Democrats losing all credibility in denial of overwhelming evidence..

[Dill]

(03-26-2024, 08:52 AM)hollodero Wrote: I agree with everything in your entire statement. The only thing I observe time and again that I feel like adding is that imho many liberals use the "who is worse" aspect to excuse, or say flat-out dismiss, each and every precarious developments or misdeeds happening on their side of the aisle. I often read statements seemingly akin to "Trump is worse, hence nothing to see here, case closed - disagree and you're with Trump". Which, in my humble opinion, leads to many more independent, gettable voters getting pushed away.

I keeping thinking we are on the same page with most of this. But the bolded makes me unsure. I'm not aware of anyone who says "disagree and you're with Trump," though some of us do understand how "both sidesism" and the general undermining of criticism of Trump as just "hate" tends to deflate a threat we should be recognizing. 

We agree on the danger of Trump, but see it playing out in rather different rhetorical environments, in which arguments have rather different effects.

To explain that, I'll start from a distance. I've noticed that several times when I've entered discussion about the history of U.S. slavery and its repercussions in our politics, someone or some group has reminded me that "black people had slaves too." Why do they believe that needs to be said? I can only guess they aren't hearing history and an attempt to understand current US institutions and voter behavior. They are sensing race blame, apparently of a sort that can only be avoided if the history is avoided, or there is a reminder "both sides do it."

Something like that may have been at work in the recent revisions of Florida public school history curriculum, to include positive comments about how slavery helped slaves and speculation that two blacks may have killed some whites during the white massacre of a black community. So both sides do it? Black people can massacre too? 

When you jump into this forum with your trenchant and very informed critiques of U.S. politics, I focus on the problems you are addressing. I don't have an irrepressible urge to remind you there are bad politicians in Austria too. (Though you'd probably welcome that, lol.) I don't feel that "needs to be said" because we're not talking about Austria and you are not "attacking" the US because you "hate" us. 

But I think there are people who have a non-analytical mindset which sees historical/political discussions as always primarily a leveraging of moral positions from which to denounce others. If you like America you don't criticize it. We (whites?) had slavery? Well ok, so did they ("Blacks" in general? Somewhere?)! I'm reminded of a Regnery Press publication on the Civil War which makes a big point of reviewing northern states which had slavery and advancing claims that blacks fought with the Confederate Army. (See, they weren't so racist! and anyway the North did it too! Real issue was states rights.)

From within that mindset, critiques of Trump of a sort you and I regularly make ALWAYS sound like so much "proving who's worse." Speaking for myself, I am warning of a danger with serious consequences. Who's worse is of no consequence. What is of consequence is an autocrat, backed by a leader-worshiping party, taking the White House and ready to prosecute "treason."  My goal in warning about that is to prevent it, not to make some individual soul in a sports team forum feel less.

So if there are "gettable voters" with this mindset, it's going to be very hard to get them, if the reasons for voting against Trump automatically make them feel "worse," given the amount of moral ammunition Trump gives the other side.

If you approach this persuasive task constantly mentioning or admitting that, of course, Dems have their bad guys too, then I fear that works more like a Regnery Press book. The targets of persuasion hear "both sides do it" when, on the most critical issue of threatening democracy, one side is manifestly NOT doing it. Whether some Dems are corrupt or say nice things about a BLM riot is not the issue. We are making arguments in a politicized media environment in which it is in one side's interest to deflate the threat, primarily via serial equivalence. 

Wednesday morning Karl Rove was on a Fox morning show addressing the Rona McDaniel firing as suppression of free speech. As far as her election denialism, Rove asked what about John Lewis, who said Bush was not legitimate back in 2008? Like "oh those Dems, making such a big deal about a president persuading tens of millions of people a lie was true and getting them to act on that knowledge to invalidate an election." But they deny elections too! "The dem double standard."  Thread after thread in this forum seems to go that direction. Someone posts some Trump horror, and three or four posts in people are already diluting it.