There’s been considerable sturm and drang since President Biden’s speech Thursday night in Philadelphia, when he warned of the direct threat Donald Trump and “MAGA Republicans” pose to American democracy. Biden made a point to say that only a minority of Republicans qualified as such (an empirically questionable claim but a politically defensible one). But there was lots of handwringing from various quarters of mainstream political journalism that among other things, the speech was “political,” “divisive,” and that it violated political norms.
For example, The Washington Post editorial board criticized Biden the next day for choosing “partisanship” over “patriotism.” Moments after the speech concluded, CNN’s Brianna Keilar said on Twitter that the marines behind Biden represented a breach of protocol, since the military is “not political” and the speech was a “political speech.” (it took folks on Twitter roughly ten seconds, using this new tool called “Google” to debunk Keilar’s claim. One clip now in wide circulation shows President Trump, in 2020, with military personnel all around him, describing much of the left as “fascists.” Other examples abound.)
Perhaps most astonishing was a line of inquisition1 yesterday from ABC’s Martha Raddatz, the veteran journalist. As guest host on This Week with George Stephanopolous, Raddatz aggressively questioned Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms about Biden’s Philadelphia speech. In the most extraordinary segment of the interview, Radatz quoted a think tank to imply that Biden had engaged in “hate speech.” Lance Bottoms acquitted herself well, but Raddatz made no effort to engage with the substance of Biden’s comments. Her very exaggerated sense of the *tone* was, apparently, the only newsworthy thing to discuss.
Plenty of other accounts and analyses from the commanding heights of American journalism certainly did highlight and foreground Biden’s own warnings. But all in all, for those critical of legacy political media’s failure to adapt its longstanding reflexive “both-sides” frame to the unique threat of Trumpism, the nitpicking of Biden in the manner noted above was infuriating. And Trump’s own speech in Pennsylvania Saturday night, an extended conspiracy-fueled rant in which he repeated, of course, that the 2020 election had been stolen from him, only underscored the problem.
Apart from the tone-policing, Raddatz’ line of questioning and the other examples noted above reflect a deeper issue, which I’ll call grading on a curve. I explained this in a handful of tweets yesterday.
Someone who responded to the first Tweet above noted:
And another commenter added that I’d left out “groomers,” “pedophiles,” and “communists,” to which I responded that I’d run out of room.
And we’re not talking social media randos here. This rhetoric spews forth from GOP media and political elites all the time. To that point, another tweet:
That’s United States Senator Ted Cruz, from our union’s second most populous state. This “eliminationist” rhetoric, as noted above, has become so commonplace that, in basic ways, the discourse has just become inured to it. It’s simply expected. In a column in the New York Times yesterday kvetching about Biden’s speech, Ross Douthat (who is indisputably anti-Trump) dismissed as insincere Biden’s warnings. He also tried to downplay the seriousness of the threat posed by a growing number of GOP candidates who are open election deniers, like Pennsylvania Gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano, whom Douthat referred to as “zany,” as if they’re harmless class clowns.
One more tweet to grouse about Douthat:
Biden’s most strident, pointed, angry speech will never rise to the level of insult-laden and hate-filled rhetoric that characterizes basically every Trump speech. And is the President really supposed to speak in vague generalities about “patriotism” when *specific* people, including members of Congress, a former President and myriad aspirants for high office at the state and national level perpetuate dangerous conspiracy theories, vow to subvert elections and happily cheer on lust for blood to vanquish their enemies? What is the appropriate tone under such circumstances?
There is, of course, a reasonable and important debate to have about how to reach out to persuadable voters. But in general, to return to my point above about the double standard, I think it’s worth asking what it means that, really and truly, only one side of the political aisle is ever discussing how they need to do more to be understanding of those whose politics differ from theirs? In my own life and social circles, I have been involved in countless discussions about how we liberals needed to stop being so condescending, stop lumping all conservatives together, etc. Indeed, it’s among the standard reflexes of liberal political discourse (as is condescension!). And I am going to repeat - it does not happen on the other side.2
Now, one may respond, as a friend of mine does, that life and politics ain’t fair. And, sure. But that liberal tendency to self-admonishment for being snotty generalizers has become its own mindless trope. Let’s return to Biden’s comment about how most Republicans aren’t MAGA Republicans. If the argument is that most wouldn’t storm the Capitol then, yes, he’s definitely right. But on the central question of whether Donald Trump was the rightful winner of the 2020 election, a clear majority of Republicans believe he was, according to every poll. And of course, the overwhelming majority of Republicans did in fact support Trump throughout his presidency and continues to do so.
Much of what people do when they answer polls or vote is express social affinity. We generally want to be in sync with our immediate social circles, and one consequence of residential and social sorting more broadly is that people are increasingly around like-minded folks, which reinforces the draw of affinity-based political identity. The result is a tendency to say you believe what others with stronger opinions in your orbit believe. This is especially true for the many Americans who don’t pay close attention for politics and one reason why FOX news’ influence far exceeds its viewership. One can conclude from this understanding of mass politics that many of the people who profess to believe the election was stolen, for instance, aren’t necessarily crazy diehards. They’re just kind of going along to getting along. But whether that makes such folks swayable or persuadable is another question. It’s a liberal tendency to put more stock than is warranted in the idea that if you’re just a bit more understanding, people will come around to a “reasonable” view of things. Yes, you might be able to have a nice, even meaningful conversation with someone on the other side, in a way that feels like there’s common ground. But you will be no match for the beliefs that get reinforced when they return to their social circles, when they see or hear FOX or rightwing talk radio in their place of work, or what they hear in church on Sunday.3
Despite what the right wing insists, mainstream media on the one hand and liberal political discourse on the other are definitely not one and the same. But each is prone not to the condescension that has become a staple among and about liberals, but one of a different kind. Indeed, I’m not sure what is more patronizing or insulting than assuming that voters who ultimately support Trump are anything other than adults who, in the end, are responsible for their own beliefs and actions. That they only vote for Trump because they’re mis- or dis-informed and don’t know any better. We’d all be better off if we lived in a world of greater humility, humanity and understanding all around. We do ourselves no favors, however, to assume that tens of millions of adult Americans would stop supporting a monster and his cynical proteges if only we stopped being so mean to them, or agreed to call them stupid with compassion rather than with contempt. Yes, we’re all vulnerable to social pressures and we’re all prisoners, to one degree or another, of our own socially-reinforced biases. But we do make our own choices. So, while I know well-meaning people don’t think of it in this way, I’m not sure treating grownups like children is the political cure-all some think it is.
Yes, I meant to use that word.
I don’t mean that there has never been a conversation in history among conservatives sitting around the kitchen table that they need to tone it down, be more understanding of liberals, etc. But it’s not, to repeat, part of our political discourse. You can point me to examples in mainstream media commentary when you find an example. I’d be eager to see one.
To keep repeating myself, much of what I’m saying here about social affinity and self-contained information ecosystems reinforcing existing beliefs absolutely applies to liberals. But again, they’re the only side even questioning how and whether they might break out of that.