I don’t know what this tactic is called, but it seems pretty popular among the right recently.
Examples:
The right accusing the left of engaging in unscrupulous voting practices (while they promote voter suppression)
Mitt romney accusing the president of not being entitled to his own facts while he himself lies during the debate
Newt Gingrich accusing Chris Matthews and Sonya Sotomayor of being racists
Railing against class warfare when your own economic policies are plutocratic and hostile to the working class.
Claiming the left wants to destroy medicare (while Paul Ryans plan actually would destroy medicare)
If 2004 was the year of use your oppenents strength against them (Karl Rove using Kerry’s war record against him), recent politics seems to imply that accusing your opposition of doing what you yourself are doing is the new tactic. And it seems to work. I admire the right in a lot of ways.
What is this tactic called anyway? I’ve heard of ‘projection’ but I thought that was an unconscious defense mechanism. This seems more like a conscious effort to avoid criticism by pre-accusing people who will eventually accuse you of the same thing to weaken the eventual criticisms (claiming the democrats engage in voter fraud, so when they accuse the republicans of voter suppression everyone goes ‘there they go again, accusing each other of baseless crap’).
Like I said, projection is an unconscious defense mechanism to protect the ego. This is not the same thing. This is more of a conscious effort to distract people and defuse criticism.
It’s a little like poisoning the well… By accusing the other guy of the sin I’m actually guilty of, it weakens his ability to accuse me of it. Now, when he says I’m a racist, fewer people will take it seriously because they hold him to be a racist also.
Ultimately, it’s good old-fashioned mudslinging, with a spicy topping of hypocrisy.
The most egregious example that I recall from this year was during the RNC I believe, when many on the right were beating the drum about how divisive the President has been.
Well he was! The American public still hasn’t made up their minds about whether he’s an atheist keen on eradicating religious morality in pursuit of hard rationality, a member of an Anti-American Christian cult, a Muslim sleeper agent, a sly Communist radical utilising menshevik tactics or an incompetent Keynesian in the pockets of the big banks and the Jewish lobby.
I think the best example this year are Romney and Ryan chastising Obama for cutting Medicare by $748 billion while proposing identical cuts themselves.
The Left accusing the Right of voter suppression while hindering any checks on citizenship status.
The Left making baseless accusations against Romney re: taxes while condemning Republican who do the same to Dem candidates without proof.
Everyone accusing Scott Brown of being racist in addition to the election year cry against voter suppression in Black/Hispanic neighborhoods.
Railing against class warfare when the plan for reducing the deficit is tax the rich.
Claiming the Right wants people to die in the street when they simply want states to decide the best form of UHC.
See, there’s just enough truth in yours and mine to make it not complete bullshit. And its the same thing that happens every election.
No, what is occurring is the right is engaging in unpopular activities, then accusing the dems of engaging in those activities to deflect criticism. That isn’t the same thing.
A better example would be Dennis Kucinich accusing the GOP of being appeasers. Or senator Ben Nelson accusing republicans of not being willing to sign laws unless there is pork for their individual states. Those would be examples of this behavior occurring on the left.
What you are describing is different as far as I can tell. The dems aren’t trying to deflect criticism from unpopular policies by accusing the republicans of engaging in those same policies. I wish they would though, elections come down to low information voters.
I was looking for this myself. According to “Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery” it is called “Tu Quoque.” There are several examples on the internet, one here: Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque
I don’t know if it is exactly what we’re looking for, but close.
Yes, it’s a variation of the tu quoque, but what’s interesting about it is that it’s using a preemptive variation to make false accusations, which results in deflecting the accusations against you before they are made. A tu quoque focuses on the idea that, if you do it too, it must not be so bad, and that you must not really object to it. But this variation focuses on the idea that, if I dare accuse you of it, I must not do it myself. The dynamics change completely due to the preemption.
It’s like a tu quoque on the second level: the well has been poisoned because, if I accuse you of what you actually do, it appears as if I’m making a tu quoque.
