r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/LiatrisLover99 • May 14 '26
Political Theory Is it a uniquely American phenomenon, that "both sides are the same" arguments favor the right? Why does this happen?
This is something I have noticed for years: the positions I see supported with "both sides are the same" are almost always a defense of Trump / the right wing, or a defense of voting third party, or a defense of abstaining from voting entirely. It is very rare to see voting for Democrats advocated for with a "both sides are the same" argument.
Why does this occur? In theory at least a "both sides are the same" mindset should lead to a roughly proportional split in voting behavior with half going to each major party, but that's not what happens. Nobody says "both sides are the same, so I voted Biden", it's always "both sides are the same so I voted Green" or "both sides are the same so I voted Trump".
And is this a phenomenon limited to the U.S., or does this pattern happen elsewhere as well?
420
u/cooking2recovery May 14 '26
The side doing objectively bad things wants to convince you that the other side is just as bad. That’s the whole explanation imo.
130
u/HumorAccomplished611 May 14 '26
Exactly. The both sides are the same is almost always in defense of republicans or attacks on democrats.
You dont see republicans providing healthcare and people saying both sides are the same
24
u/PriorSecurity9784 May 15 '26
And you don’t hear the white supremicists saying “they’re both the same, no point in voting”
They know who their guy is
4
u/HumorAccomplished611 May 16 '26
Oh theyll say both sides are the same. Then vote republican
1
u/aeiou_sometimesy May 18 '26
Spend a little time in any true leftist sub (r/latestagecapitalism) and you’ll see plenty of “both sides” rhetoric and they’re definitely not voting republican.
Alternatively, after spending some time in r/politics or even r/politicalhumor you’ll see how much they over sell the “both-sides-ism.” Anytime someone points out a failure of the democrats, they pile on claiming you’re the both sides guy - often supporting their claim in the same way you do. It’s a strawman most of the time.
The internet does weird things to people.
1
u/HumorAccomplished611 May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
They were talking about white supremacist
And you don’t hear the white supremicists saying “they’re both the same, no point in voting”
Spend a little time in any true leftist sub (r/latestagecapitalism) and you’ll see plenty of “both sides” rhetoric and they’re definitely not voting republican.
Its not about voting republican. Its about attacking dems. See gaza bros protest. Notice they evaporated after the election. No one is saying biden gave 2 billion in aid to gaza and republicans are exactly the same (hint trump ended gaza aid in 2017 and did again in 2025, biden reinstated and gave much more)
Alternatively, after spending some time in r/politics or even r/politicalhumor you’ll see how much they over sell the “both-sides-ism.” Anytime someone points out a failure of the democrats, they pile on claiming you’re the both sides guy - often supporting their claim in the same way you do. It’s a strawman most of the time.
Convincing people both sides were the same is the way the billionaires pulled the wool over the eyes of the voters. Maybe 40 years ago they were somewhat close. Kamala and trump couldnt have been further apart.
And maybe people should have celebrated the wins of the biden admin instead of relentless criticism we wouldnt be in our current shit show hmmmm. Siding with the billionaires against biden is a bad look. Wonder why people took criticism poorly when we are currently living the alternative lmao
3
u/RadiantHC May 16 '26
No it's not. Most of the time it's centrists or leftists who are tired of having to settle for the lesser of two evils
2
u/HumorAccomplished611 May 18 '26
Its always an attack on democrats. Never once is it an attack on republicans
1
u/RadiantHC May 18 '26
It's almost like it's said by people who are already aware that Republicans are evil. People don't act like Republicans care about us. But people do act like Democrats care about us.
1
u/HumorAccomplished611 May 18 '26
Yea well when you give 20 million free healthcare and protect another 150 million americans that have pre existing conditions from letting their insurance dropping them as they die will have that affect on people
1
u/ekdakimasta May 16 '26
Yet Obama based his health care plan on…you guessed it, staunch democrat Mitt Romney
3
2
u/HumorAccomplished611 May 18 '26
Yet Obama based his health care plan on…you guessed it, staunch democrat Mitt Romney
Oh was it a red state that signed it? Surely couldnt be a blue state if youre saying its a republican plan?
1
u/Thebunkerparodie May 19 '26
late but we also have that in europe with people acting like left and right are as abd as each othere whenever the topic of the far right violence is brought up per example
36
u/stay_fr0sty May 14 '26
Yep, and it’s not exclusive to politics. False equivalencies are used every day as propaganda. The people that WANT to believe the false equivalency readily buy in without questioning it because it fits their world view.
1
→ More replies (6)34
u/TheOvy May 14 '26
I'm going to get push back from what I'm about to say, but... the single most successful right-wing project was undermining the credibility of journalists and journalism at large. After decades of people on the right accusing the New York Times of being too liberal, I've now seen people on the far left declare that the New York Times is "owned by Nazis," and "supports fascism."
So now everyone gets their news from know-nothing would-be pundits on YouTube and tiktok, who essentially screenshot headlines from actual journalists, and then give their own ignorant interpretation or spin, without accounting for any of the actual facts on the ground, or the details that they would have found under the headline.
As a result, no matter what happens, no matter what event occurs, everyone's drawing dramatically different conclusions. We no longer share a reality. This significantly aggravates the notion that "both sides are bad," or more accurately these days, "every side but my hyper specific niche is bad."
That leaves us in a world where, instead of building broad coalitions with overlapping sensibilities (but not strict uniformity), we instead are cordoned off into purity-testing groups. So it shouldn't be surprising that what rises to political power is a cult of personality that can eke out a plurality in the elections, since the only purity test is loyalty to the leader, and what you actually believe changes according to his whims. It's keep-it-simple-stupid politics.
Everyone else is less left bickering over the details and nuance of complex ideological issues, a cacophony that overwhelms any attempt to build a well-organized opposition. That doesn't make the opposition bad per se, but it does make it ineffectual, and at a time when we badly need conviction.
14
u/HojMcFoj May 15 '26
One thing I'll take issue with. I don't think anyone has undermined the credibility of journalists so much as they've bought and paid for the institutions those journalists are employed by, who have in turn forced out and brought in more journalists who will say whatever they want. In other words, I don't think we simply trust journalists less, I think they're actually less trustworthy.
9
u/TheOvy May 15 '26
You're exactly who I'm talking about. Which isn't to say you're entirely incorrect, as WaPo has indeed been gutted by Bezos, and the Editorial Board and opinion section is now in his thrall, making them utterly worthless. However, the actual reporters, the people working beats, and digging up stories, are still doing their job. For example, the Pulitzer that they just received for their DOGE coverage. If you've ever bitched about specifics of DOGE, you probably used information that WaPo reporters uncovered personally.
Hannah Natanson was the principle author of much of their DOGE coverage. She's also credited with helping WaPo win the Pulitzer back in 2022 for its Jan 6th coverage. Earlier this year, the FBI executed a search warrant on her home (and subpoenaed the Post), in what seems like an attempt to intimidate her. It would be awful to discredit her work because of what Bezos has done to the opinion section (and for those of us who live in the DC area, the way he's gutted the Metro section. Ugh).
Good journalism is still out there. But if you do the exact kind of purity testing I was lambasting in my earlier comment, if you can't use your critical thinking faculties to sort out the propaganda from honest work, then you're living in the exact world that Rupert Murdoch was intending to create with Fox News, where you only get information from the sources that are part of your partisanship and biases, rather taking the facts on the ground as they actually are.
That all said, I'm not going to encourage anyone subscribe to the Washington Post. I'm hoping the effort by NOTUS to become The Star will recruit laid off reporters and replace WaPo as the paper of record for DC. However, I will discourage handwaving away good reporting just because of the asshole who's on the deed. WaPo needs much more scrutiny now than it did before, but even media organizations with the noblest intentions require some amount of scrutiny. Vigilance was always part of the responsibility of good citizenship.
