Opinion from the right
Most politicians and influencers understand that our brains love comfortability, and any hint of cognitive dissonance in voters’ minds could cost an entire election.
They pick their characters and stick to them, fashioned to whichever audience best aligns – and there seems to be a camp for everyone. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani charmed the progressives. Influencer Nick Fuentes gathered up young, radical conservatives. And Vice President JD Vance continues to exhibit dexterity as the quintessential family man that softens the harshness of President Trump.
So what happens when characters go off-script, ideologically evolve, or even just show a flaw? History answers this question perspicuously, but one needs only to glance at the media to observe ideological suffrage at the hands of human arrogance.
For starters, appearance matters more than most people would like to believe. This is exactly why President Franklin D. Roosevelt hid his wheelchair from the press in 1945. It’s also why President John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon at the first televised presidential debate in 1960.
More recently, it’s why the fly that landed on Mike Pence’s head is more memorable than the 2016 Vice Presidential debate’s actual context. And it's probably why former President Joe Biden stayed “in the basement” during his second campaign.
Changing Stances and Rhetoric
Public perception, though damning, is often outside of politicians’ control, and reveals one of the many side effects of joining the political circus.
But when a politician makes a shift on a policy or an issue, it's a tactical, risky maneuver that lands politicians in one of two arenas: cancellation or commendation.
RELATED: What 'Cancel Culture' means to Liberals & Conservatives | AllSides Red Blue Translator
Take for example Nat Hentoff, an atheist and former voice for liberal publications such as The New Yorker (Left), who then unpredictably established a pro-life stance in the 1980s. He later recalled, “While I had been a frequent lecturer on free speech at colleges and universities, those engagements stopped… They didn’t want this pro-life infidel on their campuses.”
More recently, some commentators on the right have deviated from loyalist “MAGA” conservatism, staring down the barrel of cancel culture’s proverbial gun. The move’s been embraced by some, but written off as betrayal and “RINO” by others. Tucker Carlson (Right), for example, revoked support for Republicans in the 2026 Midterm Elections in June, to which Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) indignantly responded, “@TuckerCarlson HATES: Trump, Republicans, Israel, Christian Zionists, YOU. Tucker loves: Qatar, The Ayatollah, Antisemite crackpots, Shirtless Putin, Sharia law.”
Similarly, the rise of socialism on the left has led to divisions within the Democratic Party, which Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) declared is, “drifting firmly into communism.”
Former Vice President Hillary Clinton (D) labeled half of Trump’s supporters “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it” in 2016, though she later called her comments “grossly generalistic.” Even so, Trump took a page out of Clinton’s initial playbook in 2024, referring to Democrats as the “enemy from within” and going so far as to call them “Marxists and communists and fascists.”
Similarly, the American public has warped politicians, celebrities, and even friends into simple, rigid, caricatures meant to reliably conform to their profiles. People are written off for rejecting this dystopic worldview not only on social media, but in the workplace, dining facilities, and college campuses.
Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R-AR) was kicked out of a restaurant in her home state in March because of her political standing; Sen. Scott Wiener (D-CA) was kicked out of a LGBTQ+ rally in his home state in June because of his perceived support for Israel.
Human Error
Deep within a culture defiled by hustle, optimization, and continuous media overload, Americans have allowed little room not only for stance changes, but also organic human error. Most US adults (58%) view “calling out others” on social media as accountability, while 38% view it as unjust punishment, according to Pew Research Center data (2020).
The data concluded, “Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say that, in general, calling people out on social media for posting offensive content holds them accountable (75% vs. 39%). Conversely, 56% of Republicans – but just 22% of Democrats – believe this type of action generally punishes people who don’t deserve it.” But neither side is a stranger to cancel culture.
Conservatives attempted to cancel ABC’s (Lean Left) “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” due to the host’s indecent jokes about the September assassination of Charlie Kirk. In response to the criticism, Kimmel tearfully said it was not his intention to “make light of a murder of a young man.” He said “If the situation was reversed, there’s a good chance I’d have felt the same way,” but also labelled the cancellation efforts “un-American.” Even so, the show was briefly suspended and Trump further called for Kimmel’s termination in April. Kimmel remains on the air.
The same month Trump suggested the termination, he posted an AI-generated image of himself as Jesus Christ amid a feud with Pope Leo XIV in April. The depiction, now deleted, is clear; but Trump swiftly brushed off the bipartisan backlash and claimed, “It's supposed to be me as a doctor.” Though some conservatives framed the post as a harmless meme, it’s hard to ignore its blasphemous complexion.
The public was righteous in criticizing Trump’s apparent hypocrisy and blasphemy, but is it possible that US culture is just as subject to blame? If Americans refused to forgive Kimmel for his error in judgement – even after he apologized – why should Trump expect more favorable results from the same tactic? Why shine light on offenses in a culture intolerant to correction?
RELATED: How Biased Media Makes Polarization Appear Worse Than It Actually Is | AllSides
A Potential Imperilment To Our Political – And Social – Process
Consider what would happen if we removed partisanship from moral objectivity – if instead of existing in this exhaustive state of reactivity, we acknowledged the faults and flaws of politicians concurrently and righteously.
Political violence is rising. Marriage rates are declining. Democracy is suffering. And our well-being is entrenched in the cross-fire. Ahead of America 250, vain verbal warfare and political impediments should be recognized as the damning pursuits that they are.
Undoubtedly, criticism is a fundamental driver of the democratic process. But we’ve seen what happens when cancel culture goes so far as to stifle free thinking. Obstinate confirmation biases have calamitously made bipartisanship rare, and inconsistency disgraceful.
Let us not degrade ourselves in this way.
This election season, when you hear part of a speech on TikTok or read about a policy proposal from the tabloid at your doctor’s office, allow yourself to get curious. Google that word you don’t know. Access your primary sources. Read the full quote. Decide for yourself. And try to remember, we may have more in common than we think.
Malayna J. Bizier is a News Analyst and Social Media Editor for AllSides. She has a Right bias.
This piece was reviewed and edited by News Analyst and Social Media Editor Jessica Carpenter (Center), Education Experience Manager & News Editor Emily Allen (Left), and Editor-in-chief Henry A. Brechter (Center).
