See Me Squeegee

“There are two sides to every story,” the saying goes, leading to the conclusion that a wise man considers both sides before making a decision. But when it comes to American politics, the “both sides” ideology is likely the most counterproductive style of rhetoric, and it’s certainly the most effective talking point for one of those two sides. How could “both sides” be the best talking point for only one of two sides? I’ll explain…probably in a few posts.

Let’s start by exploring one of the most problematic aspects of bothsidesism: it’s an easy way for bad actors to drag others down with them into false equivalency. They know that good-natured people 1) want to be and appear objective, and 2) don’t have enough time to investigate nuance. So a single snapshot of “look, they do it too!” is generally enough to convince the impartial masses that both sides are awful — and in doing so to let the worst offenders off the hook.

Keep in mind: “both sides” commentary is always negative. Admit it, you’ve never heard “both sides love America so much!” or “both sides have such great ideas to raise our standard of living!” When you hear the phrase “both sides” it’s always attached to something like:

• “Both sides are terrible; we need new candidates”
• “Yeah that was awful, but both sides do awful things”
• “We have a two-party system and both sides are bad; why even bother?”

To see why this is a built-in advantage for bad actors, let’s step away from politics and into something less controversial and even more universal: childhood squabbles. Whether you’re a current parent seeing this in real time or just a former child who remembers how it went down, answer me this:

Which kid is the one saying “yeah but he did it too?”

It’s always the kid who got caught, and it’s usually the kid who did most or all of the misbehavior.  The kid who punched wants to point at the kid who shoved; the kid who hair-pulled wants to point at the kid who name-called. They know they’re guilty, but they want to 1) distract and 2) spread the punishment.

Of course, adults do the same thing with higher stakes. Suppose you have two mechanics in town, one who knows he routinely fixes things – an charges for – things that don’t need fixing, and another who is totally honest but due to caution occasionally recommends a service that’s useful but not wholly necessary. Which mechanic stands to benefit more if the general consensus around town is “all mechanics are the same…they all overcharge you, but what can you do?”  

Simply put: when it comes to bad behavior, “both sides” is the rallying cry of the notably-worse side.  

This manifests itself all the time in politics, and one of the all-time great examples is transpiring as I type this. Over the past few days since Wednesday’s Trumper invasion of the U.S. Capitol – the insurrection in which five people were killed, and the Capitol was occupied by an overthrowers for the first time since the War of 1812 – the “Both Sides” militia has been hard at work trying to excuse or at least sanitize the attacks by comparing them to liberal protests, namely the Black Lives Matter protests of this past summer.

And, of course, that’s a classic case of “bothsidesism” as a way to drag better actors down to the level of the worst actors, and to distract from the truly awful acts by pushing the focus elsewhere. The “Coup Klux Klan” attacks of Wednesday and the BLM protests of the summer were vastly different and should be seen uniquely for what they are and for what they each mean to American political discourse. Let’s examine those major differences: 

1) Fact vs. Fiction.  

The BLM protests were about *actual* murders that definitely occurred, many on video, and that are universally known as fact. George Floyd was killed on video we all saw. So was Jacob Blake. Brionna Taylor’s killing was an undisputed fact in court cases; the police acknowledge they did it, but just dispute their legal culpability.

“Stop the Steal” has had two months and 60+ legal cases to produce evidence and hasn’t produced any. The votes have been certified by bipartisan committees and canvas boards.  Stop the Steal is a lie. BLM protesters were speaking out against actual lives being lost; Trump seditionists were rioting to overturn an indisputable election result.

2) Proportional Criminality. 

The BLM protests were peaceful, lawful demonstrations amidst which violence and destruction emerged as the edge case; for Wednesday’s insurrection, illegality was the norm. To illustrate, let’s give each event the same proportion of “people who damaged property” and call it 98% no, 2% yes. That would mean that 98% of BLM protesters were completely within their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble and march on public land. Then a handful of outliers wrongfully broke windows, lit fires, etc. but the vast majority acted completely within both the law and the traditions of American activism. 

For Wednesday’s Trump event, every single person who breached the Capitol was unlawfully trespassing on restricted property–and they knew it. It’s 100% clear that if you break open a locked door or push past a line of law enforcement to reach a restricted-access destination, you’ve done something wrong. That’s abundantly obvious – you don’t jump on the field at a minor league baseball game or sneak through a back door at a movie theater, so of course you can’t break a window or bowl over a police officer at the U.S. Capitol.  