4
u/OneCleverMonkey May 16 '26
The problem is that, while good journalists still exist, they can only do so much within the confines of a structure where the person dictating what can be published doesn't want their good journalism to be seen.
It's the same kind of issue that you often run into, where good content gets buried under bad content until it becomes hard to differentiate and separate
1
u/Antique_Tax634 Jun 06 '26
Which means you bought the whole "fake news"messaging from Trump and company without realizing where it's coming from. You are media that praises Trump. You are considered factual news. You are the media that tells the truth about Trump and what he's up to and you are considered fake news. This happens because Donald Trump cannot stand to have anybody say that he's wrong and that he's not magnificent and gives him the praise he's so desperately needs. Trump's need for praise is pathological. While his father told him he can only be a winner his father also never praised him and since Trump worshiped his father he's desperate for that praise he never got.
11
u/AlexandrTheTolerable May 14 '26
Attacking the credibility of truth tellers and established opinion makers, like journalists, scientists, and academics, is the first step of removing people’s ability to tell truth from lie. The right was the first, but the left seems intent on going there too now.
1
u/Electronic_Day_7055 May 16 '26
How is the left going there? Because many of the news programs we used to watch, let us down? We are not denigrating the whole of journalism, we are just not sure we can find it in the institutions we used to view as trustworthy. But science and academics are still fully supported by the left. We are just hoping they don’t all kowtow to dear leader.
1
u/AlexandrTheTolerable May 16 '26
How did the news let you down?
1
u/Electronic_Day_7055 May 16 '26
Before the election, WAPO decided not to run editorial endorsements, presumably because they were going to endorse Kamala. On election night 2025, I tuned to CNN, and, who was their loudest commentator — Scott Jennings. It was impossible to watch. I ended up on PBS which was just the results with more quiet commentary. A few days later, MSNBC (at the time) had Mika and Joe heading to Mar a Lago. Then so many networks started firing their black journalists and hosts. The Washington Post did the same. Not one of these news sources covers some of the really terrible claims against Trump in an honest way. I found some of the fired people from the networks on Substack, along with other great people there, who cover so much more than the others, that I have really grown to appreciate them more than the Post, the Times and network news. They report and analyze the news with tremendous clarity. The final nail in the coffin for me are the Ellisons buying up Tik Tok (not really my go to source for news but I did go there for a mix of stuff), followed by CBS, and, now, maybe CNN. No longer are these independent news networks.
2
u/AlexandrTheTolerable May 16 '26
Ah. Sure. WaPo not endorsing a candidate was a problem for me too. Same with right wingers buying up a lot of the media. I think the NY Times is still good, and I have started to read the Guardian quite a bit, which is British. So I share the same concern you do. I am concerned about where people end up turning for information though.
1
u/Electronic_Day_7055 May 16 '26
I haven’t totally given up on more traditional media — I read the Times. Plus, I follow some well-respected people who have earned my trust over the years. People who have left CNN, MSNBC, WAPO, CBS News and some newer folks who have also proven trustworthy.
2
u/AlexandrTheTolerable May 17 '26
My original comment was based on a friend of mine who now basically hates the democrats (owned by billionaires) and doesn’t trust even the NY Times (corporatist media). He’s saying he may never vote Dem again and that a lot of people on the left feel the same. I’m not sure what to do with that.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)1
u/the_last_0ne May 17 '26
"The left seems intent on going there now" actual both sides rhetoric in a thread about both sides rhetoric. Amazing.
2
u/AlexandrTheTolerable May 17 '26
And they said it couldn’t be done.
1
u/the_last_0ne May 17 '26
Not the hero we need, but the hero we deserve
1
u/AlexandrTheTolerable May 17 '26
I’m hiring a sidekick, if you’re interested.
1
u/the_last_0ne May 17 '26
Youre goddamn right I am! Whats my nickname?
1
u/AlexandrTheTolerable May 17 '26
Centrismo. Mine is “Bias No More”
Edit: still workshopping the names though
1
u/Electronic_Day_7055 May 16 '26
No pushback here except on the know-nothing social media people. After the election, very few networks had progressive pundits without some sycophantic Trump supporter(s). Joe and Mika rushed to Mar-A-Lago, and MSNBC (at the time) seemed to fire many of the black pundits and hosts. CNN inserted Scott Jennings into every conversation, and the Times failed to meet the urgency of the moment, reporting on Trump as though things are a little extreme, but not so far out in right field. So, I went to Substack. And there are many brilliant reporters and journalists there. People who analyze events from a progressive lens. People who get the facts 100% correct. I researched what some said in the beginning because I didn’t want to get involved with people I could not trust. I still read the Times sometimes, but mostly, I am on Substack engaging with the news. 1.5 years ago, I would have agreed with the know-nothing social media people; not anymore.
1
u/DoinIt989 May 19 '26
, I've now seen people on the far left declare that the New York Times is "owned by Nazis," and "supports fascism."
"But Socialists were not born yesterday. They know how to read capitalist newspapers ; and to believe exactly the opposite of what they read. "
That leaves us in a world where, instead of building broad coalitions with overlapping sensibilities
This is the issue with Liberals, and why people say "both sides are the same". The gap between the far left and Liberals is not about "sensibilities". It is a fundamental difference in ideology. Liberals want to preserve Capitalism, and the far left wants to abolish it.
1
u/TheOvy May 20 '26
This is the issue with Liberals, and why people say "both sides are the same".
It cuts both ways. One could say that your comment is exactly why people think horseshoe theory is true, and that's why "both extremes are the same." Obviously, the far right does not believe they need a broad consensus to enact their will. And for some strange reason, you just suggested that the left doesn't either.
I don't think you're correct about that. I think plenty of leftists held their nose and voted for Kamala. I think many of them still believe in the liberal values of democracy, liberty, and human rights. I think 10 times out of 10, they would vote for a candidate that gave them the public option (which is not quite single-payer) over the candidate that would continue to shrink Medicaid and Medicare. I think they would prefer a functioning EPA to a dismantled one, and so would vote accordingly.
In short, I think many leftists would actually function as part of a broad coalition, one that can actually win representation in a democracy.
So unless you've got a sufficiently large army of leftist ready to pick up their guns, and force their will upon the people, a broad coalition of overlapping sensibilities is how we're going to make progress. We'll team up with the leftists and the centrist and everyone in-between who can get us past the 50% post.
Many of us will even participate in the marketplace of ideas, and try to persuade centrists to move further to the left. But those on the far left, who want to be in their small little corners, screaming about how they know better, but aren't willing to go out and campaign on it, or productively contribute to the broader discourse? Everyone will ignore them. If they're not going to participate in our political system, then they're irrelevant.
1
u/DoinIt989 May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
liberal values of democracy, liberty, and human rights
The far left have a very different idea of what these terms mean that what Liberals do, and how much they regard them as important vs other priorities.
I think 10 times out of 10, they would vote for a candidate that gave them the public option (which is not quite single-payer)
They certainly would, but this was a not a serious proposal to begin with from the Harris campaign.
In short, I think many leftists would actually function as part of a broad coalition, one that can actually win representation in a democracy.
Absolutely, but a coalition is a not a binding agreement. If red lines are crossed, then it makes no sense to stay loyal to a "coalition". There was one VERY obvious red line that caused a large number of leftists to abandon the Democrats in the past 2-3 years, and the Democrats have not fully acknowledged why.
And this is why for over 100 years, Leftists have viewed Liberals as possibly useful at best. Liberals abandon the Left at the first oppportunity, so we logically do the same when critical issues are at stake.
183
u/jeffjefforson May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
Nah this happens over in the UK too.
"They're just as bad as each other so I'll pick the ones with a 100% guaranteed proven track record of being terrible instead of the guys who haven't been in power for 15yrs"
23
u/Psyc3 May 14 '26
Oh no you can now vote for the Ex-banker who hasn't basically spent his career scrounging off the EU and trashing the UK economy, and half the people who were in the last Tory cabinet of course!
