It might not be new news, but it is news nonetheless that principle is in alarmingly short supply in our national politics and that hypocrisy, often of the shameless variety, is the currency of the realm.

Of course, this is not just some recent development. As long as politicians, in our system and others, have sought to gain, exercise and maintain power, it has been a part of the process. But I am far from alone in sensing that the hypocrisy these days is amped up, more blatant and far more in your face.

There are no innocents here (certainly including myself in my days of direct political engagement) and both parties are grossly culpable – even if that culpability is not evenly distributed at any given moment.

Readers wanting to simply hand out white hats of virtue to one party and black hats of shame to the other would be well advised to seek out other columnists. Or to forget columnists altogether and simply purchase pom-poms in their chosen red or blue hue. 

Before we lay waste to the very notion of situational ethics, it’s important to consider its roots. The idea that there are no universal rules or rights and that each case and each issue must be considered in its unique context is represented throughout history and a good deal of theology.

The Ten Commandments clearly instruct, “Thou shalt not kill.” While a few take that to be absolute and controlling regardless of circumstance, most would make an exception if defending their country or if their own life or that of a loved one was under imminent threat. In that case and many others, that moral standard would be situational.

However, there is quite some distance between such questions of big-picture morality and the spectacle that often passes for political debate at the moment.

Indeed, politics is a team sport. Hence, our political parties and partisan system. But that partisanship has grown so exaggerated and so corrosive that wide swaths of the country now substitute such interests for any sense of ethical standards.

How else do you explain those on the right who demonize George Soros’s political money but gladly spend that of Charles Koch? Or those on the left who are so aggrieved over Donald Trump’s notorious womanizing but, at least at the time, willfully looked the other way at Bill Clinton’s?

Or Democrats here in Colorado who lament the influence of big money in politics but were more than happy to lend their vote as Jared Polis purchased the governorship? Or Republicans these days quick to jump on Hunter Biden’s sleazy profiteering while not batting an eye as Trump blatantly uses his office to enrich himself? 

And on. And on. 

In the hypocrisy hall of shame, there may be a special place for Ken Starr. While the Clinton and Trump impeachments involve different facts and different abuses, it takes a special kind of moral dexterity to argue – with straight face, no less – that the former was an important and necessary procedure while the latter now playing out in front of us is an unworthy abuse of congressional discretion.

In a nation of cynics, perhaps made that way by such brazen pretense, we can be excused for suspecting that Starr’s differentiating standard might have less to do with ethics or legal doctrine than with elemental, raw partisanship. 

At the outset of this Senate impeachment trial, all 100 senators swore to render “impartial justice”. No doubt, that is a fallacy in this hyper-partisan age. 

As of this writing, attention is focused on the tiny handful of Republican senators who may – may – break ranks and vote to have witnesses. No senators have yet indicated an inclination to vote contrary to their party on the ultimate question of conviction or acquittal. 

In the frequent formulation, Republicans are criticized as being hyper-partisan in their unwavering allegiance to the president. But are Democrats any less partisan in their impeachment zeal?

If Cory Gardner is a partisan shill in defending the president at almost all costs (as he may well be), is Michael Bennet any less partisan in his judgment? 

In this kabuki dance, it very much takes two to tango. 

While we should expect more from our political leaders, it is a mistake to expect too much. As a general rule, regardless of the era, they can be counted on as a sub-species to be opportunistic, to pursue self-advantage and to have a certain moral pliability. There are no virgins among them.

But this isn’t about them as politicians; it is about us as citizens. 

There is a fine line between enthusiastic, unwavering team fandom and gang code. Based on my social media, and I’m guessing yours, many are flirting with that line and more than occasionally crossing it. In the cause of partisan zealotry, many have consigned ethics to a distinctly secondary position. If your side does it, it is virtuous at best and defensible at worst. While very similar conduct by the other side is, by definition, contemptible. 

What higher order or higher calling countenances such double standards?

Last I looked at those Ten Commandments, there were no asterisks for political affiliation. 

To rebuild the practice of one, unitary standard, let me suggest an exercise of substitution. For ardent Democrats, before castigating a Republican for some perceived wrong, substitute one of your own with the same conduct and ask yourself if you’d employ the same words. Committed Republicans should do the converse. Before attacking a Democrat in the harshest terms, answer truthfully whether you’d be equally vehement in your censure of someone from your own political tribe.

If we’re ever to detoxify our politics, a good place to start would be for all of us to have a singular ethical mark for political friend and foe alike. And to give voice to that mark even when politically inconvenient.

Absent that, our politics will only grow more poisonous with situational ethics being the only ethics we know. 

Eric Sondermann is a Colorado-based independent political commentator. His column appears every Sunday in ColoradoPolitics. Reach him at EWS@EricSondermann.com; follow him at @EricSondermann