The Bothsidesism Evasion
Insisting that the other side is more divisive doesn't make us any less divided
Americans who don’t hate each other, as well as Americans Who Don’t Hate Each Other, should be prepared to hear the B-word.
Bothsideser.
Detractors may even use the F-word.
False equivalence.
Or, if they reach back to the aughts, they might even pull out the H-word.
High Broderism.
The latter term is a reference to a philosophy of journalism associated with the late-Washington Post writer David Broder. The columnist was seen as being rigidly insistent upon finding neutral ground when writing about fights between Republicans and Democrats, regardless of the merits of the parties’ positions.
Readers of this blog will detect echoes of Broder’s ethos. However, AWDHEO seeks to eradicate partisan conflict, not locate neutral ground.
Still, those who happen upon this site while searching for “typical” anti-hate-related content may find it worthy of these slurs. Some may even react by using the B, F, and H-words (and others) in their more traditional sense.
Why? Because this space is designated for all AWDHEO. The site isn’t called Americans Who Only Hate the Right People or Americans Who Hate Only People Whom It’s Socially Acceptable to Hate.
AWDHEO also rejects the ranking of political misbehavior. Being the side that’s less of a problem doesn’t make your side any less of a problem.
So, yes, AWDHEO, as well as AWDHEO, should wear our bothsidesist designation proudly. As the term implies, we blame both political teams for societal discord. This includes both the individual, daily clashes that take place between Republicans and Democrats and their broader, long-term fight to impose the future. We also fault both sides for the damage their conflict is doing to the world.
Critics will naturally respond to this view with the F-word. “False equivalence” is the go-to accusation for partisans—or the institutions and entities that support them—whenever anyone fails to definitively declare that the other side is worse than their side. When their own words and deeds are evenhandedly contrasted with those of their opponents (instead of being recognized as self-evidently superior), partisans scream “false equivalence!”
Broder died in 2011, before another, related epithet was added to the political lexicon. The mid-2010s saw the widespread resurgence of the decades-old W-word.
Whataboutism.
Closely related to the B, F and H-words, the W-word is used to call out attempts to establish an artificial balance between opposing sides where none is perceived to exist. When one side tries to defend its actions or words by pointing out ostensibly similar conduct from its opponents, critics dismiss it as whataboutism.
Some charges of whataboutism are legitimate. For example, alleged Ukrainian embezzlement of war funds doesn’t mitigate alleged Russian war crimes. Comparing them would constitute a genuine case of the W-word.
But, many times, the W-word is tossed out when one side simply tries to explain its behavior or put it in context by citing approximate activity on the other side. This doesn’t make their claims any less of an excuse or a diversion. But, it also doesn’t give a pass to parallel conduct from their opponents.
However, partisans—and the institutions and entities that support them—aren’t exactly objective in making these judgments. They use their own words and deeds as the standard for what is appropriate. And they consider anything that deviates from their established norms to be deviant.
Partisans, you see, are driven by a faith in the moral supremacy of their own side. If confronted about the venomous, political climate that their team is partly responsible for producing, the typical, partisan deflection is to argue that the other side produces more venom.
Obviously, there have been moments in American political history when one party’s conduct has been worse than the other. Both parties could certainly cite a long list of instances when the other party was supposedly the bigger offender.
However, focusing on the length of each side’s partisan rap sheet does nothing to rehabilitate our politics. Making sure that, at any given moment, the side that is behaving worse gets called out for it and is properly scolded does nothing to bring us together. And calling for public floggings for the side that is judged to be the bigger sinner does nothing to bring about national, civic redemption.
This brings us to the crux of what we could call “the bothesidesism evasion.” As is the case with its kindred terms false equivalence, High Broderism and sometimes whataboutism, accusations of bothsidesism are meant to distract us from whatever the accusing side is doing to make the partisan conflict of the moment even worse.
But, it doesn’t matter if their actions are more or less destructive compared to those of their opponents. What matters is that they increase the damage to our politics, culture, society, country and planet.
However, partisans don’t want to heal our politics. They only want to ensure that the other side gets blamed for breaking it.
*Portions of this post have been adapted from my upcoming book The Anti-Partisan Manifesto: How Parties and Partisanism Divide America and How to Shut Them Down (2024).
 | A guest post by
|
Another great article. I have at least 10 people I know who would benefit greatly from this article, after recovering from the cognitive dissonance it would cause them to experience (lol). We need this viewpoint. Both parties are so caught up in blaming each other they will double down before looking at their own contributions to our polarization, which only makes them more prone to bickering and finger-pointing. it's a vicious cycle and it needs to stop. This article is a key step in the right direction.