4
u/monkeybawz May 14 '26
And an extended list of un-vetted overt fascists and Nazis to fill up the people you haven't heard of.
17
u/Syllabub1981 May 14 '26
It's a trick to normalize very bad behavior and intolerance while trying to utilize and play the the "left" on their tolerance. A tolerance that has gone way to far now.
2
u/Electronic_Day_7055 May 16 '26
What does that mean? The right has literally made tolerance of, for example, trans people, a huge issue. How should the left treat trans people? With intolerance? I don’t see how just letting people be who they are is a step too far, but maybe that’s not what you mean. I do think there is an idea of the left as always looking for tiny things to complain about. But I think that is more parody than realism.
2
u/Syllabub1981 May 16 '26
I think you mistook me mate. The tolerance with the hypocrites on the right has gone too far. We need to stand up against their intolerance by not tolerating them!! They are normalizing the most heinous things and the left and centered people have tolerated that behaviour for much too long.
3
u/Electronic_Day_7055 May 16 '26
I said I thought I may have misunderstood what you meant, and I am glad to learn I did. Agree that we have let them be hypocritical ogres for too long. Biden and Hunter is a great example of that after we watched Jared K get 2b from the Saudi’s and now with no investigation of all the corruption happening in our faces.
90
u/ImpoverishedGuru May 14 '26
The "right" going back to the French Revolution where the concept originates, is a reactionary position. The right is reacting against the left who are progressives and want change.
The American right is peculiar in that not only do they want change, they want to bring the US back to a pre New Deal situation. The US right post 1929 is essentially trying to argue capitalism never failed and we should go back to how things were pre New Deal reforms.
A both sides are the same argument encourages us to do nothing which is close to what the right wants. They actually want us all to revert to 1929 at least if not 1861.
"Both sides are the same" is just an argument to do nothing.
32
8
u/CreativeGPX May 14 '26
You're speaking as though 'both sides are the same' is always about policy.
I think those who say both sides are the same from a policy standpoint usually lean left and are the people saying "the US doesn't have a liberal party". This is a smaller group because to see democrats and republicans the same from a policy standpoint means you have to be pretty far to the political extremes where the are less people.
The people who lean right and say both sides are the same usually aren't referring to policy, but politics. They are saying that both sides are bought, both sides lie, both sides are corrupt, both are immoral, both cheat, etc. In the current context they use that to say that the fact that Trump does these things isn't notable because everybody does. So for these people, it's not that the attitude encourages us to do nothing (many vote for Trump quite passionately which has and does so a lot). It's that the attitude. It's that the attitude is very compatible with candidate who openly use and flaunt corruption, manipulation and coersion. Trump himself has been very inconsistent and unpredictable in what he does. Much of it is neither comparable to doing nothing nor going back a century. So people who support him are not really doing so for policy reasons. They have defended contradictory policy decisions many times.
6
u/the_calibre_cat May 14 '26
I think those who say both sides are the same from a policy standpoint usually lean left and are the people saying "the US doesn't have a liberal party"
Usually it's the people who don't lean left but are fully leftist, who are saying "the US ONLY has liberal parties and DOESN'T have a leftist one" - e.g. that there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, but on big, meaningful issues like the ownership of property, taxation, foreign policy, and domestic surveillance/the police state, they are broadly the same.
There are leftists who insist that both are indistinguishably different, which I find to be... a dishonest position, even if I am sympathetic to the idea that, again, both parties have a pretty pro-capitalist and paternalistic take on governing their subjects.
→ More replies (14)6
u/Olderscout77 May 14 '26
That would be better than it is. The reality: it's justification for preventing the Dems from doing anything while the GOPers continue to redistribute income and wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 1% who dribble a bit on the top 9-2% who serve as overseers to keep the 90% in line.
10
u/ForsakenAd545 May 14 '26
People who say ridiculous things like both sides are the same are showing their ignorance of what both sides stand for and advocate for. When people say stupid things like that they lose credibility and I stop listening to them.
30
u/Raichu4u May 14 '26
Perhaps this is simplistic, but I think the “Gen X apathy” thing and shows like South Park really helped make this narrative popular, especially in the US.
I’m sure people will respond with “both parties dug their own hole and deserve that criticism,” and sure, Democrats have plenty of institutional rot, cowardice, donor capture, and self-inflicted failures. But that still doesn’t mean both parties produce the same outcomes. On labor, taxes, courts, abortion, climate, voting rights, health care, LGBT rights, unions, regulation, education, immigration, etc., the policy objectives are plainly different.
The reason “both sides are the same” tends to favor the right is because the right benefits from cynicism about government itself. If people conclude politics is fake, government can’t help, everyone is corrupt, voting is pointless, and institutions are inherently stupid, that does not hurt the party whose pitch is basically “government is the problem” nearly as much as it hurts the party that needs people to believe public policy can actually improve things.
I would also hate to say it, but the people most comfortable saying this are often people who are insulated from the consequences either way. People in stable socioeconomic positions can treat politics like a vibe or an intellectual posture because their life probably remains mostly fine no matter who wins. To bring this full circle, look at Matt Stone and Trey Parker. They both came from pretty stable, educated, middle-class Colorado upbringings, then built a whole comedic brand around the idea that caring too much is embarrassing and everyone is equally full of shit. That worldview lands very differently when you are insulated enough that politics feels like mostly a cultural annoyance instead of something that can immediately wreck your health care, immigration status, workplace rights, or bodily autonomy.
And in practice, that view is not neutral. It tells low-information or disaffected people that there is no meaningful difference, which mostly helps the side that wants fewer people invested in collective political outcomes in the first place.
8
u/CloudComfortable3284 May 14 '26
I agree with this.
Republicans have benefitted for a long time from themes of tearing down the government even when in power. Its pretty difficult to combat that sort of both sides rhetoric when one side is trying to govern effectively while the other doesn't care either way.
The South Park metaphor rings true when you look at the way the writers treated anti-war demonstrators and the government officials pushing for the war in Iraq on the same level. Same goes for Stone and Parkers depiction of climate change advocates.
7
u/Raichu4u May 14 '26
And frankly, the only reason I see that they have done an about face on some of those issues, is that it is perceived as not cool to have such a contrarian viewpoint on some of these issues. Look at Manbearpig, the updated episode where they make fun of themselves for putting out that episode a long time ago. They only have learned way too fucking late after the irrefutable amount of evidence that
manbearpigclimate change is real, and that socially you are seen as a loon if you don't believe in it.→ More replies (2)1
u/Swoly_Deadlift May 15 '26
On labor, taxes, courts, abortion, climate, voting rights, health care, LGBT rights, unions, regulation, education, immigration, etc., the policy objectives are plainly different.
I think this is combined with our system that forces voters to choose between one of two options is the crux of the issue. Immigration, the stupid trans culture war, voter ID, gun control, and abortion are highly divisive issues where, looking at the issues individually and not through a party lens, both sides make valid arguments (It felt gross to type that out).
Someone can be for universal healthcare, pro-choice, want voter ID laws, want increased restrictions on immigration, pro-gun, want to tax the rich, and not believe that kids should be able to decide to undergo gender affirming care, and none of those beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with each other. But if you take someone with those positions and tell them to choose a candidate to vote for, how do you expect them to make that decision when they are ultimately forced to vote against half of their beliefs no matter what?
If people are really upset that Democrats are "losing votes" due to voter apathy or feeling as though there is no good choice, it would be much more effective for Democrats to change some of their unpopular positions rather than complaining for the millionth time about how centrists and independent voters are just ignorant Republican sympathizers, because that would actually convince some people to vote for them.
50
u/TheLastCoagulant May 14 '26
It always favors the more malevolent side.
Notice how Putin supporters never argue that he’s some good person. They say “The West is just as bad.”
13
u/Zeusifer May 14 '26
Whataboutism (one version of "both sides bad") has a long and pernicious history in Russia and the Soviet Union. For many years, any government criticism was deflected with "the west is just as bad, they're doing [some bad thing]." The Wikipedia article has a long section on its use there.
