There’s a category of media nonsense called Both Siderism, where commentators contort and conflate their ideas to pretend that both sides of an issue are equally relevant. “Both sides do it.”  Some (<cough> David Brooks!) are so shameless they spawn entire new categories of critics. I try to keep out of the wars, but this Sunday, the lead New York Times editorial was so head-in-the-sand Both Sides, it got to me.

What Will It Take for Congress to Protect America’s Elections?

Robert Mueller sounded the alarm about threats to the nation’s democracy, but lawmakers keep playing politics.

— New York Times lead editorial, Sun. July 28, 2018

The Times goes full Both-Sider with, “… But (generic) lawmakers keep playing politics.”  Sounds like everyone was at fault, right? The rational reaction is despair. The subtitle implies it’s just a broken system.  What can us simple folk do?  Just shake your head and look away.

I’m sure that the Times will run an editorial next week about the tragedy of American political indifference.

In real life, our response to the Russian attacks are weirdly one-sided. Republicans benefit from the interference that we know damages Democrats. Democrats passed a raft of bills to fix the worst problems, and Republicans rejected every single one.  Some Republicans give lip service to protecting the country, but they’ve proposed… um, nothing?  And many other Republicans still insist that the foreign attacks – which every US intelligence agency classifies as real, imminent dangers – are only imaginary.  Witch Hunt! Hard to see how both sides are equally at fault.

Mueller and our intelligence agencies tell us that Russians interfered to help elect Trump, an impossibly weak man but a useful idiot. Even as Trump welcomed them, McConnell blocked Obama from acting against Russia in 2016. Once Trump was in office, Republicans kept accepting foreign aid while blocking any new protections. They know the wedge attacks are weakening American unity, but since Republicans mostly benefit, they don’t care.  The GOP developed those wedge issues first.

Democrats are trying to fix what they can. They’ve made proposals and written lots of bills. They’ve been trying to limit false social media accounts, election equipment hacks, voter registration damage, and other election issues. Not everything is perfect, but it’s a step. Unfortunately, after that, everything goes wrong.

First, Trump threatens to veto anything that makes him sad. Trump denies any foreign intervention, which doesn’t leave much room. Trump already said he would welcome future foreign interference, despite it being, you know, illegal. Which he denies. And Trump promised to encourage outside attacks in the next election, just the way he encouraged the 2016 and 2018 attacks. So that’s a problem area.

The second — and worse — roadblock is Senator Mitch “Moscow” McConnell. As Senator majority leader, McConnell controls the agenda. He decides which bills can get voted and which get spiked. When did that coup happen? Today, that one man – Sen. McConnell – holds the life-or-death switch for every bill through the legislature. Doesn’t that seem like a lot of power? McConnell has been using his authority shamelessly, killing every measure that doesn’t increase the Republican advantage in the next election. He doesn’t try to work with Democrats. Why pretend to compromise? He’s happy with the broken system.

McConnell pretends it’s really because they’re all partisan bills.  He’s spiked bills on election security, network defense, financial disclosure, paper trails, donation limits, and more. I guess that means that free and fair elections are anti-Republican. Who knew that paper trails and basic election security were partisan? McConnell says we don’t need new laws. For that to be true, Robert Mueller, his team, the Democrats, several courts, and all 17 US intelligence agencies must be wrong. McConnell says either that Russian interference is imaginary, or that we have it all in hand. The story changes.

McConnell’s explanation to Republicans is that they have to deny Democrats any victories. Any Democratic successes might hurt Republicans in future elections. (Like most Republicans, McConnell appears immune to irony.)

The worst part? While McConnell’s ignoble partisan rationale is horrible, it isn’t the full story. If you look at McConnell’s actions, he’s targeted the institutions that protect America freedom. McConnell opposes oversight, checks and balances, separation of powers, a free press, corruption limits, fair courts, and all the rest. He treats them as obstacles he has to destroy. I don’t see a limit, either. McConnell will weaken our nation as far as he must if that’s what staying in power requires.

Republicans understand that their power is waning. There aren’t enough old white guys to win; not anymore, and possibly not ever again. I assume that’s what makes them so desperate. That’s why they’ve spent the past few decades attacking voter rights, gerrymandering districts, gutting oversight agencies, and stacking the courts. They already knew that, in any fair fight, they lose. They need to cheat. And as much as the GOP members grouse privately, they comply. There are no Republican heroes because anyone who speaks the truth is abjured.

Stop trying to convince McConnell, Trump, and the rest about election attacks. They’re fighting for rigged, unfair elections, not against them. The GOP has become the pro-corruption party. Their measure of realpolitik is whether the Republican party benefits. Period.

And now the Times does their Both Side thing. When McConnell spikes each initiative, that’s evidence of Democratic posturing. Really. The Times laments that Dems kept including electoral changes that Republicans will call ‘unfair.’ How horrid of those Democrats! The Honest Ads Act, for example, requires political advertisers spending on public elections to reveal the funding sources. That’s almost literally the least anyone could do after Mueller’s warnings. McConnell spiked that, saying that disclosing dark money was partisan. And as insane as that sounds, the Times backs the GOP. Yes, the Times writes, the Democrats are playing games by even suggesting anything Republicans don’t like.

What else? Democrats wrote bills requiring political campaigns to notify federal authorities of any foreign offers. Since accepting foreign assistance is a crime, you’d think that’d be easy. Not for McConnell, and, weirdly, not for the New York Times. It’s a rebuke of President Donald Trump, they both say. And criticizing Trump on any issue is a valid reason for McConnell to deny the bill. And today, the Times agrees.

All right, is it true?  Does reporting foreign interference rebuke Trump?  The Mueller report says Trump welcomed Russian help in 2016. Trump already admitted he’ll do the same or worse in the next election. Trump solicited foreign attacks, both then and now.  And, because he’s a liar, Trump denied it all. No, there was no Russian interference. And if there was, it didn’t benefit him. Classic Trump.

So, a bill about reporting outside aid would be a rebuke only so far Trup is telling us the truth. And it’s a threat only so far as Trump will break the law in the future. I suppose that does make the bill a full reproach of The Donald.

The Times editorial staff frequently say that we need to do something. Russia, China, North Korea, and various Middle East countries are openly attacking our elections and our society. “They’re doing it as we sit here,” the Times laments in another editorial, echoing Mueller. They’re right about that. But suggesting that campaigns not accept foreign aid is just too far for the Gray Lady. “Such a measure has no chance of passing the Senate and only serves to harden partisan divisions,” they intone sagely. That proves that both sides are playing politics. Suggesting anyone disclose dark-money donations? Even worse. Forget hardening election systems, paper voting trails, and every other possible fix. Even trying it shows that the Democrats are partisan.

Here’s the deal. If you give that big bully your lunch money and he goes away, that’s one thing. If he takes it and breaks your nose anyway, maybe you should rethink that whole ‘appeasement’ strategy.