I am writing this essay in reaction to the current online environment following the “Blue Wave” that occurred this week in the 2026 US mid-term elections. The examples I reference are based on what I am seeing this week. Had I written this at other points in time after other mid-term elections, the examples would most likely be reversed with respect to the political parties.
Following the recent mid-term elections, I’ve noticed a wave of articles and posts expressing concern over what comes next after the “Blue Wave”. Much of this commentary has expressed concerns that newly elected candidates intend to commandeer American politics and push the country toward some supposedly disastrous outcome, whether that means an Islamic state, socialism, communism, anti-Christian secularism, or some broader form of societal decay.
Typically, these concerns point to a particular individual or set of individuals who are identified as having a particular national heritage, cultural background, religious background, and/or sexual identity to which there is an objection.
I think it is a natural human reaction to be concerned about what might happen when your side is on the losing end in an election. We typically support candidates who we believe align best with our values, beliefs, and priorities. Naturally, when our chosen candidate(s) doesn’t win a particular race, we worry whether that might affect what we value, believe, and prioritize.
That part I get. What I don’t get is the selective outrage, selective concern, and selective examples people are using to express their concerns. Like much of politics, the concerns and outrage seem to be partisan rather than principled. There’s no law against being partisan, but we should be honest with ourselves about which one we’re doing. People can disagree about priorities without being hypocrites. But if a trait is disqualifying in an opponent and unremarkable in an ally, it’s fair to ask what the real principle is.
The problem isn’t necessarily the concerns people express. The problem is that the standards used to evaluate those concerns seem to change depending on whose political interests are at stake.
A principled concern is one you would apply regardless of the political party involved. A partisan concern is one that becomes important primarily when it provides ammunition against the opposing party.
This is not to suggest that every political disagreement is hypocritical. People can reasonably have different priorities. But when someone identifies a particular characteristic as disqualifying in an opponent while overlooking that same characteristic in an ally, it raises a legitimate question about the underlying principle.
One of the individuals much of the commentary this week has pointed to is the new Democratic Senator-Elect from Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed. He is identified as being a risk to our American way of life, as best as I can tell, because he is a Muslim and, if given the opportunity, would impose his religious beliefs on our country.
However, I have yet to see anyone express similar concerns about the current Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Dr. Mehmet Oz. He was born in Cleveland, Ohio, to Turkish immigrant parents. Because of his parents’ Turkish citizenship, he holds dual U.S. and Turkish citizenship, spent summers in Turkey growing up, and completed a brief period of military service in the Turkish Army to maintain his dual citizenship.
I’m going to go out on a wild limb here and suggest you don’t hear much about him being Muslim, holding dual citizenship in a Muslim-majority country, and having briefly served in the military of a Muslim-majority country because he wears the correct party badge.
Religion isn’t the only place where this selective application of principles becomes apparent. We see something similar when the discussion turns to immigration, citizenship, and national loyalty. These commentaries also often reference candidates holding or being alleged to hold dual citizenship or loyalty to another country. You often see people argue that someone born in another country shouldn’t be allowed to hold office in the United States. That may or may not be a valid position, but that is not how our current Constitution reads (foreign-born citizens can serve in Congress after a citizenship period, and a birthplace restriction applies only to the presidency).
We see a similar pattern regarding foreign-born leaders. Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar, who was born in Somalia, is frequently cited by critics as proof that foreign-born politicians pose a threat to American governance. Yet foreign-born Republicans (Senators and Representatives) such as Ted Cruz (Canada), Bernie Moreno (Colombia), Juan Ciscomani (Mexico), Dan Crenshaw (Scotland), Victoria Spartz (Ukraine), and Michelle Park Steel (South Korea), as well as high-profile Trump administration figures like Elon Musk (South Africa) and Elaine Chao (Taiwan), rarely face similar concern from the same commentators.
Again, I am going to go out on that proverbial limb and suggest that their motives and principles are not questioned in these commentaries because of their party affiliation. Being born elsewhere, holding dual citizenship, and being disloyal to one’s country are not interchangeable concepts. If the concern is about loyalty to the United States, then that concern should be evaluated through evidence of conduct rather than assumptions based on birthplace or ancestry.
Similar double standards emerge around sexual identity. When openly LGBTQ+ candidates like Chris Pappas or progressive Christians like James Talarico win office, critics warn that they will impose their personal beliefs on the nation. Yet we do not see those same warnings issued about prominent conservative figures, such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who is openly gay, married to his husband, and raising two kids in an openly gay household, all while holding one of the most consequential positions in the United States, if not the world
On the surface, the concerns I’ve seen expressed this week may be framed as being about foreign birth, dual citizenship, religious faith, or sexual identity. But when those same characteristics are viewed differently depending on someone’s political affiliation, it’s reasonable to question whether the underlying concern is really about principle at all.
I suspect most of us are guilty of this to some degree. I know it’s easier for me to recognize inconsistencies in the arguments of people I disagree with than it is to recognize them in my own. We tend to give people on our side the benefit of the doubt while scrutinizing the motives of those on the other side. That’s part of being human, I suppose, but it doesn’t make it any less problematic.
Perhaps a more useful exercise isn’t asking what we should fear about the people elected by the other side. It’s asking whether we’re applying the same standards to the people elected by both sides.
Political convictions are inevitable. Selective principles are a different matter.
Leave a Reply