By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a press conference, Georgia Republican Mike Collins made the false claim that former President Joe Biden was responsible for the 2020 civil unrest following the death of George Floyd, even though Biden was not in office at the time. Collins inaccurately attributed the violence and unrest to Biden’s administration, blaming him for encouraging and even funding the protests, despite the fact that the then-President Donald Trump was in office at the time of Floyd’s death. While Trump drew criticism for his response to the protests, and at one point used force to remove protesters for a photo opportunity, Collins went on to blame “socialist woke politicians” for the country’s current state. Notably, Biden was not even president at the time.
Read the original article here
Republicans say 2020 George Floyd riots were Biden’s fault, but Trump was president. The crux of this argument rests on a peculiar brand of historical revisionism and a stunning lack of accountability, a trend that has become increasingly apparent in the current political climate. It seems that the ability to assign blame, regardless of the facts, has become a cornerstone of some political strategies.
It’s a familiar pattern: Anything positive is attributed to “their guy,” while anything negative is conveniently laid at the feet of their political opponents. This isn’t just about disagreeing on policy; it’s a blatant disregard for the truth and a willingness to warp historical events to fit a predetermined narrative. We’ve seen this time and again, from blaming Obama for the 2008 recession, despite it occurring under the Bush administration, to more recently, trying to pin the blame for the George Floyd protests on Biden, even though Trump was in the White House.
The George Floyd riots, for instance, were a complex response to a deep-seated societal issue – police brutality and racial injustice. They were fueled by years of frustration, anger, and a feeling of being unheard. To then try to attribute these events to a specific political figure, especially when that figure wasn’t even in office at the time, is not just inaccurate; it’s a profound disservice to the core issues that sparked the protests. This kind of rhetoric avoids a serious conversation about real problems.
The narrative often becomes even more convoluted. The same individuals who might condemn the protests will then attempt to link them to the actions of their political rivals. This type of reasoning is self-serving and intellectually dishonest. It seems the end goal is to deflect blame, distract from the core issues, and undermine any efforts toward genuine reform.
Furthermore, this tendency to rewrite history isn’t limited to specific events. It extends to broader issues like the COVID-19 pandemic or the economic downturn. There’s a tendency to ignore the realities of the situation in favor of a simplistic blame game. Instead of a thoughtful analysis of the pandemic’s origins, impact, or the range of policy responses, the focus often shifts to assigning fault, regardless of who was actually in power during the crucial decision-making periods.
It’s easy to see this as a political tactic: A way to rally the base, create an “us versus them” mentality, and deflect from any potential criticism of their own actions. But the consequences are far-reaching. This kind of behavior fosters a climate of mistrust, where factual accuracy is secondary to political expediency. When basic facts become malleable, constructive dialogue becomes impossible, and any hope of finding common ground is extinguished.
This kind of rhetoric doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s fueled by a willingness to accept misinformation and a lack of critical thinking. It’s disheartening to watch this kind of behavior continue, especially when the stakes are so high. It’s one thing to disagree on policy, it’s another to distort reality for political gain.
It’s as if the basic question of “Who was president?” has become a trick question, a test of political loyalty rather than a quest for truth. The ability to answer such a simple question should be a fundamental aspect of any political conversation, yet it has become almost meaningless in the face of this relentless blame game. It makes one wonder what happens when political leaders and their supporters live in their own version of reality.
Even more troubling is the potential for this type of rhetoric to incite violence. By demonizing political opponents and constantly assigning blame, the groundwork is laid for more extreme actions. It creates a climate of animosity where people feel justified in acting on their anger, even if those actions are harmful. The use of this kind of rhetoric and the way it can be used to deflect, distract, and misinform, makes it hard to have a thoughtful discussion. This relentless blame game will continue to create a world of make-believe.