We may define false equivalence as when when someone falsely equates an act or idea of one as being equally egregious to that of another without also considering the underlying differences which may make the comparison  invalid or unfair.

False equivalences often take the form of analogies that we are expected to take a little too seriously.  For example, we have recently witnessed the backfiring of a TV ad for a member of congress who called his opponent "Taliban Dan." While there was much about which to legitimately criticize then-candidate, now U.S. Representative-elect, Dan Webster (R-FL), the comparison to the Taliban was widely taken as a false equivalence that reflected poorly on the candidate who made it.  But even if one takes the view that the analogy was fair, one has to consider the political consequences of failing to understand that many people do not for a range of under-appreciated reasons, as evidenced by how the ad backfired -- making the comparison as much of an issue as the substance of the criticism.

We may recall that that Old Time McCarthyism was often marked by the use of false equivalences. And McCarthy's political descendants have kept alive The Tradition. A few years ago, a writer for The American Spectator engaged in serial false equivalences in a demagogic screed aimed at this web site. Here is part of my reply:

On the eve of the national gathering of the United Church of Christ in Hartford, Connecticut, [Jeffrey] Lord [the former political director in the Reagan White House] compared his own church to the former Soviet Union and this comparison is justified he implies, because the leadership of the UCC is somehow analogous to the Talk to Action site guidelines!  As a co-founder of the site, naturally this came as a surprise to me -- as did Lord's claim that our modest effort and the activities of the national UCC are also somehow like Harvard and contemporary Russia.

There is a point at which an analogy becomes a false equivalency and the two examples above, epitomize the genre.

The Daily Kos diarist who highlighted Maher's critique of Stewart, said that sometimes Maher too engages is false equivalency, stating that he is

"...very misguided when it comes to distinguishing between Muslims and Muslim extremists (talk about false equivalences!), and treats all religions the same (I'm Taoist, and it's rather offensive)."

I don't watch Maher's show so I have not personally seen him do this. But assuming what the writer says is so -- it is more than offensive. Maher's method is boneheadedly divisive, pitting religious and non-religious opponents of theocracy against one another. (He is, of course, not the only one who has done this.)  But what Maher did is significant because he had the courage to raise an important problem facing all of us in public life. For his part, Stewart also raised many useful thoughts about the nature of cable news and opinion and public discourse in general -- especially in his recent interview with Rachel Maddow, during which he observed regarding the errors and excesses of our friends and allies:

"We have a tendency to grant amnesty to people we agree with, and be dismissive of people we don't...".

Finally, it is worth highlighting the efforts of some liberal religious interest groups and individuals to marginalize other religious progressives  by denouncing (always unnamed) voices on the Left and Right.  I took two liberal Catholic writers to task about their demagogic indulgence and their appeal to a false middle/moderation in 2009:  

Common sense tells us that just because Gehring and Campbell claim to represent a moderate and responsible middle between two alleged extremes, does not necessarily mean that in fact they do. And indeed, the amount of invective they were able to cram into a short space in the service of their strawman arguments, should give pause to anyone who might be inclined to consider whether their views are, in fact, moderate or reasonable.

Here is a sampler of terms they use in discussing those of us who disagree with them:  "malign," "righteous zeal," "absolutist devotion," "predictable to the absurd," "demonization" "hardened agendas" and - my personal favorite -- a "scorched earth rhetorical style."

They conclude with a call to the rest of us to "embrace a spirit of greater humility, compassion and critical introspection..."

It was not hard to figure out where I, (as one of those who has written critically about the politics of abortion reduction) fit on Gehring and Campbell's enemies list. I must be among that notorious lot of unnamed "liberal bloggers" who allegedly "slam Catholics and evangelicals working on this approach as radical 'anti-choice' hardliners cozying up to the Religious Right." I say "allegedly" because Gehring and Campbell offer no examples and make no effort to actually address any of our points.

Also in 2009, Third Way consultant Robert P. Jones denounced the contributors to Dispatches from the Religious Left in a very similar fashion.  I replied:

Jones' main response was to unfavorably contrast our character with those he interviewed for his... book, Progressive & Religious: How Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist Leaders are Moving Beyond the Culture Wars and Transforming Public Life. He complained of "snarkiness" on our part; "sheer incivility," "rancor," "throwing stones," a "binary mindset," and a "take-no-prisoners mentality," while claiming that he is part of a "more humble" movement with a "less defensive attitude." Our "mindset" he writes, "has generated some surprising parallels between the left and the right."

Jones' evidence for his claims was nearly non-existent and his sole example  was easily rebutted. But the broader point here is that when the avatars of moderation and middle ground resort to false equivalences in an effort to gain hegemony in the discussion, great damage is done; again, dividing people who ought to be allies.  

It is worth reminding ourselves that while there is nothing inherently wrong with moderates and moderation, some people's claims to represent moderation in method and substance ain't necessarily so. What's more, some people's charges of immoderation on the part of others ain't necessarily so either.