Have you ever been in a situation when someone was being a real jerk to you, and you tried to engage calmly and reasonably in a conversation with that person? Then a third person came along and said, “Okay, you two, break it up. You’re both out of line here,” or something to that effect? And you wanted to protest, “NO, not you TWO! That ONE! I didn’t do anything wrong. I’ll admit I might be a jerk sometimes, but today was not my day! “
Did one of your parents ever break up a fight between you and a sibling by pronouncing you equally responsible and sending both of you to your rooms, when you were not at fault (that day)? How about a teacher who came into the room to find pandemonium and then penalized the whole class when a little investigation would have told them the problem was the work of two or three instigators?
How did those experiences make you feel? Each one has happened to me, and I have felt angry and resentful, and I still feel a bit resentful when one or two of the incidents come to mind. When I am at fault, I will accept responsibility for my actions; but when I get called out simply for engaging with someone who’s being unreasonable, it’s frustrating because the accusation creates a false equivalence between the jerk and me, which in that particular instance is unjustified.
Last night, I along with millions of others around the globe endured 90 minutes of the meanest, most childish, most shameful and embarrassing behavior ever witnessed on a presidential debate stage. The spectacle was a new low, even for a “president” who had already broken nearly every norm he possibly could and certainly a new low for the dignity of our republic.
Within a half hour after we were all put out of our misery by the “closing bell,” I began seeing social media posts about how abominably the two candidates conducted themselves, how they were more like two naughty school boys than candidates for our country’s highest office, how the moderator was forced to act like a school principal trying to corral these two hooligans.
Wait a minute! If that is not a false equivalence, there is no such thing. As Frank Bruni so aptly put it in his next-morning NYT column, although Joe Biden flung a little mud, when you’ve been dragged into the pig sty, there’s not much else you can do.
Joe Biden came prepared to debate, as he has many times during his career. Joe has never been known as a stellar debater or public speaker, but he has a firm grasp on the facts and an understanding of the world and of how government works, and he presents that information in a clear and coherent way. You know, complete sentences and stuff like that. He draws on his 47 years of experience, does the debate prep ahead of time, and expects to face a worthy opponent. Of course, he knew in this case what he’d be up against, but I don’t think anyone anticipated the depth to which Trump would stoop (not that anyone thought him incapable) or the utter chaos and havoc he would wreak onstage.
Donald Trump has made no secret of the fact he does little to no preparation for debates. In this case, his only prep seems to have been determining to consume all of the oxygen in the room, and at that he succeeded. Trump, from the first moments of the “debate,” bullied and abused both his opponent and the moderator, abused the process, abused his office, and abused the public trust we should all be able to have in our elected officials.
Chris Wallace was, in hindsight, not a good fit for moderator. He’s too genteel, soft spoken, and conciliatory to handle the likes of Donald Trump. Trump behaved the only way he is capable of behaving: insecure, angry, hostile, and combative. Chris Wallace behaved the only way he is capable of behaving: a gentleman who expects others to be as genteel as he is and to honor the process and the rules as he does. If there must be another debate, I’d like to recommend Samuel L. Jackson as moderator. Perhaps one or two of these lines would help shape things up: “English, mother*f^%er, do you speak it?” (Pulp Fiction) or “Hold onto your butts” (Jurassic Park) or “Given that it’s a stupid-ass decision [substitute ‘statement’ here], I’ve elected to ignore it” (The Avengers). End of digression.
All three made errors, but to call this an “everybody-was-wrong” situation is irresponsible. There are many reasons for drawing false equivalences, but there is no justification for such lazy thinking.
A teacher or parent might find it more pragmatic to discipline everyone involved than to do the work of investigation or to face the ire or risk the retaliation of the one or two trouble makers who really deserve correction. One might cover for a spouse or child by attempting to spread the blame for the wrongdoing rather than admitting that the loved one was really the sole guilty party. A follower of a political candidate may be unwilling to admit they’ve been fooled by the person they admire, so they’d rather equalize the situation by making everyone wrong.
In a broader sense, however, the tendency to draw false equivalences is symptomatic of lazy thinking and a misguided desire to maintain neutrality, both of which are always dangerous but now more so than ever before. We’re living in a time for which there is no map, no historical precedent; we can’t afford to pretend otherwise.
The lazy thinker who doesn’t want to do the hard work of thinking, reading, listening, and evaluating finds comfort in affixing broad labels to groups: lumping every member into one large category, rather than recognizing a broad range of categories. “The media,” “religion,” and “politics” come to mind.