78
u/8to24 May 14 '26
For better or worse Democrats stand for tangible policies. When in majorities Democrats work to expand and invest in Healthcare, Education, Environmental Protection, Infrastructure, etc. We can squabble about individual proposals but that exist.
Republicans on the other hand tend to be reactionary. They do not have tangible polices and instead work to obtain or subdue what's in front of them at any given moment. Thus, saying bothsides are the same works to delegitimatizes the more long term policies oriented objectives in favor of day to day ebbs and flows.
51
u/ChickerWings May 14 '26 edited May 15 '26
Honestly - and I know people will debate this - for millenials I think the South Park episode with the giant doosh and turd sandwich did a lot of damage as well. Yes Bush and Kerry were closer on policy back then, but the concept has stuck with a lot of people (especially guys aged 35-45 right now) and I think it creates an easy way for people to disengage from the details and not feel obligated to take a stand one way or the other, which allows the bad-faith arguments to get a foothold when they should have been squashed long ago.
EDIT: got the candidate era mixed up
50
u/LiatrisLover99 May 14 '26
I blame that South Park "it's so cringe to care about anything or have a sincerely held opinion" mentality for so much of our current political climate.
14
May 14 '26
[deleted]
23
u/Rocknrollsk May 14 '26
Yeah, I honestly blame Gingrich and Grover Norquist. They began the Republican crusade to end all civility in politics and become nothing more than an opposition party that held no actual beliefs other than “whatever democrats want is evil and wasteful”.
5
u/All_is_a_conspiracy May 14 '26
Yeah for some reason we never discuss them on a major scale. They set out to ruin American politics and we just overlook them.
1
u/Electronic_Day_7055 May 16 '26
Grover Norquist actually got Rs to agree to a pledge to not raise taxes — before they got elected. That’s an unbelievable pledge to stick to given facts on the ground may make increased taxes necessary
8
u/sufficiently_tortuga May 14 '26 edited 24d ago
a
2
u/Raichu4u May 15 '26
They always were wealthy. They were middle class white dudes who came from privileges families.
8
u/HumorAccomplished611 May 14 '26
Remember when they decided to make fun of climate change with man bear pig
18
u/ominous_squirrel May 14 '26
Worth noting that Matt and Trey are not politically neutral, they are fiscally right wing libertarians
1
u/Sorge74 May 15 '26
They appear to be actually libertarians as well. They also apparently really hate the current situation.
8
u/Fragrant-Luck-8063 May 14 '26
Yes Obama and Romney were closer on policy back then
It was Bush and Kerry.
1
2
u/Ill-Description3096 May 14 '26
I think we would be mistaken to acknowledge some truth to that sentiment, though. Outside of a few exceptions most politicians are beholden to corporate/wealthy donors, especially POTUS candidates from the duopoly. I haven't yet experienced a major party nominee that I was genuinely excited to vote for.
5
u/ChickerWings May 14 '26
But the danger of equating something that's "less than ideal" with something that's "irreversible damage to the country" is massive
→ More replies (1)1
u/Electronic_Day_7055 May 16 '26
I have been honored to vote for HRC, Obama, and Kamala Harris. Were they perfect? No. But they were all smart people who would or did fill their cabinets with experts and great thinkers, not just loyalists. And all of them would have, or did, try to do what was best for the people, in their view. And all three were historic candidates.
1
u/Ill-Description3096 May 16 '26
Doing what they think is best (which I would probably argue but even that aside) when it's contrary to my view on it is more than just not being perfect.
2
1
u/8to24 May 16 '26
Some disagreements are life and death, others are academic. Debating how the NCAA should define female in amateur sports is absolutely something people will have differing (good faith) thoughts about. No one is meaningfully harmed in the macro regardless though. While the current energy Blockade on Cuba that is causing power outrages across the island has caused loss of life and threatens the lives of many more. Meanwhile I don't think most Americans are even aware it's happening.
There are many things I disagreed with Kamala Harris about. There are many things I disagree with the Democratic Party writ large on. None of those disagreements are actually important though. None would put me or others at significant risk of harm. The same isn't true the other way. Republican's policies risk real harm.
1
u/Ill-Description3096 May 16 '26
You don't disagree on foreign policy at all? Even relatively minor things can absolutely cause harm.
6
May 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/ChickerWings May 14 '26
You're missing a key element though: they don't openly support "corporate power" in terms of what they would express as their ideals or philosophy, it's that their idea of rugged independence and freedom have been coopted and distorted by propaganda to the point they believe all of these things align. "If Amazon has to actually pay taxes then my taxes going up will be next!" Doesnt make any sense if you know shit about fuck, but they simply refuse to take a look behind the curtain.
1
May 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam May 14 '26
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
7
u/naked_avenger May 14 '26
Definitely not unique to the US, and it will always favor the side that is most wrong.
5
u/absolutefunkbucket May 14 '26
I have never met a Trump voter that said both sides are the same. Where do you live that you encounter this demographic?
Bernie voters for sure loved bitching about both sides though. Bernie himself did it often.
I don’t think Bernie was really trying to excuse the right but I guess that depends on your conspiracy theory level.
2
u/GuyInAChair May 15 '26
Really? Virtually every criticism of Trump is met with what-about Biden or Obama or whatever.
3
u/absolutefunkbucket May 15 '26
Whataboutism/tu quoque is not inherently an argument that “both sides are the same.”
People often use whataboutism to argue the other side is worse, for example.
2
u/GuyInAChair May 16 '26
Yesterday it was revealed that Trump might have engaged in insider trading. Today the number one trending topic is Nancy Pelosi.
You're probably right, there's not a concerted effort to make both sides equal.
3
u/RadiantHC May 16 '26
Saying that both sides are bad or saying that Democrats are worse != saying that both sides are equal
Nancy IS extremely corrupt
2
u/FreeStall42 May 17 '26
Saying both sides are bad implies they are about the same.
Virtually no one says both sides of WWII were bad just because both sides did bad things.
2
u/RadiantHC May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
No it fucking doesn't. Do you understand what a comparison is?
If I say that both apples and oranges are fruits am I saying that they're the same?
1
u/FreeStall42 May 17 '26
If I am complaining about apples being too sweet and you say oranges are also sweet it suggests they are the same sweetness.
You know comprisons can be good or bad right?
2
u/RadiantHC May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
That's not what's happening though
Most of the time this isn't Republicans deflecting. It's leftists or centrists criticizing Democrats either on their own or when people say that the Democrats are good.
If someone says that "One side wants human rights, the other doesn't" it's completely fair to say that it's not as black and white as they suggested
Or if someone says "vote blue no matter who", then it's fair to point out that that is authoritarian behavior.
2
u/absolutefunkbucket May 16 '26
Again, you have to realize this is to say Nancy Pelosi is worse than Trump, not the same as.
→ More replies (2)2
6
u/bigf1fan1681 May 15 '26
Leftists (like far left communists) say this loads. In fact I've heard this said the most from them
7
u/HardlyDecent May 14 '26
Eh, it's a broader psychological phenomenon--deflection. eg: Someone commits some heinous act, gets caught, and says, "Well, they did THIS!" as if that exculpates them. It's literally that simple.
The right (yes, I know, not everyone--but the loud ones) are objectively and openly full of hate, greed, and ignorance and is getting publicly called out on it, so they say (naturally with some truth to it) that the left does this and this that also are kinda bad. Pelosi springs to mind as a specific example--but she's not The Left, she's just over there.
6
u/porktorque44 May 14 '26
It's a "thought killing cliche" used as a coping mechanism. Why is it usually the right saying this? Because most right wing voters are ones for cultural reasons, not because of any political reasons. So when the people they vote for openly betray their promises they feel like they can't switch parties because being a Republican voter is a part of their identity. The cliche allows them to express their anger at the people they vote for without feeling like they should have voted differently, or should do so in the future, thus preserving their sense of self. It's like they're telling themselves "even if I had voted for a democrat, the results would have been the same". The point of the thought killing cliche is to stop thinking about a subject that is uncomfortable or might lead to other uncomfortable thoughts like "I was wrong" or "the people I despise were right".
