A couple years ago, New York mag posted a critique of Michael Lind and his brand of radical centrism. Among the attacks posited included a criticism of the “both sides” argument.
For background, “bothsideism” is routinely criticized as a form of rhetorical fallacy, mostly by the Left.
The left-wing premise is falls upon two arguments:
- Lumping the two parties is patently fallacious because the Left is good, while the Right is evil.
- There is an inherent assumption that two generally crappy parties representing two generally crappy parties must be equally crappy.
The argument falls apart on the face of it.
The first argument relies upon accepting left wing ideology, which is far from universal. A whopping 7% of Americans consider themselves very liberal. The white-knighting amounts to little more than a new Moral Majority, a small rump of Leftists who insist on knowing what’s best for other people.
Newsflash: the vast majority of the population doesn’t want what you’re selling. Get it through your head.
The second argument is just patently ludicrous. Contrary to wiktionary, the “both sides” argument doesn’t demand exact parity of awful on both sides. The “both sides” argument simply argues that both Democratic and Republican parties, or Left and Right are generally awful.
Once in a while, the party faithful hit moments of clarity and lucidity, prompting recognition of this very thing. Policy from the Left and Right are premised on elitism, the idea that very small minorities of political elite know what’s best for the rest of America.
The recent horrific track record of both parties doesn’t require scorekeeping. Unlike the party faithful, we’re not trapped into binary thinking. There are a plethora of alternatives out there, if we can summon the courage to jump ship.
Leave a Reply