The right wing and the media often talk about political and policy problems without identifying who is to blame. They do this in two ways: by using language that implies both sides are responsible, or by identifying the evil but, conspicuously, not the evildoers. Let’s consider each.
Both-siderism is a rhetorical tactic that suggests both sides are equally to blame. In today’s politics, that is never true, and worse, it feeds public cynicism. It asserts that politics is inherently bad, our national institutions don’t work, and it is time to burn down the whole system. It supports the destruction of government and democracy.
Don’t blame partisanship, polarization, Congress, or Washington. There was a time when both Republicans and Democrats might be equally to blame for something. But it’s a different world today. When describing events in Congress, it is inaccurate to say partisanship rather than far-right intransigence. It is inaccurate to suggest that the parties are polarized because only one is controlled by extremists. Ideologically, Democrats are not much different from how they were decades ago. Similarly, Washington is a boogeyman term for big government, which our side, obviously, should not employ.
Don’t say bickering, squabbling, or gridlock. The media loves to demean disputes in Congress or state legislatures as bickering or squabbling. Bickering means to “argue about petty or trivial matters.” It’s the same implication when a political dispute is called a spat or playing politics. The subtext, which Americans fully understand, is that Americans should look down on the debate and its debaters. But there is virtually no political argument anymore that is trivial. MAGA extremists are trying to take health coverage from tens of millions, give trillions of dollars in tax giveaways to the rich, deny climate science, destroy the environment, wreck consumer financial protections, and devastate all kinds of employment protections and social programs. Blocking this regressive agenda is crucial and heroic, not bickering.
Don’t blame policy on a generational divide. It is simply not factual to blame something on the boomers, or the millennials, or any other age group. Focusing on generations creates false conflicts that divert us from the real ones—the rich against the rest of us, the racists against advocates for equal opportunity, the authoritarians against democracy itself. Within any generation, there are rich and poor, the ideological left and right, whites and people of color, longtime residents and immigrants. Whatever policy someone might complain about, at least 40 percent of every generation is already on their side. The people who oppose the policies we support love it when they can get us fighting among ourselves, so we should stop.
Don’t fail to blame the villain. All too often, problems are presented as if no one played a part and they just happened. “Abortion rights were taken away,” without mentioning the conservative majority on the Supreme Court or the MAGA legislators who passed an antiabortion statute. “Inflation increased,” without mentioning war or tariffs, or that corporations raised those prices. “RadioShack/Sports Authority/Payless Shoes went bankrupt,” without mentioning that the wealthy, represented by hedge funds, destroyed them.
In fact, people mostly understand the world through stories about heroes and villains. If you’re talking about a problem and don’t name the villain, people won’t understand what happened. And that just leaves an opening for the far right to sell its story that people of color, immigrants, women, and “woke liberals” are to blame.
Don’t say… 5,000 people lost their jobs at Walmart.
Say… Walmart fired 5,000 loyal, hardworking employees to increase profits for the owners.Don’t say… 100 demonstrators were arrested.
Say… At the mayor’s direction, police illegally arrested 100 peaceful demonstrators.Don’t say… The new law ends health insurance coverage for 500,000 people.
Say… The Republican governor and legislature took away healthcare coverage from 500,000 residents of our state.
The passive voice avoids responsibility. E.g., “the deadline was missed,” “the wrong email was sent,” or as Richard Nixon famously said, “mistakes were made.” Don’t use the passive voice in a political debate, and don’t let your opponent use it either. Your audience wants and needs to know who is to blame.