TheHustings.news, again: A Partisan Weapon In Disguise
Posted By RichC on March 27, 2025
It is not hard to suck me in to having an opinion … and politics is one of those topics that I fortunately or unfortunately have formed semi-strong politically opinions over the years. I 
probably share/debate/argue them too often with my son Taylor (and he usually counters them) or in the past couple of years, have opined by request on TheHustings.news.
This past week, left-leaning friend of a sailing friend, posted: “Defending Democracy is Not a Partisan Issue” for the left-column of TheHustings. His commentary highlighted the need to prioritize democratic principles over divisive partisanship in order to safeguard our system of government. As with all noble points-of-view, there can be a bit more pushback from others when getting into the actual subject matter — and so as a counter point-of-view (for the right-column of course), my commentary zeroed in on the overused “grandma off the cliff” fear tactic 
used by Democrats when it comes to the Republicans wanting to “shut down Social Security.” Read on if you dare … 
Commentary by Rich Corbett
The pitch that defending democracy is a noble, non-partisan cause is a comforting tale, but it’s not the last word on the matter. Instead of uniting us, this slogan has become a partisan bludgeon, swung by one side to hammer the other. Look at the hysteria over Social Security: warnings of an “assault” on this retiree lifeline get paraded as evidence of democracy in peril. It’s a scare tactic, not a shared mission, showing how the concept gets twisted into a political weapon.
Take that claim head-on. Proposals to tweak Social Security—like adjusting eligibility or benefits—are spun as full-scale attacks, proof of democratic sabotage. Yet these ideas often aim to keep the program viable amid real pressures, like an aging workforce. If defending democracy were truly bipartisan, wouldn’t we debate fixes instead of shouting betrayal? The one-sided outrage betrays the game: it’s a rallying cry to energize one faction while branding opponents as threats, not a call for common ground.
The hypocrisy stretches further. When one camp decries election security laws as voter suppression, it’s a crisis of democratic values. When the other side calls out Big Tech censorship or executive overreach—like rules shoved through without Congress—the same voices shrug. If this were a neutral fight, both concerns would matter. Instead, “defending democracy” amplifies selective fears—Social Security today, something else tomorrow—to let one side play savior while painting rivals as villains.
The bias runs deep. The argument props up a “free” press and “independent” judiciary as democratic cornerstones, but a press skewed one way, as bias studies show, isn’t free—it’s a mouthpiece. A judiciary’s independence is a partisan tug-of-war, too, with every appointment a battle. When these institutions echo certain alarms, they’re not safeguarding democracy—they’re picking winners.
The “defend democracy” line assumes we all see it the same way. We don’t. Some view entitlements like Social Security as untouchable; others see reform as survival. Some push majority rule; others guard minority rights. These gaps don’t unite us—they fuel the fight. Democracy isn’t a holy grail to protect; it’s a ring where partisan armies, armed with overblown claims, slug it out.
This vision of a bipartisan defense of democracy is a delusion. It’s a catchphrase hijacked by those who gain from fearmongering, whether over cherished programs or other hot buttons. Unity starts with owning the messiness of democracy—not pretending it’s a saintly ideal we all agree to save.
Corbett writes on a variety of subjects at My Desultory Blog.
(
