Say someone says they don’t like Democrats and one reason is because of Hilary’s e-mail scandal. They aren’t that bothered by the Signal scandal though and say it won’t happen again. They complain about George Soros influencing politics but have nothing to say about Elon Musk.
What should the strategy be in calling out the hypocrisy?
Personally, I like very direct and simple questions to make it easy to show people they’re avoiding the question. “Did Elon offer people money to vote in the election?” They can give their long winded, right wing response that avoids the question, and the followup should be to point out how it doesn’t answer it and ask it again. Anyone in the middle watching will clearly see they can only give their canned answers and won’t answer a simple question.
Comments
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Say someone says they don’t like Democrats and one reason is because of Hilary’s e-mail scandal. They aren’t that bothered by the Signal scandal though and say it won’t happen again. They complain about George Soros influencing politics but have nothing to say about Elon Musk.
What should the strategy be in calling out the hypocrisy?
Personally, I like very direct and simple questions to make it easy to show people they’re avoiding the question. “Did Elon offer people money to vote in the election?” They can give their long winded, right wing response that avoids the question, and the followup should be to point out how it doesn’t answer it and ask it again. Anyone in the middle watching will clearly see they can only give their canned answers and won’t answer a simple question.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
>What should the liberal strategy be when it comes to calling out conservative/MAGA hypocrisy?
Don’t.
Everyone who would be persuaded by that has been persuaded.
Others don’t care.
They need to figure out an alternative vision for the country and make it their message. Simply saying “Trump bad Trump tariffs” isn’t going to cut it.
You are assuming that they care about hypocrisy. They do not.
They will believe what their Dear Leader says at the moment he says it.
If he says the sky is orange today, they will believe it. If he then says the sky is purple tomorrow, it is now purple.
It is not about what is true or accurate, it is about how they feel in that moment he says any one thing.
He says the tariffs will cause short term pain but long term gain, and they believe him. They will continue to believe him until that pain is no longer bearable, then they will question where that gain is that was promised, but not until then.
Ignoring it and focusing on promoting good ideas. They are fighting a war. They don’t care about being logical, correct, morally right, or even being better off. They are just angry being operating on hate.
Learn about how to solve problems that matter and participate in local politics. We don’t have the skills or resources to deprogram cultists.
It’s a chicken or egg problem. They can easily turn the question back around on you.
“If you didn’t care about Hilary’s emails, why should we care about Signalgate.”
“You don’t think what Soros is doing is problematic, but now you do when it’s someone you don’t agree with”
the opposite of what’s been going on the last 10 years bc it hasn’t been working.
Nobody really cares about hypocrisy. If your best argument is “but that’s hypocritical” then you’ve already lost.
You don’t have to defend Hilary’s emails. Just say “that was bad too,” and keep the conversation about the actual topic. Even if Hilary was also wrong, doesn’t make the signal leak right. So just make the argument that the signal leak is bad regardless.
There is no strategy that works.
They don’t care about hypocrisy.
Therr shoulsnt be a call out. It doesn’t matter. They dont care.
MAGA party had 4 years to campaign. They already had Trump to represent them from the first term
Democrats need a charmastic leader campaigning right now.
What is happening and has happened should be obvious to everyone. I’m forever shocked seeing people that I would otherwise consider intelligent just not get it, vote against their own interests, and push things that they were vehemently against ten years ago.
But if they don’t see it by now, I don’t have much hope for them. Meeting trolling with seriousness doesn’t work. Telling them that what they’re saying is insane doesn’t work. Trying to match energy kind of works (such as the Vance memes), because the only way to win with them is to top them. But a lot of us on the left are serious people. It doesn’t come naturally, and we feel like we’re betraying our issues if we get on the floor to play with the kids.
I feel like information may not win a spar, but it’s something we shouldn’t abandon. If we aren’t telling the truth and stating what is happening plainly, then no one else will right now. That should be our focal point. Maybe after Trump makes life considerably worse for people, some plain “this is fucked up” may be the thing to turn the tide.
The Bill Burr strategy.
If you’re a snooty, condescending NPR Karen, this is not your fight.
MAGA only responds to being mocked and humiliated by other men.
I would just call them a hypocrite and move on.
