False Purists and Their False Equivalence Dodge

Rarely are both sides equally wrong. Rarer still is one side 100 percent right.

From left to right: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) speak to the media at the White House on November 16, 2012.
National Journal
Ron Fournier
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Ron Fournier
Oct. 9, 2013, 7:22 a.m.

“It’s a struggle with no her­oes,” de­clared The As­so­ci­ated Press in re­port­ing its poll on Amer­ic­ans’ at­ti­tudes to­ward the par­tial gov­ern­ment shut­down. The coun­try is hold­ing Re­pub­lic­ans primar­ily re­spons­ible, the AP-GfK sur­vey shows, “but the situ­ation is flu­id nine days in­to the shut­down and there’s plenty of dis­dain to go around.”

In oth­er words, it is a pox on both houses.

Par­tis­ans des­pise pox-on-both-houses stor­ies. On the right and left, from the White House to the House speak­er’s of­fice, politi­cians spend their time, en­ergy, and cred­ib­il­ity on nar­row-minded quests to de­fend their in­fal­lib­il­ity. One way they do it is to ac­cuse journ­al­ists of “false equi­val­ence.”

A false equi­val­ence is to de­scribe a situ­ation as hav­ing lo­gic­al and ap­par­ent equi­val­ence when in fact there is none. For ex­ample, I be­lieve it would be false equi­val­ence to say Re­pub­lic­ans and Demo­crats are equally to blame for the gov­ern­ment shut­down and the pos­sib­il­ity of a debt de­fault. Re­pub­lic­ans en­gin­eered the shut­down to protest a three-year-old health care law, know­ing their de­fund-or-delay de­mands were un­at­tain­able. False equi­val­ence is a form of in­tel­lec­tu­al lazi­ness.

There is no false equi­val­ence in the AP story or the pub­lic at­ti­tudes it re­flects — 62 per­cent blame Re­pub­lic­ans for the show­down. About half said Obama or Demo­crats in Con­gress bear much re­spons­ib­il­ity. Noth­ing equal about it.

At the same time, voters don’t ab­solve the Demo­crat­ic ma­jor­ity in the Sen­ate or Pres­id­ent Obama him­self. Only 37 per­cent ap­prove of the way the pres­id­ent is hand­ling his job, an an­em­ic num­ber. Demo­crat­ic Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id has a fa­vor­ab­il­ity rat­ing of just 18 per­cent, the same as House Speak­er John Boehner. The pres­id­ent was un­able or un­will­ing to gain GOP sup­port for Obama­care in 2010, he failed over the last three years to sell the pub­lic on the law’s many mer­its, and his peev­ish rhet­or­ic this month has at times been less than pres­id­en­tial. In oth­er words, Obama isn’t per­fect.

“Some­body needs to jerk those guys to­geth­er and get a solu­tion, in­stead of just say­ing ‘no,’” in­de­pend­ent voter Martha Blair told AP. “It’s just so frus­trat­ing.”

When I tweeted this story with a pox-on-all-houses teas­er, the re­sponse was pre­dict­able. Lib­er­al par­tis­ans clutched their cliché. False equi­val­ence! A typ­ic­al re­sponse (from a reg­u­lar and thought­ful lib­er­al read­er):

“@jack­thec­at11: @AP Way to find a poll that looks bad for Obama to bal­ance GOP’s cata­stroph­ic drop. You’re pretty dug in on this false equiv.”

That is wrong. The story and poll as­sess blame un­equally, which is the ex­act op­pos­ite of false equi­val­ence. What the poll re­flects is the abil­ity of voters to look bey­ond na­ked ideo­logy and de­mand bet­ter of their lead­ers — to hold them ac­count­able fairly, if not equally, re­gard­less of party or slice of blame. As I wrote the day be­fore the shut­down began, both parties are in danger of los­ing the fu­ture if they aren’t ac­count­able today.

Some­where along the line, par­tis­ans star­ted con­flat­ing false equi­val­ence with any thought that chal­lenges their ri­gid, ab­so­lut­ist points of view. In polit­ics and in every­day life, rarely are both sides equally wrong. Rarer still is one side 100 per­cent right. In this era of zero-sum gain polit­ics, the lo­gic­al fal­lacy more pro­nounced than false equi­val­ence is false pur­ity. It is in­tel­lec­tu­ally dis­hon­est.

What We're Following See More »
CITES CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
4 days ago
THE LATEST
MINIMUM 2 PERCENT GDP
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
4 days ago
BREAKING
MANAFORT AND FLYNN
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
4 days ago
THE DETAILS

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Source:
BUT WHITE HOUSE MAY USE AGAINST HIM ANYWAY
Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
5 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Source:
BUSINESSES CAN’T PLEAD FIFTH
Senate Intel to Subpoena Two of Flynn’s Businesses
5 days ago
THE LATEST

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login