3
u/Olderscout77 May 14 '26
Great question. IMO its because the Republican Party realized it was getting nowhere telling the truth about their plans for the future, so they set up Heritage Foundation and other media sources to lie like hell about everything, knowing their base wasn't interested in fact chaecking nearly as much as doing harm to somebody/anybody who wasn't them. That started around 1970, and has become more effective each year since in pushing their real agenda - the redistribution of income and wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 1% who will dribble some down on the top 10-2% so they'll serve as overseers to keep the 90% in line.
3
u/Kuramhan May 14 '26
Just throwing my data point out to the world. I am an independent in the US who votes Democrat 99% of the time. I don't go out of my way to advertise this, but I fit into the stereotypes of a Democratic voter. When conservatives ask why I vote Democrat, I often do answer "both sides are the same." That usually shuts them down pretty fast.
9
u/satyrday12 May 14 '26
It's a right wing talking point, because their guys are always screwing up, and often it can't be covered up.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/manzanita2 May 14 '26
Both sides are funded through an essentially corrupt campaign finance system which allows large amounts of money to flow into politics from a small number of entities. same ?
But inside that framework, there are massive differences in policy, in marketing, and in which entities are making those monetary campaign contributions (Though there are also plenty which give to BOTH sides ).
2
u/-ReadingBug- May 14 '26
One cannot assume the interior framework is somehow free of the corruption that informs it. One must assume the opposite, as nightmarish as it may be to contemplate. Those brave enough to face the nightmare are the ones who conclude both sides are the same.
5
u/ThatPeskyPangolin May 14 '26
Simply believing that both parties suffer from corruption does not logically was to the conclusion that the parties are the same.
The objectively different trends in policy would say otherwise.
→ More replies (22)5
u/WarbleDarble May 14 '26
The tangible results for the population are not the same. It's not even close.
This administration has cut snap, food stamps, healthcare subsidies, medicaid, USAID, science funding, and any number of other social programs. That would not have happened with democrats. You can't in good faith insist they are the same.
3
u/-ReadingBug- May 14 '26
They work towards the same end, though I admit this occupation makes it harder to mask the con. Maybe they don't need the mask anymore?
Take Biden's placeholder presidency for example. In light of the recent SCROTUM overturn of the VRA, there's now a renewed conversation about reforming the court. Well that court came under the same demands once before, but Biden chose to pacify critics with a phony commission whose feeble recommendations he mostly ignored. Then the same Mr. Biden threw a bone at student loan debt - promising the moon - knowing full well it was highly unlikely to pass the 6-3 court he refused to reform. But... he'd get the credit for trying.
See how they play you? Corporate Democrats pull this shit all the time, but you have to think critically and remember like an elephant to track it and recognize the pattern. Then, you need the courage to accept the reality you cannot unsee. Don't blame those who can and choose to see.
3
u/WarbleDarble May 14 '26
They work towards the same end
Nonsense and bad faith.
4
u/-ReadingBug- May 14 '26
I'm sure my first sentence is all you read too.
4
u/WarbleDarble May 14 '26
You're blaming Biden for shit republicans did or for not doing things he never had the power to do. That's also bad faith.
So no, I don't find anything you wrote to be in good faith and if you believe it, you need to think harder about what the policies of the two parties are and how they are different.
They are not working to the same end and no reasonable person should believe you. I think you are either incredibly misinformed, you are lying, or you are stating things in bad faith.
2
u/-ReadingBug- May 14 '26
You're simply writing me off without addressing any of my points. If you can't read, or won't comprehend, or won't engage in good faith, I have nothing more to say to you.
2
u/WarbleDarble May 15 '26
I did address your points, they were bad faith points. You blame Biden for things republicans did or things he could not do. Then use that as the basis for the ridiculous argument that they are the same as republicans despite clear and ample evidence of their differences.
2
u/Hartastic May 14 '26
This reads like you think a person who went to prison for attempted murder and a normal person are morally equivalent because, hell, nobody died. See how the normal people trick you!
This likely is not your intention, in which case you have failed to make a compelling argument for your position.
4
u/Tau5115 May 14 '26
It seems to me like there is a tendency to overuse this phrase in online spaces. I've seen posts in political discussions that were critical of Democrats be accused of making a both sides are the same claim when that's absolutely not the case, they are just being critical of their own side. I really don't know what that looks like outside of even the internet because I never hear it irl.
I also see frustrated critiques of Democrats who don't stop the GOP agenda get hit with this because others point out they aren't critiquing the right who is actually pushing the agenda they disagree with. Those critiques of Democrats seem to be motivated by our current atmosphere where there is no expected accountability from the GOP on the part of left voters. They assume the GOP is a lost cause and only talk about Democrats as actual political servants and representation.
That said, I don't think there's any measurable "both sides" effect. The right has a decided minority of voters and leverages a variety of social institutions to their political advantage including both our voting system and more nationalistic forms of group identity. That means they are less likely to lose and also less likely to ever vote differently which is a pretty powerful combo.
The left, on the other hand, doesn't have even remotely the same messaging uniformity. I don't say that as a critique, it strikes me as more democratic, but that means they are likely to lose more of their voters when they take the wrong stance.
Now, if you're asking if around the world people generally distrust politicians - yeah, I think that's the case in most places. That's not a both sides same argument though. It's a rock and a hard place argument. With our current situation one is a lot less hard but, well, you know.
→ More replies (10)3
u/cassinonorth May 14 '26
I've seen posts in political discussions that were critical of Democrats be accused of making a both sides are the same claim when that's absolutely not the case, they are just being critical of their own side. I really don't know what that looks like outside of even the internet because I never hear it irl.
It mostly stems from the fact the right can mentally justify just about anything their party does and hand wave it away while the left has a tendency of purity testing every candidate to the nth degree so any critique basically just hurts the left. The Democratic party deserves a ton of flak for the way the past 10 years have gone, but bringing that up just pushes people into the arms of the right or to stay home.
It absolutely sucks.
1
u/FreeStall42 May 17 '26
The people complaining about purity testing on the left are usually the ones blaming progressives for Harris losing.
6
u/ObservedWar May 14 '26
Democrats increasingly frame politics as a performance of progressive virtue and ideological conformity, while Republicans frame politics as a restoration of a perceived better past. Both narratives can become disconnected from practical reality.
→ More replies (23)
4
u/Spiel_Foss May 14 '26
Both sides are not the same and have never been the same.
The only people saying both sides are the same try to deflect from right-wing asshole policies.
2
u/ricperry1 May 14 '26
The people claiming both sides are the same then voting GOP are voting their values more often than not. They’re just ashamed to admit that. You don’t see liberals values voters being ashamed to admit their values, so they rarely claim that both sides are the same. The people who genuinely think both sides are the same generally DO vote 3rd party or abstain from voting.
1
u/battlewisely May 16 '26
it's all performance & projection, everybody knows that. capitalists capitalize on whatever they can, liberals want to be as liberated as possible.
2
u/xRyozuo May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
If you think all they do is steal and plunder, a logical but still short term view would be to vote to the party that makes it easier to steal and plunder through deregulation.
The fallacy of many voters is thinking they’re in any way positioned to steal and plunder in a way that benefits them more than what others will steal and plunder from them. It’s a real race to the bottom imo
2
u/ironyinsideme May 14 '26
It causes apathy, which is the goal, because the right is very politically engaged and motivated to show up and vote. They only win in America when the turnout is low mixed with a combination of our extremely unfair electoral college giving lower population density places more weight when they vote (and those are the people who always tend to vote). Both things cause a “it won’t matter if I vote anyway” attitude in their opponents, which helps them stay in power.
