Turn on any cable news channel, check Twitter, skim through a campaign email - and you’ll quickly realize that the most pressing issue facing the public today is something that most of the public doesn’t really care about, or at least doesn’t want to think about.
Namely, that no one is actually trying to persuade you anymore - everyone is just trying to scare you.
This is a business model.
I want to talk to you about “facilitated hate”, or, more specifically, the way in which the manufactured sense of victimhood and villainy coming from both sides of the aisle is not an incidental feature of our political discourse, but rather its foundational pillar, the thing which allows everyone from politicians to pundits to make a living doing what they do - not persuade, not serve, not lead, but facilitate hate.
The Republican View: We Are Being Hunted
If you look at any mainstream conservative media outlet right now, you’ll find that they all more or less agree on a particular interpretation of events that has less to do with actual policy than with a certain specific worldview. Namely, that there exists a vague and shadowy conspiracy of sorts, composed of faceless bureaucrats, radical prosecutors and judges, and other pro-Uranus figures in various governmental agencies tasked with bringing the republic to its knees, one inconvenient conservative figure at a time.
The idea of a shadowy conspiracy is not inherently racist or dishonest - the type of systemic issues the right has with the establishment, especially of the judicial branch, are real and worth talking about.
The problem is that somewhere along the way, the belief that “these institutions have certain ideological biases that may have been formed due to their specific place in the system” was conflated with the idea of “there exists a coordinated set of forces acting in a way designed to personally oppress me, which I therefore have the right to oppose”. The reason why this is such an insidious doctrine to accept is simple: it serves as an excuse for everyone, on both sides of the aisle
While it provides rational grounds for opposing figures or parties holding views you disagree with, it also serves as an excuse not to engage with their positions at all, to oppose them on a purely visceral level
Once the establishment is framed as a corrupt entity that systematically oppresses you in its entirety, it’s far easier to dismiss its members as liars than to actually listen to what they have to say. It’s far simpler to accuse the other side of being corrupt and power-hungry “elites” than to have an honest debate about policy.
The Democratic View: We Are Being Oppressed
The left’s view of things is, in many ways, the exact same problem wrapped in slightly different rhetoric. While the right talks about a shadow conspiracy, the left talks about systemic oppression, a set of discriminatory policies, behaviors, and traits ingrained in all parts of the establishment, holding all citizens back except the most privileged ones. The left’s preferred term for this is “structural racism”, although they’re not alone in using it.
It’s easy to understand why this rhetoric takes the shape it does - the fact is, certain groups of people do systematically suffer more than others, and it’s a real policy issue that’s worth discussing.
As with the right’s preferred view, however, somewhere along the way, the belief that “certain institutions have discriminatory practices that may have been formed due to their specific place in the system” has been conflated with the idea that “everything emanating from the establishment is inherently oppressive”.
There is no room for nuance in this line of thinking, because there can’t possibly be, not if you want to avoid being accused of being “one of them”. As a result, once again, it becomes far easier to oppose one’s detractors on a visceral level than to engage with them in a meaningful way.
Nobody Is Actually Talking Anymore
Now, here’s where I’m going to do something that will piss off almost everyone on both sides of the aisle: I’m going to argue that both positions are, in their own ways, utterly ridiculous - and back it up with facts.
The way in which the Democratic party talks about Trump is an example of the sort of thinking I already discussed - in many ways, the entire Democratic campaign around him has been one of pure opposition.
The goal has not been to present an alternative vision of America - it has been to reassure the public that “if it comes to that, we will stop them at all costs”, regardless of what they actually mean
This isn’t inherently a bad thing - sometimes, when faced with particularly despicable rhetoric coming from the other side, all you can do is oppose it in a similarly visceral way, especially if there isn’t really a need to defend your own positions beyond stating them. It’s just that the Democratic party has consistently failed to do so, not only with Trump but with just about everybody they disagree with.
The problem with the Democratic rhetoric against their detractors is that, as with the right’s accusations of “establishment”, it allows them to dismiss almost anything coming from the other side as “irrational”, therefore not worthy of a serious rebuttal.
Meanwhile, Trump and his followers do practically the same thing with whoever happens to be in the opposition, painting them all in the same shade of radical socialists, communists, social engineers, etc., depending on who they need to appeal to at the time.
Both sides of the aisle commit what I call “semantic outsourcing”, framing an argument in such a way that it allows them to dismiss any counter-argument as either “irrational prejudice” or “ideology coming from an unfair establishment”. By doing this, they essentially shift the burden of proof to the other side - instead of having to prove that the opposition’s claims are false, they can get away with simply accusing their detractors of being deluded, dishonest, “elites”, or “social engineers”.
Why This Is A Problem For You Regardless Of Your Politics
I’m a conservative, which means that I’m naturally inclined to side with the accusations made by the right against the establishment, but I hope you can see how what I’m saying applies to both sides of the aisle, because, really, that’s the point. I’ve already stated that I think both views are completely ridiculous,
but I’m not saying that they’re equivalent - it’s actually far more harmful for a regular Republican to accept the premise of the “establishment” narrative, simply because it’s far more difficult to defend in most cases
As stated earlier, both views allow the author to shift the burden of proof to the other side, but whereas defending oneself against accusations of “elites” requires nothing more than a simple rebuttal, defending one’s positions against “systemic discrimination” requires a full-scale proof in most cases.
This is why I’m not advocating for Republicans to adopt the establishment view - it would only lead to more frustration among right-wing commentators and politicians who would feel like they have to defend their very existence.
What I’m saying is that both sides should stop pretending that the burden of proof in an argument rests with the other side, especially when they’re clearly using semantic outsourcing to avoid it.
What I Actually Want
What I actually want is for everyone to stop doing that, is all I’m saying.
If the right wants to make the case that they’re being unfairly targeted, they need to actually provide evidence, not just claim that they are without providing any grounds for that claim.
If the left wants to make the case that the establishment is inherently prejudiced, they need to actually provide evidence, not just claim that they are without providing any grounds for that claim.
And if either side wants to actually have an honest discussion about policies, they need to stop pretending that the burden of proof in that discussion is on anybody but themselves.
It’s perfectly okay for you to think that your establishment is inherently prejudiced, or that yours is being unfairly targeted by the other side - just don’t act surprised when everybody goes “well, that’s just the way it is” the next time you try to do something that somebody else actually cares about.
Because if we keep talking to each other like this, we’ll never be able to have an honest discussion about anything, which is, of course, the entire point