The problem with the "Both Sides Suck" argument

Last night and then more so this morning I got into a bit of a stew with a good friend, whose intelligence I admire but with whom I disagree on many, MANY issues of substance, over a bit of rhetorical silliness posted on the libertarian-leaning website reason.com. Clearly meant to be a satire of hysterical political punditry, it unfortunately feeds into the dangerous narrative on which far too many in the media rely, that of the "both sides are awful and an argument can be made equally on either side" school.

The particular irony of this piece coming from reason.com is that this might actually be true or even helpful if we were in normal times, where both sides relied on ... well, reason in making their political and policy arguments.  Unfortunately we are not in normal times, and one side, whether you want to call it the Republican Party, or the "right wing," or even what is today considered the conservative movement, has utterly eschewed reason on virtually every level.  From science to economics to basic principles of human decency and respect, they currently choose ideology and rigidity over common sense and critical thinking. They harp constantly about "liberty" but are actively engaged in the pursuit of massive voter suppression on a scale last seen in this country decades ago, and are trying to control women's personal choices in ways that make the distant 1950's look positively modern. You can't claim to be in favor of liberty and "small government" and then pass legislation in which the government forces women to have invasive, medically unnecessary procedures performed on them against their will and the advice of their doctors.

You also can't claim to be in favor of deficit reduction when your own economic plans do the exact opposite. Nor can you claim any credibility in the world of science when you deny both evolution and climate change in spite of massive scientific evidence verifying both.

So while I was ridiculed and called "humorless" for taking umbrage at this rhetorical nonsense, I stick by my original assertion that it is not only silly but dangerous. Both sides are NOT equally troubling, and whether you agree with everything the so-called "left" (though the current Democratic Party, including the President, would best be described in terms of a normal political spectrum as ranging from center-left on social issues to center-right on military ones), it has never been more important to stop the "other side," to wit the GOP and the right-wing, as it is now, if only to save it from the weight of its own intellectual, moral, and spiritual bankruptcy.