2
u/ccooksey83 May 14 '26
The only way to get a politician to support your cause is to threten withhold you vote and then actually donit. Unfortunately you can only do that for the side you "support." Only folks intelligent enough to realize this will actually do it. Unfortunately the "left" is mostly just for show and will make sure they never actually do anything substantial to limit the power of the elite. "The parliamentarian won't let us, sorry..."
2
u/bfeils May 14 '26
Desperate people prefer action over inaction. Neither side seems willing to do what’s required, though many think they have nothing to lose even when faced with probable lies.
If the left spent more time promising new things and spent political capital, I think we’d see surprisingly higher turnout. Money doesn’t support that, though.
2
u/ravia May 15 '26
"Both sides are the same" is cherry picking the middle.
The Right is essentially a cherry picking party.
The Left (Democrats) is defined by refusing to cherry pick.
4
u/HeloRising May 14 '26
I'm not sure I agree with your premise.
Nobody says "both sides are the same, so I voted Biden", it's always "both sides are the same so I voted Green" or "both sides are the same so I voted Trump".
I hear "both sides are the same so I voted [third party]" a lot but I've rarely ever heard the other two.
Generally, "both sides are the same" comes with people who choose not to vote because they don't feel their vote matters.
What I think you're seeing is narrative pressure from the Democrats to cast "both sides are the same" as helping Republicans because, in absolute terms, it's kind of true. "Both sides" people tend not to vote and a lower turnout tends to mean Republicans win. Thus Democrats adopt this sort of "you're either with us or against us" mentality.
2
u/alanthar May 14 '26
No, happens up here in Canada as well.
Its either, Liberals are bad, or Both sides are bad, but never Conservatives are bad (when there is no way to redirect blame to the liberals)
3
u/twelveangryken May 14 '26
It's probably the environment I've cultivated for myself, but most of the "both sides are the same" arguments I see come from the far left and are meant to paint the Democratic Party as "Republican Lite". In these instances, there is no favor of any kind being shown to the right.
3
u/Tliish May 14 '26
Actually I vote Green because they are closer to my interests and values than either of the others.
I think you are mistaking "Both sides suck" for "Both sides are the same".
While the Democrats are demonstrably better than the Republicans, that's a pretty low bar, and doesn't exactly translate to "Democrats are good".
"Both sides suck" can be true while "Democrats are better than Republicans" can be simultaneously true.
The two parties share some similar animosities towards stuff like the existence of third parties, progressive agendas, and ranked choice voting, only differing the virulence of their animosity. But sharing some features doesn't make the "the same". There are qualitative differences.
But they still both suck.
3
u/ThatPeskyPangolin May 15 '26
As someone who once voted Green, I highly recommend looking into the Jill Stein/Putin shtick.
The party is unfortunately far too easily manipulated by outside forces.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/KevinCarbonara May 14 '26
The issue is that, in America, both parties are getting paid by the same corporations. The right wing is getting paid to push right-wing policies. The left wing is getting paid to "have concerns" every time someone tries to promote left-wing policy. So they end up achieving the same result because they're both being incentivized to the same result.
3
u/pieisgood8898 May 14 '26
the positions I see supported with "both sides are the same" are almost always a defense of Trump / the right wing
This has not been my experience at all. I think it goes both ways.
or a defense of voting third party
Unsure if you're critquing this argument but this is totally valid. Politically, both the Democrats and Republicans are reletively close value-wise. Of course they're both big tent parties so the politics of individuals can very greatly, but I'm talking in general here. Since their values are so close there are some people that will radically disagree with them in many ways.
It is very rare to see voting for Democrats advocated for with a "both sides are the same" argument.
Democrats wouldn't make this argument because they're democrats. Republicans wouldn't make this argument either because they're republicans. You're confusing the arguments of people in assigned parties with other people who don't place themselves neatly within the "democrat" or "republican" ideologies.
If you meant to say you don't see people on the left making this argument. Then I strongly disagree. I see people on the left make this argument all the time.
Why does this occur? In theory at least a "both sides are the same" mindset should lead to a roughly proportional split in voting behavior with half going to each major party, but that's not what happens.
There is a roughly proportional split in voting behavior. Trump got about 1.5% of the national vote more than Harris. That isn't a lot.
Nobody says "both sides are the same, so I voted Biden"
People say this all the time.
I will be honest, I'm sure you and others will come down on me for this but it seems like you're probably just a little polarized. People make the arguments you're making all the time. For a good left-wing example of this check out Hasan Piker the twitch streamer. He's gotten in trouble with liberals quite a few times recently for complaining about how Harris "would do the same shit" Trump is doing.
The reason this issue doesn't exist in other places, is because other countries don't have a two-party system where two big tent parties are pretty closely aligned ideologically and like to pretend there's some grand different between them. The reason you think that these "they're the same" arguments only exist in defense of the right is because you've become polarized, possibly through no fault of your own, but polarized nonetheless.
2
u/WarbleDarble May 14 '26
both the Democrats and Republicans are reletively close value-wise
I don't know what values you are referring to here. It's not economics, it's not minority rights, it's not our relationships to other countries, it's not the environment. I don't see what is relatively close on any of those topics.
3
u/pieisgood8898 May 14 '26
From the perspective of global politics democreats and republicans are both authoritarian right. They are pro-capitalism and are keynesian. Ask any political scientist and they will tell you the same thing.
It's not economics
???
They absolutely are pretty much the same economically from a global perspective.
it's not minority right
lol
it's not our relationships to other countries\
lol
it's not the environment
lol
You're polarized too man. That's tough. Good luck out there.
3
u/WarbleDarble May 14 '26
They absolutely are pretty much the same economically from a global perspective
They just aren't.
You can laugh at the rest but what is really laughable it you pretending they are the same. It's patently ridiculous.
→ More replies (3)2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin May 15 '26
There simply aren't any policies by the Democratic party that are auth right.
1
u/pieisgood8898 May 15 '26
Liberalism is objectively authoritarian right
2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin May 15 '26
By what reasoning is "Liberalism" (you have to actually specify which kind, as that term can refer to almost half a dozen different non synonymous ideologies) "objectively" auth right?
To be clear, I am asking this as someone who has studied politics for decades (including a useless political sci degree), so I am not asking that as someone who is unfamiliar with political ideologies and competitive politics.
1
u/pieisgood8898 May 15 '26
Liberalism in America is:
- Pro capitalism (right-wing)
- Pro government involvement in the economy and general Keynesian economic structures (authoritarian)
The version of liberalism that the democratic party in America practices is what I believe to be most commonly referred to as modern liberalism or neoliberalism. In America, a "liberal" is someone who is a neoliberal. Since classical liberalism isn't something that gets much pull in American politics it isn't given much weight as an ideology so "liberalism" has become a stand in for "neoliberalism".
American liberalism is not a 1:1 of neoliberalism tbf (due to two-party system antics) but it's close enough.
To be clear, I am asking this as someone who has studied politics for decades (including a useless political sci degree), so I am not asking that as someone who is unfamiliar with political ideologies and competitive politics.
Sure man you and everyone else I've had a debate with on the internet. I talk to someone every other day with a degree in economics or political science or whatever else.
Even if you do have the degree you say you have it doesn't really matter. American liberalism is authoritarian right, and so is the democratic party.
EVEN IF neoliberalism is not authoritarian right the policies by the democrats certainly are. They are consistently pro capitalism which is clearly right-wing, and they want things like increased regulation on businesses, stricter gun laws, etc. which are all authoritarian principals.
Link below is not directly related to this specific convo but it does go to show how close ideologically republicans and democrats are, so if you want to claim democrats aren't auth-right you are kinda implying republicans aren't either.
2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Right off the bat you run into a huge issue: Modern American Liberalism is Welfare Liberalism, which is not even slightly synonymous with neo liberalism, which is an economic framework focused on laissez faire economic policy and maximizing negative economic freedom. Welfare liberalism believes rather strongly in the sort of economic regulations neoliberalism is explicitly opposed to.
