Beyond Tribalism: The Intellectual Dishonesty of Moral Absolutism in American Politics

By Richard Graves, June 29, 2025

One of the more insidious forms of verbal manipulation is the use of logical fallacies—arguments that sound reasonable on the surface but are fundamentally flawed at their core. These aren't just clever rhetorical tricks; they're cognitive sleights of hand that distort reality, shut down meaningful disagreement, and create the illusion of moral superierity where none exist.

What has unfolded across both the political right and left is a growing trend of assumption-making, straw man arguments, and false dichotomies. This deployed to preserve the illusion that one side possesses the moral high ground over the other. But in truth, neither does. Both political camps are often guilty of reducing complex social and political issues into existential binary oppositions presenting their positions as good versus evil, justice versus oppression, truth versus lies. Doing so without acknowledging the layered realities and moral inconsistencies that exist within their own ranks. This rhetorical sleight of hand is not only disingenuous, but also intellectually fraudulent and deeply counterproductive. What should be a rigorous and honest engagement with ideas has devolved into partisan theater where nuance is sacrificed on the altar of moral certainty.

We are not engaging one another in good faith. Instead of dialoguing about what is—the facts, the policies, the outcomes—we leap straight into existential absolutes. It becomes a battle for moral supremacy rather than a search for truth. And the irony is, both the left and the right often mirror each other in the very behaviors they denounce in their opponents. They demonize, they generalize, and they sanitize their own hypocrisy. This moral projection betrays an unwillingness to do the hard introspective work of evaluating one’s own political commitments with clarity, humility, and a sense of moral complexity.

The polarization we’re witnessing today is not merely a difference in values; it’s a refusal to interrogate those values when they come under scrutiny. The inconsistency isn't incidental—it is endemic. But rather than confront this tension, individuals retreat into moral tribalism and construct straw men to misrepresent the opposing side’s position in order to feel justified in their own.

Looking at political discussions on social media, it's not uncommon to encounter a stream of replies that oversimplify someone’s argument. Further, after the oversimplification, the next step is to then attack the oversimplification rather than the actual substance. It’s not about understanding anymore; it’s about winning. It’s about making your “team” look righteous while casting the “other side” as irredeemable. This is not only dishonest, it corrodes the very possibility of meaningful civic discourse. I’ve seen this play out in real time, with responses that exemplify this very failure of thought—people projecting motives, misconstruing arguments, and refusing to ask better questions of themselves and their peers.

This phenomenon points to a deeper issue: people have a profoundly difficult time critically examining the policies, principles, and positions they have adopted, especially when those ideas are bound up with group identity. The political becomes personal. People don't just believe in a policy—they are that policy. To critique it is to critique them. And so, rather than engage with critique, they double down. They build walls of moral certainty. They cling to selective outrage. They ignore evidence that doesn’t serve their narrative. This is not political maturity. It is intellectual defensiveness masquerading as moral clarity.

What we need is not more shouting, not more ideological grandstanding, but more honesty—especially with ourselves. We must ask: Why do I believe what I believe? Have I truly examined the consequences of my side’s policies, or do I merely parrot the talking points? Am I open to being challenged, or am I just interested in being affirmed? These are uncomfortable questions, but necessary ones. Because without that kind of reflection, we are not thinking—we are performing.

And that performance is costing us. It's costing us civility. It's costing us shared truth. It's costing us the capacity to solve real problems because we're too busy turning every issue into a moral crusade instead of a collaborative effort. The goal of civic life should not be to emerge as morally superior; it should be to build a society that works better for all. That will never happen if our political conversations continue to be dominated by self-righteousness instead of substance.

In short, the current political landscape reveals less about our collective morality and more about our collective insecurity. Until we are willing to interrogate our own positions with the same rigor we demand of our opponents, we will remain trapped in this cycle of performative outrage and intellectual dishonesty. It is time we rise above the false choice between left and right, and instead embrace the harder, braver task of thinking deeply, listening well, and telling the truth—even when it implicates our own “side.”