Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Moral equivalency as a political tool

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump
Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu, Andrew Leyden/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Schmidt is a columnist and editorial board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

The Fulcrum is a platform where insiders and outsiders to politics are informed, meet, talk and act to repair our democracy and make it live and work for our everyday lives. To be successful, it is essential we earn the trust and respect of our readers by maintaining an impartial stance.

That task is particularly difficult in covering this presidential election, in which one candidate has crossed many ethical red lines for so many Americans and the media must engage in Olympic-level journalistic gymnastics to remain bipartisan when, in many situations, there is no moral equivalence.


Moral equivalence is a fallacy commonly used in politics. It occurs when two different or unrelated issues or positions are falsely said to carry the same moral weight. This fallacy attempts to excuse the morality of the issue by blaming unequal behavior by the other. The term “moral” is doing the heavy lifting here.

Individuals or political parties that use this fallacy are rarely interested in solving a problem or learning how to govern more effectively. Rather, the goal is to win an argument or an election.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

We, the authors of this piece, come at this issue from somewhat different perspectives but arrive at the same conclusion. It is impossible to remain politically neutral in our work without falling into the moral equivalency trap. David Nevins is the co-publisher of The Fulcrum and is the steward of its mission. Lynn Schmidt is a contributing writer.

Nevins believes that faith and trust in our democratic institutions is essential for the well-being of our democratic republic. If our nation is to succeed, it is critical in today’s contentious and partisan political climate that the search for solutions be based on reason, logic and inquiry, where a conclusion follows from a set of core principles of decency.

Thus, when those running for office threaten our democracy, Nevins believes we must take a stand. We must harness the tension of our differences as we continue the journey to live into our country’s motto: e pluribus unum. Out of many, we are one.

Nevins postulates that America is exceptional because it was launched with a dream to take the diverse many and make them one. We can only fulfill this dream if we speak out against those violating this basic principle.

Schmidt fears that readers might think her opinions are too balanced or wonder why she has not voiced her opinion as to which candidate is the greater threat to democracy. Schmidt understands that if she came out strongly against former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris, those strongly in favor of the other candidate would be turned off and likely close their mind to the essence of the message.

That said, readers should understand that this piece, like her other writings in The Fulcrum, does in fact have strong convictions as to who is a greater threat to our democracy. While she believes there is excessive rhetoric being used by both Harris and Trump, she also believes there is no moral equivalency between the two presidential candidates.

As a conservative, Schmidt agrees with very little of Harris’ policies and proposals but cannot, in good conscience, say that one of the two candidates is the “lesser of two evils” when it comes to just policies.

However, there are also issues of conscience, and Trump put himself above the voice of the American people and his oath to our Constitution following the free and fair 2020 election. The way he speaks of the disabled, immigrants and veterans, just to name a few, is repugnant. A second Trump term would also likely see further erosion to our democratic institutions. There is no comparison.

John Steiner, a Mediators Foundation board member, wrote: “Millions of Americans from all sides of the political spectrum, who share basic human values of love, respect and inclusion, want our elected leaders to work together to resolve the great issues we face as a country and as part of the world community of nations. Uniting, not dividing leadership is called for now more than ever. There can be no hope for common or even higher ground as long as this President or any leader supports intolerance, bigotry or hatred.”

Nevins’ and Schmidt’s judgment stops at Trump himself and does not extend to the millions of voters who are set to cast a vote for him on Nov. 5. This is also not an endorsement of Harris.

Thus, since those who read the writings in The Fulcrum have a wide range of perspectives on Harris and Trump, plus have a varied array of values, priorities and opinions as to what constitute moral actions or words of candidates, we will defer to you to make your own decision. We say this as neutrally as we can: Ultimately, it is incumbent on each and every one of us to decide what we think is morally right or wrong while trying to avoid a deceptive cognitive trick.

Read More

Donald Trump and his family on stage

President-elect Donald Trump claimed a mandate on Nov. 6.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Elections don’t tell leaders what voters want. 2024 was no exception.

Interpreting the meaning of any election is no easy task. In a democracy, the results never speak for themselves. That is as true of the 2024 presidential election as it has been for any other.

This year, as is the case every four years, the battle to say what the results mean and what lessons the winning candidate should learn began as soon as the voters were counted. But, alas, elections don’t speak for themselves.

Keep ReadingShow less
Young people cheering

Supporters cheer during a campaign event with Vice President Kamala Harris at Temple University in Philadelphia on Aug. 6.

Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The youth have spoken in favor of Harris, but it was close

For many young voters, the 2024 presidential election was the moment they had been waiting for. Months of protests and demonstrations and two political conventions had all led to this — the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights and have a say in their future.

While Donald Trump won the election, Kamala Harris won among young voters. But even though 18- to 29-year-olds provided the strongest support for Harris, President Joe Biden did better with that cohort four years ago.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand-drawn Pilgrim hat with the words "Happy Thanksgiving"
mushroomstore/Getty Images

This Thanksgiving, it's not only OK but necessary to talk politics

This Thanksgiving, do not follow the old maxim that we should never discuss politics at the dinner table.

Many people's emotions are running high right now. Elections often bring out a wide range of feelings, whether pride and optimism for those who are pleased with the results or disappointment and frustration from those who aren’t. After a long and grueling election season, we need to connect with and not avoid one another.

Keep ReadingShow less
Men in "Dominicans for Trump" shirts

Attendees cheer as former President Donald Trump speaks on stage during a campaign rally in Allentown, Pa.,. in October.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The great Latino apology: It’s ‘the street,’ stupid

Donald Trump secured a surprising 43 percent of the Latino vote, enough to swing the election in his favor. Now, Democrats are forced to confront the fallout of their failure, which is rooted in decades of disinvestment and disregard for the diverse Latino communities. Articles, conferences and white papers have warned of these consequences for years.

Those familiar with Latino politics know that Latinos voting for Republicans is nothing new. Historically, Cuban Americans and some South American groups have formed a solid Republican voting bloc. What’s new is the recent shift among Mexican Americans, Central Americans and Puerto Ricans. Was it religion? Racism? Machismo? Misogyny? Negative experiences with government in the United States and home countries? A look at Mexico and its first female president (of Jewish descent) this year might challenge some of these assumptions. Whether this shift is permanent remains to be seen.

Keep ReadingShow less