Right or Left, We Have to be Fair in our Analysis

Sometimes when we get deep into our politics, we tend to forget things. Or maybe we just set things aside depending on who is doing the talking—or of course, depending on who is in charge. Both sides are guilty of this, although it happens more on the left.

But the right is not without its faults, and to not call them out from time to time would show a considerable amount of personal bias which I try as much as possible to avoid. Perhaps there is some sense that I have that if I set aside biases when I write my commentary, it adds credibility to some of my points.

I am probably kidding myself, but no matter.

Take two situations we are currently talking about on the right which I think are a bit contradictory to where we might normally stand if it were our side making the decisions. The Ukraine war and the recent trip by Blinken to China.

I must stress I don't like Biden, and I don't like Blinken. I disagree with almost everything that the Biden administration is doing, wants to do, or has already done. But being a person who tries to set aside bias, I have to also make sure to evaluate each opinion I have based on some sort of reference.

What would the republican party have done when Russia invaded Ukraine? Considering our position with Ukraine at the time and our stance that Ukraine should at least be considered for entry into NATO—although not without strong provisions, a position Biden also holds—I think we would have responded in similar fashion.

We would have assisted Ukraine.

Granted, I do hold the belief that had Trump still been the president at the time, Russia would not have invaded in the first place. But that's a what-if scenario. We don't know if that would have absolutely made a difference or not.

Whether or not we, as a party, are fully committed to the idea of policing other nations, we have often acted in a way that polices nations and helps out smaller guys under attack. If Trump had made similar decisions to provide support to Ukraine, I think we, the republicans, would have supported that.

Conversely, it is fair to point out that democrats would have opposed what they now currently support regarding Ukraine.

Biases get in the way of certain judgements sometimes, as I said, on both sides.

My position is clear. I believe Putin is a madman, and I believe Ukraine should not have been invaded, deserve their independence, and also deserve our help. That's despite my overall opinion on Ukraine, which would digress from the aim of this post. It is also despite my opinion that I am not sure Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO at this time.

Enter the visit by Blinken to China to meet with Xi Xing Ping. One issue that came up was whether or not the United States supported an independent Taiwan. Republicans have railed against Biden and Blinken, essentially having said, "The U.S. wants to be abandon the people of Taiwan."

This patently untrue and an unfair accusation by republicans.

Because the United States has had a One China policy for decades. In fact, we have held this position since 1972. Even a year or so ago Biden slipped and almost indicated that our One China policy had changed, which his staffers had to then backtrack and remind the American people that our China policy had not, in fact, changed. We still are for a One China policy.

The decision by Biden and Blinken to maintain that Taiwan not be independent of China is directly in line with the One China policy we have held since 1972. Our position did not change, and Biden is not abandoning a people.

Granted, what we would actually do if China invaded Taiwan, is another question. It is a question even Trump has refused to answer, asserting that making public his position would compromise his negotiating ability with Xi Xing Ping. And that's a sensible answer.

I point these things out because I prefer to operate in a political environment of fairness and real-based analysis of positions and circumstances. I can't blame democrats for getting it wrong if I don't also criticize republicans when they do.

I can have an opinion on One China, for example. But I can't simply change the facts around it because I happen to disagree politically with the other party and the current administration. I also can't, in good faith, change my fundamental position just because the leadership has changed. And I don't also want to engage in blanket disagreement simply because the one at the helm is someone other than I would prefer to be there.

Politics, above all else, should place heavy weight on truth, and we should maintain a level of common sense and common ground. I think it helps to advance discussions and discourse, and I think it provides a level of balance to what gets decided and how we deal with it that is badly needed in this country.

To do anything else is to simply run in place, and in doing that, we get nowhere.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Twitter @jimbauer601 or on my Facebook page.