Media bashing is an Olympic-level sport, and the criticism is often well deserved. But pick up a copy of the New York Times or the Washington Post and lay it beside a copy of the National Enquirer or Star, and it would be impossible to place them all under one heading, except that they are all part of “the media.”
Investigative journalism is essential to democracy. Investigative journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein brought down a corrupt president. From the Pentagon Papers in 1971 to the Panama Papers published in 2016 as well as many other information troves, investigative journalists have done what few others could have achieved, exposing corruption and toppling leaders across the globe. Every day, reputable journalists are at work bringing us the information we need to remain informed citizens and to maintain our democracy–information we would have no other means of accessing. To equate them with writers and publishers of salacious gossip and conspiracy theories or of carelessly researched and sloppily reported purveyors of political biases is both insulting and irresponsible.
How often have you heard generalizations about religion, churches, ministers, and politicians? The reason, I think, is that it’s easier than having to think and make distinctions. But it’s also dangerous, because such generalizations create public distrust in institutions essential to our survival as a nation.
Another outcome of false equivalence is somewhat akin to the “two wrongs make a right” thinking. One person points out a fault in a public figure, such as a presidential candidate, and another immediately responds with “Well, your candidate does that too” or “They all do that” or “That’s true of both sides.” As long as the second speaker feels they have tied the score, they can dismiss the entire issue without the inconvenience of having to do any further thinking about it. One of my favorite quotations from Ralph Waldo Emerson is this:
“A sect or party is an elegant incognito designed to save a man from the vexation of thinking.”
For an example, see the masses who believe and follow Donald Trump’s every word. It’s so much easier and more comfortable to simply carry the party line than have to reason out every issue for oneself. The same is true of anyone who espouses a religion or political affiliation without ever questioning its precepts.
The most dangerous effect of false equivalence is that it enables neutrality, and no one can afford to be neutral in these perilous times. If Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives are equally corrupt, no one has to do the work of promoting truth, because there is no truth. Serious truth seekers must discern between good and evil, between right and wrong, between bad and really bad. And then they have to be willing to stand on the side of good and right, no matter the cost. It’s the truth that sets us free; neutrality keeps us in bondage.
Lumping together Donald Trump and Joe Biden as badly behaved school boys and Chris Wallace as an equally bad performer ignores several crucial facts.
Only one person on the stage did a shout-out to white supremacists, calling one group by name and telling them to “stand back and stand by.” Within an hour or so after the debate ended, the Proud Boys had crafted themselves a new logo out of Trump’s words and published it. They then pledged their allegiance and their eagerness to serve with the statement “Well sir, we’re ready.” How does anyone see this as acceptable? In what world do these words seem fitting for a “law-and-order” president, or for any president or any American citizen? That’s not even a dog whistle inciting violence, it’s a bull horn. Neither Joe Biden nor Chris Wallace said any such thing, so where’s the equivalence?
Only one person on the stage attacked another of the men’s sons, one of whom is deceased. Only one man mocked the dead son and his service to his country and brought up the other son’s struggle with drug addiction. Even the most callous and insensitive among us have some limits; most of us would instinctively hold back from exploiting a father’s grief. Neither Joe Biden nor Chris Wallace did that, so where’s the equivalence?
Only one person on the stage degraded the esteemed office of President of the United States of America. Donald Trump has never respected the office to which he was elected, but never has he disrespected it more appallingly than he did last night. Neither Joe Biden nor Chris Wallace holds the office of President (yet), but nothing they did could equal the disgrace Donald Trump heaped upon our nation, so where’s the equivalence?
Since I began writing this article, I’ve learned a new word: “both-siderism.” Anthony B. Robinson, in a September 29 article, says the temptation is strong to “play ‘both-siderism.’”
“To declare that both former Vice President and President Trump were equally at fault for this depressing spectacle. It is a comfortable move. It allows those who make it to appear to take the high ground. ‘They’re both at fault.’ ‘They both did it.’ But it wasn’t equal. Both men did not behave like ill-mannered brats. Trump did. The President of the United States did.”
There is indeed no virtue in neutrality or both-siderism; such a stance is not moral high ground, it is dangerous quicksand. I’ve cited this quotation by Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel many times, but it’s never been more relevant than it is right now:
“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.”
So do some interfering already. Take a side. There’s no virtue in neutrality, and there’s no virtue in supporting and encouraging the death of our democracy. To quote another more familiar leader:
“Do not get lost in a sea of despair. Be hopeful, be optimistic. Our struggle is not the struggle of a day, a week, a month, or a year, it is the struggle of a lifetime. Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble.”
As Thomas Paine wrote so many years ago, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” What you and I do right now will determine the future of ourselves, our children, our children’s children, and our democracy. We can’t afford to be neutral.