No Moral Equivalence between the Hateful Language on the Left and the Right
We’ve gotta stop the “hate brigades” on television and … in the print media. … I’m going to name some of them on both sides, but primarily on the Left [because the proportion] is about 6 to 1. Terms like NAZI, fascist, racist, anti- democracy, routinely throwing it out, whipping up emotions against [their target]. … Violence follows hatred and we now have in our country Comcast, Disney, CNN and many other pushing hate. … The haters try to destroy the opposition. … Some of [them] are paid by big corporations to hate. … MSNBC is the most hateful network in the history of the United States.
Bill O’Reilly, July 14, 2024
The Party that called Trump “Hitler” for 8 years shocked that somebody tried to assassinate him.
Babylon Bee headline, July 13, 2024
After a sniper’s bullet tore through Donald Trump’s ear, missing his brain by centi-meters and splashing his face with blood, it suddenly occurred to some members of the Democrat “News”-media Collusion-team (or DNC) that it might not be the wisest idea to lie about someone for 8 years that they are a White Supremacist or Nazi, a terrorist, and a rapist. Unfortunately, given the levels of irrational hate in what remains of the DNC, this has not yet occurred to some of them. However, since pragmatics dictates that pictures of courageous bloody-faced Trump fist-pumping into the air that he will not quit fighting [against the hate], is not the best look going into the Nov. 2024 election, the DNC has adopted a new strategy.
The new strategy is to feign a moral equivalence between the hateful rhetoric on the Left and the Right. However, as O’Reilly indicates, though there is hateful rhetoric on both sides, there is much more of it, 6 to 1, as O’Reilly says, on the Left. The exact number may not be right but O’Reilly’s general point is. He might have added that it’s not merely a matter of the quantity but of viciousness. That is, there is no moral equivalence between calling someone a rapist or white supremacist and calling someone a socialist. “Socialist” is even seen as an honorific by many in the Democrat Party. Ask AOC and Jamal Bowman. Similarly, DEI, so popular in large parts of the Democrat Party, is, arguably, socialistic. And even if it is not, arguing that proposition in a rational way in not hateful. It called philosophy.
The new DNC strategy will be this: “Ok, we were both out of bounds a bit. So, we on the Left agree to stop saying,” as Joe Biden recently did, “that it’s time to put a bullseye” on Trump and you on the Right have to agree to stop calling us socialists. But that’s not fair. Alternatively, we on the Left agree to stop calling you conservatives an “existential threat” to democracy and you conservatives have to agree to stop saying the 2020 election was rigged. That’s not going to work because the former is a slur and the latter is this thing called an opinion which used to be permitted in yesterday’s free United States.
The Left is going to argue that they will give up some of their slurs and in exchange the Right has to give up some of their opinions. But this is not a matter of bartering, each side agreeing to give up some things in exchange for others, bangles for bobbles. These issues cannot be settled properly without presupposing a robust notion of the truth. However, post-Modernist philosophers, influential on the Left, have replaced the notion of truth with the relativistic notion of differing narratives, thereby creating the confused Tower of Babel that our political discourse suffers from today, a Tower of Babel that results in no real solutions and lots of poor and dead people.
Unfortunately, one cannot always find, even in a philosophy department, and perhaps especially there, a real philosopher, a Socrates, when one needs one. There is something in the human condition that makes the appearance of a genuine philosopher necessarily a rare event, much rarer, for example, than the 76-year appearance of Haley’s comet. As a consequence, we peasants are going to have to muddle through as best as we can, calling out smears and trying to settle differences with the kind of “rational argument” that has, unfortunately, been banished from our “universities.” The process of rational argument is, admittedly, a messy process, but it is clearly distinguishable from name calling, indicting one’s political opponent anywhere one can rig it up and accusing someone of rape 30 years later when one cannot even remember the year it allegedly happened.
As a case on point, consider the recent post-assassination-attempt discussion between ABC’s Georgie Stephanopoulos and Martha Raddatz. First, George may not be the best person to lead this discussion because he has falsely stated that Trump has been found “liable for rape”. Given his newfound commitment to fairness, George should apologize but one is not advised to hold one’s breath. Second, George says that “President Trump and his supporters have contributed to this violent rhetoric as well” and Raddatz, according to script, says, “Absolutely George,” whereupon she reels off some of the usual hoaxes about Trump. Since it is impossible to deal with all these here, I focus on two.
Raddatz states that Trump stated in March that “if I don’t get elected its going to be a bloodbath in the country.” But that was not “violent rhetoric”. As Factcheck points out:
If you actually watch and listen to the section, he was talking about the auto industry and tariffs. [He meant] Biden’s policies will create an economic bloodbath for the auto industry and autoworkers … That explanation seems the most plausible, given the context …
Trump was warning about a metaphorical “bloodbath” for the auto industry and auto workers, not threatening the kind of blood we just saw on his face would flow. Is one allowed to worry about the lives and jobs of auto workers anymore or is that incendiary speech now?
Raddatz then says, “And let’s remember Jan. 6th”. This is one of the tricks the DNC regularly uses. Since they do not provide an actual thesis but make an allusion to something, in this case the Jan. 6 Capitol riot (which was not an insurrection) one cannot criticize their (non-existent) thesis, leaving them sanctimoniously to assume that the interpretation of the event that everyone in their uniform little bubble believes is God’s truth. In this case, Trump’s words to the crowd were to go “peacefully and patriotically to make your voices heard.” He did not say, “Go riot!” Further, a video recording of Nancy Pelosi on that day admitting that she takes responsibility for not having enough security at the Capitol has appeared and it is verified that Democrat Mayor Bowser allowed only a light unarmed Guard presence. That is, Stephanopoulos and Raddatz are presupposing a classic “false cause” fallacy, that Trump, as opposed to Democrats like Pelosi and Bowser were the cause of the violence that day.
Should Stephanopoulos and Raddatz disagree with this analysis they need only ask and I would be happy to entertain them, although I opine that they won’t enjoy my reply as much as they enjoy propagandizing in their safe little bubble at ABC “News”.
Agree/Disagree with the author(s)? Let them know in the comments below and be heard by 10’s of thousands of CDN readers each day!
