‘The Other Tyrant Did It First!’

A political simp's guide to rationalizing authoritarianism...

Just about every time a president does something questionable, at least some of their faithful followers can be counted upon to excuse it. Barack Obama bombed multiple countries? Democrats will tell you Bush did it first. Donald Trump may have tasked the CIA-funded company Palantir with compiling a centralized database on Americans? MAGAs will explain that Bush, Obama, and Biden already did mass surveillance, so who cares?

Rinse. Repeat.

Without fail, partisans appeal to the authority of their enemies to justify the immoral or inconsistent behavior of their heroes. After years of decrying Democratic presidents for their overreach, tyranny, and corruption, many Republicans now appeal to past Democratic policies to justify “their guy” doing the same things—things they’d condemn in their perceived opposition. Of course, it’s worth noting that Democrats excel at the same dance. But Republicans currently have one of “their guys” in the Oval Office, which puts them on the defensive and makes them more prone to using this rationalization.

Becoming what you swore to destroy

The most recent trending example of appealing to your enemies to defend your heroes concerns Trump’s air strikes on Iran. Obama bombed multiple countries, MAGA supporters ‘reasoned’ across social media, so why should anyone care that Trump is doing it now? Such rhetoric is intended to make Trump’s strikes seem like business-as-usual rather than an aggressive, unconstitutional military adventure. In a way, the MAGA apologists have a point: all recent presidents have bombed other countries without declarations of war.

But MAGA pointing out that Trump is simply continuing the policies of the same people who helped ruin this country is hardly an “own.” It should seem obvious that if you believe X politician or Y party are criminal authoritarians who destroyed the country, you probably don’t want anyone repeating the policies of X politician and Y party. And yet, X politician and Y party become a standard of tolerable behavior.