Fight for Democracy, Part 17: False Equivalency

It’s become an accepted fact that each side has retreated to its own corner, or bubble if you will, and no longer feels compelled to debate the ideas on their merits or with objective information and data. It doesn’t really matter which side we’re talking about or what field of inquiry – anywhere there is a roughly equal division of opinion you will hear the refrain: both sides are equally valid; you need to respect my point of view. Hogwash.

The notion that merely because two sides exist they are equally valid and reasonable and worthy of respect has never been the case. While equivalence is possible, perhaps even common, it is not the default and needs to be established before it’s accepted. Any opinion needs to be supported by its own logic and moral justification without claiming equivalency ‘just because’, and we do have plenty of precedents to guide us in evaluating correctness and validity. Let’s start with the historical/political:

At some point in the past, most every significant topic of politics has been divided into two opposing sides supported in roughly equal numbers. Slavery, women’s right to vote, gay marriage, Social Security, etc. At some point they were all hotly contested, but with the accuracy of hindsight and a hopefully more evolved and improved view of humanity, we now know that quite often one side was wrong, really and truly wrong. So, by equivalence, there is nothing foundationally different about many topics of today: transgender rights, Black Lives Matter, Muslim bans, universal health care. There is every reason to believe that future generations will clearly see that one side is right and the other is wrong, and while we can argue about which side is which, we cannot simply claim they are both equally valid and deserving of respect. Respect is not given, it must be earned through supporting evidence, sound reasoning, and moral justification.

A modern example is Evolutionary Theory versus Creationism. One is supported by decades of scientific study, literally tons of physical evidence, and built upon a logical structure vetted through the scientific method, while the other is based on the words of a religious text and relies upon the denial of any level of critical thinking or independent thought. So while 40% of the population may believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, the idea simply is not equivalent in any sense of the word.

This isn’t to say that we are free to ignore any dissenting opinion. The point is that each argument must be judged on its own merits: raising the minimum wage has a slew of contradictory evidence and very reasonable arguments it will either stimulate economic growth or crash the system through increased costs. Neither side can claim clear superiority though everyone can certainly decide which argument is most convincing.

But on so many issues, the side of evidence, the side of morality, is clear: humans are causing global warming, gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else, racial discrimination is wrong, drug testing welfare recipients is a waste of money, women deserve to be listened to and respected, everyone has a right to health care, America has a gun violence problem. We do not need to credit those who oppose such truths. We do not need to respect those who would use their unsupported beliefs to harm others. We do not, and should not have to agree to disagree. We need to fight for what’s right until it wins the day, until it’s as obvious as slavery is wrong and women deserve the right to vote. That’s what progress is. Conservatism is the opposite. There is no need to admit equivalency where none exists.