About that, this appears to be something else some people I read
previously do not understand in this thread. There is a difference
between a whataboutism, and issuing priority.
From
what I see, the conservative side of this thread isn't deflecting from
issues, but critisizing the hyperfixation upon a specific issue as
insignificant to the greater American predicament.
They're connected. You cannot talk about any issue going on in this country without talking about democracy, because democracy is the process by which we address all issues.
Let's say you want to elect a conservative president in 2024 who will address the issue of inflation according to the policies you approve of and who you feel will address your concerns when they are in office.
But the next Democrat candidate denies that she lost the election. She whips her fanbase into a frenzy of conspiratorial thinking, ignores her own attorney general and election officials who all say the conservative candidate won, demands that her vice president overturn the election in violation of the Constitution, and subsequently, a mob of the most impressionable and simple-minded liberals lay siege to the Capitol building in the middle of the certification of your candidate. Their justification is that you didn't care when conservatives did it to them, so why should they care when they do it to you?
Half the country thinks she won when she didn't; the other half is outraged. The government goes into limbo. Inflation skyrockets without any organized response from officials at all. The issue that was so important to you, and rightly so, goes totally unattended because you didn't appreciate the greater threat to democracy.
Democracy is the ultimate priority because if it fails, no other priority can be addressed.
That is why I called the rhetoric in this thread whataboutism. Not because other issues don't matter, but because in this case, they are a partisan distraction from the greater bipartisan problem.