I think all this focus on “strategy” in talking with others is one reason why liberals are seen as duplicitous. Just say what you mean and mean what you say… you don’t need to focus group ways to convince Republicans they are hypocrites.
I would like to see the Liberal/Democratic strategy to combat Conservative/Republican hypocrisy to first stop engaging in hypocrisy themselves. It will make their claims that Conservative/Republican are being hypothetical more believable and serious.
To use the OP example.
Yes it is hypothetical for Republicans to dismiss the Signal controversy after ralling against Hillary Clinton’s miss use of a private server to conduct Government business, including classified.
But on the flip side it is hypothetical for Democrats to rall against the Signal controversy when they all but dismissed the importance of Hillary Clinton’s miss use of a private server to conduct Government business, including classified.
I get it; its different. Republicans are evil and Democrats are the personification of American virtue so we should expect each to see the world differently. But it still makes for a unpersuasive argument.
Don’t bother. You can’t get through to them. They’re the most vile people in America.
The electorate consists of about 45% republican voters, 45 democrat voters and MAYBE 10% who swing. And it’s probably fewer than that.
THOSE are the people we need to reach. And based on recent polling, they seem to understand their life is getting worse.
I wouldn’t bother with tit for tat. Just go for the juglar whenever talking to a trumper. “You support a rapist. I’m not talking to you. You’re vile”
Or “you support a domestic terrorist. I am not talking to such an unpatriotic person.”
Has pointing out conservative hypocrisy ever worked in the past two decades? Like we don’t live in 1960 anymore, a vast swath of people have 0 faith in anyone in government being honest or caring about them at all. It’s why so many conservatives don’t care if Trump lies since to them everyone is already lying but he’s lying for them.
No one but ardent liberals care about all these high minded ideas of good governance or bipartisanship even if they say they do. At the end of the day the vast swath of the politically disengaged just want someone they believe wants what they want and does the things they want. Everything else doesn’t matter so my advice for the democrats is advocate for policies that most people like, I’m sorry but your average Joe could not give less of a shit about indictments, J6, or any other thing that doesn’t really affect their day to day life.
Calling out hypocrisy is not a good political strategy. It can be used to parry attacks, but “they are hypocrites” is pretty much the worst way to get people to vote for you. No one actually cares if they are hypocrites, they care if they get policy results that they want.
Also all politicians are hypocrites.
Pointing out the hypocrisy is pointless. The public mostly believes everyone in government is corrupt anyway. If a statement about hypocrisy or dirty tricks isn’t immediately followed by why they are using these tactics and for who, then it’s nothing.
Attacking what the right does and who they work for isn’t. Offering a positive, concrete vision of what you will do is even better, and following through is best. Even if you fail to do it, people can tell when you really tried.
What are some examples where calling the GOP on their hypocrisy worked?
FFS, people voted for an indicted fraud. And rapist. Twice.
Ain’t gonna work. It’s time to put that shallow bullshit down and talk about policy.
Don’t call out hypocrisy. Some amount of hypocrisy is unavoidable in a world where we have competing values, let alone a world where we don’t all agree on what those values are or how to rank them. Calling out hypocrisy isn’t particularly valuable.
What your strategy should be instead depends on your goal. Are you trying to “win” the argument, or are you trying to convince them to change their perspective? These are not the same thing, and often conflict.
I don’t have good advice for you if you’re trying to “win”. I don’t think it’s worth doing.
If you want to change perspectives (and are honestly open-minded):
Focus on the problems that people are implying. If they want to talk about Hillary’s email scandal, press them on what exactly about that situation is a problem. Is it a bad thing that Hillary used nonsecure communications channels to transmit sensitive information? Sure. So what should “right” look like? What should the consequences be when others do it, like Chelsea Manning, Reality Winner, or Pete Hegseth? Does context matter? Does intent matter? Should there be a blanket policy, or should the response to this sort of thing depend on circumstances?
Asking these sorts of questions forces them to clarify their positions, rather than challenging them on their positions. What it feels like to them is a chance to double down and “convince” you that they’re right. But what actually happens is that it moves the conversation away from canned responses that don’t match reality, into an exploration that (more often than not) results in you being able to say “that’s what happens now” or “I agree with you that we shouldn’t allow that”. And from there, you can start the (slow) work of building up a set of policies that actually address the problems that you both agree on.