Navigating Tribalism: Why Right-Wing Conservatives Struggle to Answer Questions Without the 'But Liberals' Defense

Why is it so hard for right-wing conservatives to answer a question without playing the 'but liberals' card? Why canrsquo;t virtually any of them stay on the subject and just answer the question?

Understanding the Logical Fallacy of Relative Privation

The reluctance to address questions without bringing up one's opponentsrsquo; actions is a common issue, not limited to left-wing activists but often seen among right-wing conservatists. This phenomenon is rooted in the logical fallacy of relative privation, where one tries to defend their position by criticizing the opponentrsquo;s relative lack thereof. When faced with questions, instead of providing concrete examples or substantiated arguments, right-wing conservatives often resort to deflective tactics, citing examples that involve their adversaries.

This behavior often leads to indirect questioning, which lacks any specific examples and generally warrants suspicions of dishonesty. Subtle questions are often used in an attempt to undermine the authenticity of the issue at hand, as they do not provide the necessary clarity or specific examples to substantiate the claim. This approach allows conservatives to avoid taking responsibility for their positions and instead directs focus towards the perceived shortcomings of the opposition.

The Era of Tribalism

Today, we are witnessing a significant shift towards tribalism in the political arena. Instead of presenting coherent arguments and logical reasoning, political discourse is becoming increasingly emotional and defensive. This erosion of traditional reasoning is particularly evident among conservative supporters who, rather than engaging in intellectual debate, often resort to pointing out the perceived flaws of the opposition.

Understanding each partyrsquo;s individual planks is challenging for even those who self-identify with a particular group. For the average voter, knowledge is often limited to a few key issues. Take the issue of abortion, for example. Voters tend to have a binary decision-making process based on their stance: if they prioritize the rights of the mother, they typically choose candidates with a 'D' behind their name, and if they prioritize the rights of the unborn child, they choose candidates with an 'R'. While this binary system can simplify decision-making, it does so at the expense of nuance.

The Impact of Emotional Logic Over Intellectual Discussion

When a supporterrsquo;s chosen champion is attacked, the easy response is to defend them with talking points that may not be well-understood. For instance, if a right-wing champion is criticized for their stance on Ukraine or a specific tax policy, the emotional response is often to mobilize these vague talking points. The phrase 'I donrsquo;t know' is typically not viewed as a valid defense, especially when it comes to complex issues.

However, the problem extends beyond just the use of emotional logic. Without a comprehensive understanding of the issues, it becomes extremely difficult to challenge the intellectual consistency of opposing viewpoints. Critics often highlight the nuanced positions of their opponents, only to be met with accusations of hypocrisy or inconsistency. The balance of consistency, even when it exists, can often be tenuous and based on questionable premises.

Emotional logic, rather than intellectual discussion, prevails in the present era of political engagement. This shift means that those who yell the loudest are often perceived as being more right, rather than those who provide clear, reasoned arguments. The result is a cycle of defensiveness and counter-attack, which does little to foster meaningful dialogue and understanding.

Conclusion

To conclude, the struggle of right-wing conservatives to answer questions without relying on the 'but liberals' defense is deeply rooted in the current political climate of tribalism. By understanding the logical fallacies and the emotional logic that dominate modern political discourse, we can begin to work towards more thoughtful and coherent political engagement.