Capitol Hearings: Competing Narratives

[Dill]

(07-31-2021, 08:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Democrats might be a little stricter (as I said, to me one side clearly is worse), but there's enough counterexamples. Whatever happened to Cuomo, by the way, is this already done and forgotten? That Stacey Abrams did not concede even though she lost in a certified election does not matter much. Even though Trump gets roasted for the same thing (more than just that thing, but still). That is a double standard, isn't it? Maxine Waters pleads for riots if a court doesn't reach the desired verdict. Neglecting what could be perceived as a call for violence, wasn't prejudging a case in that manner real bad when Trump did it? Or calling the courts biased in general, for that matter.

This could turn into one of my lists, but I don't feel like doing that. Double standards are common place, imho.

Remember, the question on the dock is not whether double standards are common place or even whether “both sides” deploy them. The question I raised was “do Trump media constructed alternative narratives make a difference—how or how not?” I say they MAINTAIN RW Trump politics at the moment. And after your response, the added question now is whether and/how double standards fit the answer(s) to that primary question. If we find that Abrams did not concede her election loss, do we also find it was for the same reason as Trump, with the same consequences even for local, not to mention national consequences, with the same party and MSM support? 

Cuomo: the issue for my question is not only whether Cuomo engaged in scandalous behavior, but whether it will indeed be “done and forgotten.” How will Dem national leadership and the MSM respond to him, as well as Dem voters. Will we see Biden and Harris and Senate and House leaders circling the wagons to defend one of their own against a “witch hunt”? Or deafening silence?  Will Rachel and Chris Hayes rail against GOP “hypocrisy” and revive the appropriate Trump scandals in a coordinated Tu quoque alternative narrative? Here is indeed a test case for the thesis that accountability is different in each party, that the Dems are not a mirror-image regime party with media component.
 
Recap: I said that double standards DO matter, for everyone. The “other side’s” are the primary driver of anger for each side. If I understand you, you are saying that “both sides” provide examples of DSs and look past their own side’s—though you grant, as an aside, that one side looks past rather greater and more blatant violations than the other. 

For me, that’s not an aside. That is the point and the problem, the main reason why the US risks falling ever deeper into authoritarian politics.  We don't resist that fall by constantly noting that, technically, "both sides do it," and stopping there. That enables   the constant push for false equivalence, undercutting accurate analysis by leaving out critical details.