If you are really truly in the binary position of having to choose between someone who hypocritically professes support for your values but doesn't adhere to them, vs. someone who doesn't publicly support those values at all, it's probably better to support the hypocrite. That person's base of legitimacy is tied to being virtuous in the way you respect, and you leaving open the possibility of having consequential arguments with them later, whereas the other person's legitimacy is derived from no such presentation of virtue.
I would be worried that the hypocrite is intellectually dishonest or ~incapable of tracking reality, though. If they’re just being dishonest, why should you expect to have ‘consequential arguments’ with them later?
The broader public also does a poor job of enforcing their sense of who is and isn’t legitimate.
In contrast, someone with different values (but who is actually adhering to those values) at least has the basic machinery to follow through on their word, which means that, conditional on them professing to have their mind changed, it will have been c... (read more)
Depends a lot on the situation, don't you think?
I might think hypocrisy is reflective of bad character traits, and therefore expect the hypocrite to be bad in ways not accounted for just by them not really adhering to my values.