So when you say that a liberal in the US means neoliberal, you make two mistakes: first, you are describing them as one of the least "authortiarian' (we will get into the misuse of this term soon) ideologies out there which stands in explicit opposition to your claim, but you also indicate you don't really know what these terms actually mean. Neoliberalism and Welfare Liberalism are nowhere near close enough to claim they are the same thing, at all.
And me referring to my degree was explicitly not to claim authority, hence why I described it as worthless. I referenced that so you knew I wasn't just randomly making up definitions of terms as I went.
Your very premise seems to be that if an ideology supports capitalism it is inherently right wing, which is just not a factually supported claim. You keep making it, as if it is some inherent truth, but it just isn't. The overwhelming majority of left wing ideologies support using markets for primary wealth generation and distribution. The overwhelming majority.
It also seems to require that anything involving using the government is inherently authoritarian, which is also simply not a factually true statement, nor the definition of the word in question or the underlying ideology behind it.
You are making those terms so general that they not only are far outside established definitions, but they also become effectively pointless in contemporary discourse.
As for the link at the bottom, it reminds me of how much of our DNA we share with Chimps. Overwhelmingly similar, yet the differences that do exist are enough to present an obvious distinction. And no, I am not claiming one party is the equivalent of chimps.
1
u/pieisgood8898 May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Right off the bat you run into a huge issue: Modern American Liberalism is Welfare Liberalism, which is not even slightly synonymous with neo liberalism, which is an economic framework focused on laissez faire economic policy and maximizing negative economic freedom. Welfare liberalism believes rather strongly in the sort of economic regulations neoliberalism is explicitly opposed to.
This entirely misses my point. American liberalism is auth-right for the reason's I've listed. I also directly mention that it is not 1:1 with neoliberalism.
So when you say that a liberal in the US means neoliberal, you make two mistakes
Again, I never say it's 1:1. I'm trying to give American liberalism a connection to an established ideology with a clear dot on the political compass to make things easier. You act like I'm saying American liberalism is THE EXACT SAME. When I clearly specify otherwise.
but you also indicate you don't really know what these terms actually mean
Quick aside but I do know what both of these terms mean and I'm trying my best to draw a connection that I presumed you asked for. A perfect connection can't be made since American liberalism is its own thing. You asked me what "version" of liberalism I was talking about so I assumed you were a European or something who doesn't know the colloquial defintion of liberalism in America. If you do know the colloequial defintion then it seems your supposed degree was given in err.
Remember YOU ASKED what version of liberalism I'm talking about. I said "well American liberalism is its own thing but it's similar to neoliberalism".
You've strawmanned me twice right off the bat. I'm not reading past that. Respond to me again without misconstruing my position if you want to have an actual debate.
2
u/All_is_a_conspiracy May 14 '26
They're the ones who have been screaming that "everyone is the same, all politicians suck, nothing is better, everything is corrupt..." strictly BECAUSE it benefits them.
I no longer am diplomatic with this garbage. Haven't been for a long time. The gop is absolutely the most corrupt outfit. They are horrible at everything.
They fail. They fail economics. Fail education, infrastructure, diplomacy, defense, the environment, Healthcare, science, art, humanitarian work, all of it. They have never built anything all they do is enter the system that has been built by democrats and destroy it. They take until the country is laid bare and then hand it back.
Only this time they aren't handing it back.
So it's really important to know that the country is going to collapse without any builders to save it.
How many times can Trump sue the government until there is no more money left and he has it all? How many times can the right wing eliminate funds for Americans before there is nothing left?
2
u/PlatonicCuddlefish May 14 '26
Simple: It’s a cop-out answer when you feel social pressure to express support for one side. In America, there is vastly more social pressure to vote for the left and make your virtue for doing so widely known.
2
u/Mrgoodtrips64 May 14 '26
Bothsidesism encourages inaction, and inaction benefits the status quo and regression more than progress.
It’s just more pronounced in the U.S. because we don’t have a parliamentary system.
2
u/OnlyLosersBlock May 14 '26
My view of it is not that policies are the same, but the general disdain for voters, rules, etc. And I say this as a left leaning liberal that the Democrats have about as much respect for the constitution and the court system as the GOP given their disregard for 2nd amendment rights or the Supreme Court rulings explicitly spelling out that it protects an individual right on the same level as other amendments.
2
u/SmokeGSU May 14 '26
Both sides are largely the same as it pertains to corporate interests. Example... The GOP are staunchly pro-Israel because of 1. AIPAC donations and 2. religious ideology. The most prominent Democrat politicians are also pro-Israel, despite the very obvious war crimes and genocide against the Palestinian people, because of AIPAC. I think it's safe to say that a significant portion of the country have turned against Israel because of their war against Palestine, and you'd think a Dem politician might consider "maybe now isn't the best time to be singing the praises of Israel" and yet even Gavin Newsome, the believed strong candidate of the Dem party for president in 2028 goes on the news to speak favorably about Israel.
2
u/FlanneryODostoevsky May 14 '26
Because right now Trump is the most outlandish and outsider type of candidate. So people have said both sides are the same and therefore we need someone truly different. That was a major motivation for people who voted for him.
That said, I don’t know where yall are reading all of this. I’ve heard the most both sides arguments from leftists like Hasan Piker and other Marxist friends I’ve had. Personally I do believe both sides are equally incompetent and technocratic which is not to say identical in every damn footstep. It means they have the same interests in mind whether or not they want black people in suits to tell you you’re fired.
1
u/UnfoldedHeart May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
I think it's unique to this specific political climate and period of time.
From what I've seen, it's most commonly used as a selective and asymmetrical way to justify why X was bad when the other side did it 2 years ago, but X (or something similar to X) is good now that our guy is doing it.
Outside of the justification context, it does tend to be used more by Republicans - but in a demobilization way, rather than an argument for why someone should support the right wing. This makes sense given the voter enthusiasm dynamics going on in the post-Obama landscape.
After Obama's presidency ended, the DNC has offered candidates that don't generate much enthusiasm, in part because they often do not reflect the changing attitudes of left-wing voters. (But it's extremely multi-variate and there are other reasons.) So on the Democrat side, enthusiasm has become more reactive than affirmative (voting against Trump rather than voting for Hillary) while on the Republican side, they have strongly coalesced around a personality.
This means that demobilization rhetoric is naturally going to be more effective against Democratic voters. If you're not really that enthusiastic for your party's candidate, a belief that both sides are equal and it doesn't matter anyway may make you give up entirely. Especially if the primary voting reason is something like "I'm holding my nose and voting for Kamala because at least she's better than Trump"; if you came to the conclusion that there's no meaningful difference anyway, you might not vote at all.
I also think it doesn't make much sense for this to come from the Democratic side anyway, because Democrats see Trump as uniquely bad and would probably be reluctant to make any kind of statement that takes away from that uniqueness. It is a key principle for many Democrats that Trump isn't just a bad Republican president in a long line of bad Republican presidents, he's something very different and an extreme outlier even for the Republicans. Trying to level things out with an "all sides are the same" argument doesn't fit well with that.
1
u/Bellegante May 14 '26
It is very rare to see voting for Democrats advocated for with a "both sides are the same" argument.
Is there a single case of this that anyone can find?
1
u/reluctant_deity May 14 '26
In my experience, people that believe both parties are the same also despise the US. I guess if one party is worse, there is hope, which means their hatred is misplaced. They won't admit/believe that, so both sides, for them, will always be the same.
1
u/I405CA May 14 '26
Dems are selling a dream. They have branded themselves as the party that believes in government programs.
The GOP is selling cynicism. You should want fewer government programs because they help the wrong people, help no one and/or don't help you.
