They all inflicted, or attempted to inflict, misery on people dressed up in bigoted religious fervour. The two Americans both have blood of their hands through the over-turning of Roe vs Wade and hawkish policies. Widdecombe voted every time against LGBTQ+ progress. This was about their choices to use either genuinely held beliefs, in the case of Widdecombe, or politically convenient beliefs that furthered their causes that had no personal impact on them, often went against science, but impacted millions of people and made their lives worse just to booster the political chances of McConnell, Graham and others. The two Americans were also massive enablers of the paedophilic rapist-in -chief and for the gerrymandering of the Supreme Court. They are both major instruments in the erosion of the Constitutional democracy in the USA.
I am more than happy to apologise and retract my position if anyone can show me positives that any of these three did that balance the books even in the slightest. Likewise if you can show me the hatred and bigotry that Corbyn or Sanders or their ilk have based their legislative record on and the impacts it has had. Biden has a mixed record, due to his support for genocide and US intervention in Libya and the Middle East.
Although, again, in my opinion, the appeal to heal the divide, whilst worthy and I don't oppose that, the false equivalence of what the two sides of the political divide do is a poor starting point to that approach.
I don't think we're actually that far apart on some of this. I understand why you have such strong feelings about McConnell, Graham and Widdecombe, and I'm not arguing that their records are beyond criticism. I disagree with a number of the positions you've mentioned myself.
Where we differ is on whether someone's death is the moment to celebrate or dehumanise them. I don't think that's a healthy standard, regardless of who it is. We can acknowledge that someone caused harm, in our view, without rejoicing at their death.
On your point about positives, I don't think someone's life has to "balance the books" before we refrain from making gleeful comments when they die. That's not really the standard I'm advocating. My point is about maintaining a degree of humanity, even towards people we strongly oppose.
As for Corbyn, Sanders and Biden, I wasn't making a moral equivalence between their records and those of the people you mentioned. I chose them simply because they're prominent figures on the left. My point was to ask whether we'd be comfortable seeing the same sort of comments directed at politicians we happen to agree with. If the answer is no, then perhaps it's worth applying the same standard consistently.
Regarding false equivalence, I agree that the two sides don't always do the same things, and not every issue has equal weight. But I also think it's possible to reject divisive rhetoric without claiming both sides are equally responsible for every political problem. Those are separate arguments.
Ultimately, I think the idea that political opponents are so uniquely evil that ordinary standards of empathy no longer apply is part of what fuels the cycle we're all worried about. Once we start deciding that some people are beyond basic human decency because of their politics, it's very easy for that logic to spread. I'd rather criticise actions and ideas robustly while still recognising the humanity of the people behind them. Let’s also not forget Widdecombe was murdered, she didn’t die of natural causes.
