Two drunks

I don’t know if there’s a formal name for this—when two sides of an argument try to “cancel” their hypocrisy out—but it’s one of the most frustrating habits I regularly notice.

You see it all the time: ”You think guns shouldn’t be tracked, but you’re fine with enforcing voter ID requirements!” This only seems to work because the speaker flips the logic, just to trip over it—in this example, gun control and lax election access—but flipping the logic back to what they actually believe doesn’t magically fix the contradiction. If they can spot the flaw, why do they wield it rather than solving it?

It’s like two drunks accusing the other of being wasted. They hurl an insult each way, but nobody sobers up.

Healey vs MassGOP

Here’s a real-world example; in March of this year, MassGOP “slammed” Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey:

During the interview, Governor Healey condemned the idea of using funding as leverage, criticizing former President Trump for allegedly withholding federal support. Yet, she is guilty of the very same tactic—punishing municipalities that do not comply with the MBTA Communities Act by withholding grants.

Note that MassGOP can’t take a stance on the political weaponization of funds, because the premise of her statement is that Trump did exactly that, and to take that stance would weaken their own position. So, instead of taking a stance on the problem itself, they issue a statement that the hypocrisy “cancels out”.

And, yeah, Healey did it too. It makes her a hypocrite, but as a consequence of our two-party system, neither side has the moral high ground. Both sides get their punches in, and the issue continues unresolved.

MAD

The aim of Mutually Assured Duplicity isn’t to be better, it’s to say “yes, but you’re just as bad”. It’s similar to distraction discourse in that it redirects attention away from the topic, but MAD is more contextual.

Can you think of any examples? Feel free to drop any in the comments.