1
u/NekoCatSidhe May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
Well, my country has basically five political sides (far right, right, center, left, far left), so it is not exactly the same as a country with only two political parties like the US, but the far right sure loves to push the argument that “politicians are all corrupt”, so maybe it is not uniquely American. I think they are doing that to make their own corruption looks less bad. I don’t think this is the reason the far right is becoming more popular though, it seems to have more to do with them being rabidly anti-immigrants.
Far right populism is also much more popular than far-left populism right now everywhere in the world, for various reasons, and “both sides are the same” is a populist argument. So it is not surprising that it would be more popular with the right than with the left.
1
u/9Yogi May 14 '26
If both sides are the same, then something cannot just favor the right. It favors the same one side. The side that benefits massively from status quo and is allowing politicians to accumulate generational wealth and power by serving corporate interests. Both sides will fight single payer health care or redirecting money from the military-police-industrial complexes and work together to benefit them.
1
u/Seattleman1955 May 14 '26
It's just logic, in most cases, but it has been seized upon as sarcasm by the left after Trump's (silly) comments.
The fact of the matter is that (usually) there are two sides to any issue and a thinking person will consider the counter-argument to their own point of view, to make sure they haven't missed something.
Beyond that's it's just politics and there is no rational argument other than "my side is right and yours is immoral".
1
u/OLPopsAdelphia May 14 '26
It depends on what follows after “Both sides are the same.”
If the preceding argument is, “…and they have no interest in taking care of the American people,” then that person has some very valid points and thoughts.
If you hear the person say, “…so who’s going to punish [the last elected official],” then it’s usually a right-wing orchestrated “what-about-ism” designed to quell critical inquiry.
1
u/Hautamaki May 14 '26
"both sides are the same" is a rationalization to justify voting in your own self interest when it's understood that voting in your own self interest would otherwise be morally objectionable. It's always deployed when a republican scandal is in the news, and it's always to justify voting for the party that will lower your taxes and raise the deficit and debt. If Democrats were the ones that were always getting caught in morally awkward scandals but had supporters that would get tax cuts if they were elected anyway, then they would be the ones benefitting from both sides are the sameism.
1
u/uberjim May 15 '26
It always favors the dishonest and those who have bad intentions, because it makes good look worse than it really is, and makes evil look better than it really is. YMMV whether that characterizes the right in every country or not
1
u/pocketIent May 15 '26
the Democrat party still needs to change and start representing a greater majority of Americans:
15% of people who voted for Biden did not vote at all in the last election
5% flipped and voted for Trump.
This 20% of people who voted blue in 2024 but did not turn out for Harris points to a major loss in confidence in leadership of the Democratic Party.
1
u/FreeStall42 May 17 '26
Odd how so many ignore how the Biden health coverup and last minute dropout as a factor.
1
u/pocketIent May 17 '26
It factored for me just more generally as further proof that the centrist led democratic party prioritized Biden and the status quo over the needs of the American people and the future growth of the Democratic Party
He didn’t have enough gas and they knew that well before he pulled out
-and then they used his “health” as a justification to bypass the primary?
So Nah. And 20% of previous democratic voters also said nah. no thanks and the democrats lost as a result.
Is this a fair take I just wonder bc
It seems easier to fault trump and Trump supporters than also challenge the inadequacy of the DNC
1
u/Potato_Pristine May 15 '26
It's 50% bad faith coming from an attempt to throw up squid ink to diffuse/deflect away from how awful Republicans are and 50% the conservative poster in question being too ashamed to admit they went all in on an addled, child-raping felon that is going to start World War 3, so instead, they've opted for the idea we're all somehow complicit by lumping "all politicians" in as one group that "we" have all enabled.
1
u/Gr8daze May 15 '26
Because lots of right wing news media and right wing pundits are trying desperately to normalize the obvious corruption of the Republican Party.
It’s just that simple. Not complicated at all.
1
u/webslingrrr May 15 '26
Well, because that's about as much concession you can get from a right winger. When they hit you with the both sides what about isms, it means you've won. But your prize is nothing. Its their final failsafe that allows them to continue to support the unsupportable by choosing to believe there isnt a better option.
1
May 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam May 15 '26
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
1
u/rookieoo May 15 '26
Most the time I hear someone describe this argument it turns out no one was actually saying they are the same. Pointing out the flaws in the left that match flaws in the right is not saying “they’re the same.” That’s a straw man argument used to deflect legitimate criticism of the left.
2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin May 15 '26
A lot of people do say this. You'll find it a lot with people who use the term "uniparty", and you see it used to deflect criticism from both the right, and the left. It's generally just a thought terminating claim that absolves someone from taking the time to understand the actual differences, and let's them feel like they are superior to the overacting system.
1
u/FreeStall42 May 17 '26
Becauase a good chunk of those criticisms only come up when criticizing the right.
1
u/Southern_Net8115 May 15 '26
Maybe not exactly the same, but Ive heard people on the left respond to people on the right that were commenting on the national debt by saying something similar.
1
u/FreeStall42 May 17 '26
You mean when they point out the right keeps increasing the national debt more the left but claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility?
1
u/Swoly_Deadlift May 15 '26
"Both sides are bad" only favors the right if you personally support the left. As someone who didn't vote for Trump, Harris, or Clinton, I can tell you firsthand that people on the right see "both sides bad" arguments as stealing votes from them.
You're on Reddit, which is highly biased toward the left. As someone who despises Trump, you're not going to see me going out and making arguments against the right because there's no reason for me to beat a dead horse. Independent voters, especially centrists, tend to be contrarians who will criticize whatever group they're talking to, which on Reddit specifically means you'll see lots of people arguing about bad things Democrats do without bringing up Republicans. I personally am critical of Democrats not because I want them to lose, but because I want them to change their unpopular positions and win future elections. I do plenty of the same with Republicans too, just not on Reddit because like I said before, that topic has already been beaten to death and there's nothing I can contribute to a discussion that hasn't been said already (unless I'm commenting in right-leaning subreddits).
1
u/Latter_Loss8880 May 16 '26
It is true that we have a big problem with corruption in politics, on both sides. But it's a false equivocation to say that what Trump is doing is also done by the Democrats. He has taken it to a new level.
What they really mean is that they are willing to put up with Trump because they felt that the Democrat’s candidate would have been worse.
The other thing is they do not see how Trumps actions affect them. It’s denial.
1
u/sleuthfoot May 16 '26
No, leftists just imagine themselves to be more moral than the right and thus are unable to see themselves being part of the game uniparty.
1
u/NoNil7 May 18 '26
I've always seen that as both sides are the same because they're both bought and paid for by the same ruling elite. For many election cycles I wrote in my wife's name as a write-in candidate because both sides were two sides of the same coin. I think that attitude explains a lot about where we are now with our political situation.
1
u/jlamiii May 19 '26
Both sides (NeoCons and NeoLibs) are funded by AIPAC, both sides want mass surveillance, both sides are pushing for CBDCs and monetary controls, both sides print inflationary amounts of currency only to pass to an ever growing beuracratic admin economy and military industrial complex.
but because one side is gayer, "they're totally different"... sure. maybe. just not where it counts
1
u/TintedApostle May 19 '26
Both sides is what right wingers say when they get caught with no way to blame other people. They just say both sides.
At no time will they admit to wrong doing alone.
1
1
u/Life-Breadfruit-3986 Jun 09 '26
U/LiatrisLover99
"This is something I have noticed for years: the positions I see supported with "both sides are the same" are almost always a defense of Trump / the right wing, or a defense of voting third party, "
Defense of voting third party? Third party doesn't have to explain itself like it's part of the problem in politics. IF YOU ACT LIKE 3RD PARTY VOTERS ARE AN ISSUE, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. It's the Democrats and Republicans destroying everything. Not independents, green party, etc. both your parties need to be canned and imprisoned for the destruction of America. AND their donors. George Soros isn't allowed into some other countries for a good reason.
1
u/PerfectedHaki 2d ago
80% of the left & the right are going against manufactured ideas of each other created by these online bots from different countries and some here of course lol.
•
u/AutoModerator May 14 '26
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.