The aftermath of a grotesque display by the worst sorts of racists (actual ones, mind you, not the sort of soft racism that identity-politics- and social-justice-warriors accuse even the best-intentioned and best-hearted people of), and Trump’s infuriatingly inadequate response (Hey, Mr. President, it’s OK to denounce Nazi types by name without also condemning all other bigots at the same time – you yourself made that point when you called out Obama for not saying “Radical Islam”), provides witness to the further unraveling of the spirit of community and societal harmony that has long been eroding due to the divisiveness of identity politics.

People who dislike Trump are seizing on this incident to fling savage accusations at their fellow citizens if the latter don’t vocally denounce Trump himself as the root cause of the violence and death that resulted from the Nazi rally. Generally, this is being done on social media, by people who see an opportunity to declare themselves moral victors despite being on the losing side of the election. Rather than rebuke the racists and call out the President for engaging in behavior he once denounced, though, they’re going after their friends and acquaintances, most of whom did not support Trump because they’re racists.

Those friends and acquaintances are reacting in a wholly expected fashion – one that mirrors that which led to Trump’s victory. If you know you’re not a racist, and someone tries to call you one, you’re far more likely to push back than engage. The push-back, now and before, often involves accusations of hypocrisy and tu quoque arguments. So, rather than collectively condemn that which should obviously be condemned, people further divide themselves and go after each other. Then, the fingers of blame start pointing in all sorts of directions, diluting the very real blame that needs to be laid at the feet of the violent.

Follow this chain of thought:

• A small group self-identifies as part of a larger group, and likes a leader of that larger group.

• The small group says some things that the larger group disagrees with or dislikes or is embarrassed by or overtly hates/disavows.

• A member or members of the small group do Bad Things.

• Some other members of the small group cheer those Bad Things, some remain silent, and some are upset because those Bad Things don’t advance the agenda of the small group they way they wish.

• The larger group neither advocated, nor supported, nor condoned the actions of the smaller group. They feel this should be obvious, and that they should not be maligned for the beliefs of the smaller group (whom they didn’t ask for) or the Bad Things that members of the smaller group did.

• Those who oppose the larger group seize the opportunity to employ guilt-by-association tactics against the larger group for the beliefs and actions of the smaller group, and criticize the members of the larger group for not condemning the smaller group and the bad actors enough.

The larger group’s beliefs and actions are not germane to this sequence, so leave them out.

Does this describe:

Republicans and Racists?
Conservatives and the Alt-Right?
Democrats and Social Justice Warriors?
Liberals and Antifa?
Islam and Radical Islam?
The Civil Rights Movement and Black Lives Matter?
Trump and his followers and David Duke and his followers?
Obama and his followers and Louis Farrakhan/Jeremiah Wright and their followers?

All of the above, at least on occasion?

Now, ask yourself, is your outrage selective? Does your response to an incident escalate to high pitch when the larger group is one you don’t side with, and mute down to silence when the larger group is one you align with?

If so, you open yourself to the dreaded charge of “hypocrisy.” And, since virtually everyone is a hypocrite from time to time, you are likely to respond in-kind. Debate, if there was any to begin with, devolves into the Monty Python argument sketch, and people solidify their tribalistic stances. In other words, all you do by playing this game is piss off reasonable people who aren’t part of your team. That does no one any good, and can even push people teetering on the fringes into the abyss.

This makes you part of the problem. Sure, it feels great to engage in Facebook and Twitter virtue-signaling slacktivism by going nonlinear on your friends who backed the other candidate, but once your high dudgeon is exhausted, where does that leave you? Do you think that you can bully your acquaintances into regret and atonement by accusing them of being something they’re not? Would that work on you? If you can find a nugget of truth to apply in a particular instance, by all means, do so, but be honest – that’s not what you’re doing when you guilt-by-association someone in an instance such as the one at the head of this essay.

Do you want things to get better, or do you simply want to win a zero-sum victory in the moment? Your behavior is your answer.

• About the Author

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.