Tu quoque is Latin for “you, too.”  The construct most commonly refers to a logical fallacy in which a person counters an accusation with the retort “you, too.”  The “you, too” retort is fallacious because it does nothing to dispel the original charge.  For example, if your neighbor accuses you of cheating on your taxes, accusing your neighbor of likewise cheating does not address your guilt or establish your innocence—it might change the topic of discourse, but it doesn’t actually respond to the charge of your wrong-doing.

The “you, too” retort is ubiquitous in politics.  But there is a fine line between logical fallacy and legitimate charge of hypocrisy, and that fine line can be negotiated only by means of critical thinking (reasoning and logic).  Let’s give it a shot here.

In the Republicans’ constantly escalating smear campaign against Barack Obama, the mischaracterization of an Obama remark about “spreading the wealth around” as socialism is among the latest irrational accusations.  Obama’s plan is to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the top 2% of income earners (as per the deadline legislated by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, George W. Bush), while retaining the tax cuts for 97% of small businesses and 98% of income earners.

This warrants emphasizing:  Contrary to Republican claims, Obama’s plan will not raise taxes on working class Americans or on the vast majority of small businesses.  (This is the conclusion of an analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.)  Nor does Obama’s plan call for dolling out checks to those who don’t pay taxes.

Republicans argue that raising taxes even on only large businesses and the wealthy will have a trickle-down impact on everyone.  As “Joe the plumber” put it, his suppliers will pass on their tax increases to him in the form of higher prices:  “You know, it starts at the top; it doesn’t come from the bottom up” (“Joe” Wurzelbacher in a video clip, MSNBC, Race for the White House, 16 October 2008).

After decades of failed Republican trickle-down economic policies, “Joe” is still his own worst enemy, remaining loyal to the thoroughly discredited economic philosophy.  “Joe’s” irrational political allegiances aside, I suspect that any worker earning $40,000 per year would happily welcome an additional $210,000 in annual income with no reservations whatsoever about Obama’s plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those at the very top of the income hierarchy.

But it’s the hyperbolic, hysterical attacks on Obama’s “spreading the wealth” remark, and the accompanying accusation of “socialism,” that are most troubling.  Tax policies disproportionately favoring the wealthy, along with corporate subsidies, deregulation, and a laissez-faire attitude toward the “free market”—all of which trace the origins of their zealous fervor to the Reagan Administration—have resulted in decades of steady and pronounced redistribution of wealth from working class Americans to the wealthy, and particularly to the very wealthy.

The working class experienced a brief reprieve during the Clinton Administration, but even President Clinton promoted excessively pro-corporate and anti-working-class policies.  (For years, I have referred to Bill Clinton as the most effective, or most successful, Republican president of the 20th century, to the bemusement of my liberal and conservative companions alike.  But no less venerable a Republican icon than Alan Greenspan gave my characterization legitimacy when, during the media tour to promote his book The Age of Turbulence, Mr. Greenspan described Bill Clinton as “the best Republican president we’ve had in a while.”)

Republicans haven’t been railing against redistribution of wealth as their tax cuts have been steadily shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the working class.  Republicans haven’t been clamoring about redistribution of wealth as their economic policies have been eroding the middle class.  Republicans haven’t made accusations of socialism over city, state, and federal monies subsidizing large corporations, such as Wal-Mart, effectively amounting to extortion of the working class in order to line the coffers of the very wealthy.

Republicans haven’t challenged the redistribution of wealth that is the product of policies undermining labor unions and workers’ rights.  Republicans haven’t labeled as socialism the redistribution of wealth stemming from a free market too long left to run amok, resulting in the stagnation of wages, the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs, the outsourcing of high-tech and customer service jobs to overseas companies, etc., etc., seemingly ad infinitum.

And what Republicans seem to overlook is that wealth does trickle up, whereas it has been repeatedly and convincingly demonstrated that wealth does not trickle down.  If working class folks have more money, they’ll spend more.  More of them will be able to hire “Joe the plumber,” more of them will be able to buy cars and furniture, and even homes.  They’ll spend more on Christmas presents, valentine gifts, birthday parties, dinner out with the family, vacations, etc.  Conversely, at some point the wealthy will no longer be able to accrue wealth, nor will they be able to benefit from it, unless the protracted and persistent assault on the working class is reversed.

The working class has taken hit after hit after hit, resulting in ever greater economic stress on the vast majority of workers and their families, while benefit after benefit has been bestowed upon those at the top of the income hierarchy, resulting in increasingly disproportionate gain for the wealthy, and particularly for the very wealthy.  Yet, all the while, there has been nary a peep from Republicans in protest of this vastly unfair and economically disastrous redistribution of wealth upward from the disadvantaged to the much advantaged.

No.  If you’re Robin Hood, then you’re an evil socialist, redistributing wealth and engaging in “class warfare.”  But if you’re the Sheriff of Nottingham or Sir Guy of Gisbourne, then you’re merely enacting sound policy that will (so the theory goes) stimulate the economy, create jobs, and result in wealth trickling down to the working masses.  When it’s the Republican power brokers and their wealthy cohorts who are benefiting, then it’s not class warfare, but rather, “sound economic policy” (in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, and even as the economy is suffering serious distress).

Again, no.  But when the flow of economic consideration is reversed and the vast majority of citizens—the hard working middle and lower class folks—are the targets of economic relief, then it’s redistribution of wealth, then it’s socialism, then it’s class warfare, and then the Republican hounds start barking wildly.

Sorry, Republican faithful.  In this case, tu quoque isn’t a logical fallacy, it’s a politically fatal condemnation.  It’s worth noting that the Roman Empire did not collapse because of decadence or moral decay—at least, not directly (the decadence and moral decay were merely symptoms of the real problem).  In fact, what undermined the Roman Empire was a growing disparity in the distribution of wealth that increasingly favored the “haves” at the expense of the “have-nots” and eventually exceeded what was politically sustainable.

At some point, the masses finally stop believing the phony assurances and the empty rhetoric, and they start believing the reality of their empty pockets.  We seem to be nearing that point in U.S. politics, and that, as much as anything else, accounts for our current political climate.