations with systemic issues can lead to destructive calls for harm, the solution lies not in hatred but in constructive action—through advocacy, economic choices, and open dialogue. The path to a fairer world requires universal compassion, a commitment to consistency, and a rejection of the authoritarian impulses that feed tribalism.

Ultimately, hate drags us down, but love and fairness elevate us all. By embodying these values, we can resist the pull of tribal vengeance and instead work toward a society grounded in true justice for all.

Excerpt

True justice demands universal fairness, transcending tribalism and selective outrage. It rejects harm, seeking accountability and reconciliation through love and compassion. In contrast, selective justice erodes credibility, fueled by hypocrisy and envy. By embodying consistent principles, we can rise above division and create a society rooted in fairness, integrity, and true justice.