So for BLM protests, call it 98% law-abiding, 2% in the wrong.  For Wednesday, using the same proportion, you’re looking at a much higher percentage (30%? 50%? I honestly don’t know how many breached the Capitol vs. waved flags on public property, but it was easily thousands) who are outright criminals.

3) Accountable Leadership.  

Listen, every protest group – and most pro sports championship celebrations, too – has its adrenaline junkies who just want to break stuff. There was damage from BLM protests just like there was from Wednesday’s attack. A massive difference, however, is in how the grownups in the room acted – and that’s a crucial distinction, because no one’s asking anyone to vote for d00bieloverr69 from 4Chan or Reddit, but we are regularly asked to cast votes for each party’s leadership.

More continues to come out about Republican President Donald Trump’s role in organizing, encouraging, and enabling Wednesday’s riot. We know he egged on his followers to fly to DC and be part of the event, noting “it will be wild.” We know he refused to approve the National Guard to keep the peace even as things became a riot. There’s evidence that he fired key Pentagon personnel to ensure that Capitol Police – including the officer murdered by Trump rioters – wouldn’t have riot gear or other protective equipment. And of course he chose the date and time to coincide with election certification, and chose the rhetoric that sent the mob to interrupt it. 

So let’s go apples-to-apples: find me evidence of any living Democratic president – Carter, Clinton, Obama, or Biden – calling for insurrection during the BLM protests. High-ranking, presidential-hopeful GOP senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz egged on the “Stop the Steal” sedition even after the violence had gotten out of control. Find me a parallel Democratic senator and presidential hopeful who did the same during BLM – did Amy Klobuchar do it?  Did Elizabeth Warren? Did any state or national level Democratic Party official communications encourage their constituents to be ready to die for the cause, like this one did?

Then move down to on-the-ground leadership; during BLM there was lots of video of march organizers imploring the bad actors to stay peaceful. Was there anyone of any authority on Wednesday doing the same? There are even verified messages on the right-wing Parler app from prominent “Stop the Steal” attorneys calling for the assassinations of sitting legislators. By all accounts, the violence at BLM protests was caused by small groups of rogue actors, committed against the wishes of the organizers and the vast, vast majority of the crowd; at the Stop the Steal riots, violent intimidation seems to have been an integral part of the plan and a central rallying point among the crowd.

4) Counter-Escalation. 

Despite what Hannity and others desperately want you to believe, the FBI has made it clear that there’s no evidence that “Antifa” or any other left-wing groups infiltrated Wednesday’s attacks to make them more violent. Over the summer, however, several members of right-wing extremist groups (Proud Boys, Boogaloo Boys) were arrested and charged with setting fires and destroying property; at many events, they attended wearing their logos and flying their flags in an outright attempt to fan division and incite conflict. 

What does that mean? A significant portion of the violence and destruction that Bothsidesers want to pin on “but the BLM protests were violent” was committed by right-wing extremists, who expressly committed those acts to provide the impression that liberal demonstrators are violent.  No such acts were necessary for Wednesday’s riots; they were plenty criminal of their own accord.

Conclusion

If you’ve read this far, my main intent is this: it’s a deliberate, recurring tactic of right-wing bad actors to find a snapshot of ‘the other side’ doing something related, and then rely on your busy schedule and desire to remain impartial such that you take those snapshots and think “well but both sides do it.”  But proportionality and severity don’t just matter; they’re critical. I’ve driven in excess of the speed limit and jaywalked between intersections, while Jeffrey Dahmer murdered and ate dozens of people. “Both sides” are technically lawbreakers, but that doesn’t mean (I hope) that he and I are equivalently criminal.  

“Both sides do it” is *exactly* what the worse of the two sides – in any dispute, not just politics – desperately hopes everyone believes. The basketball team that plays dirty doesn’t need to convince you that they’re angels, but if they can get the referees to think “it’s been physical on both sides” then they won’t get called for all the fouls they should. The business that gets you to believe that “all businesses gouge you with unexpected fees” now has a license to gouge you with unexpected fee–you may not like it, but they’ve conditioned you to expect it. 

I’ll dig deeper on other issues with bothsidesism in future posts, but let’s end here with this. “Both sides” isn’t a virtue of impartiality. It’s a tactic used by bad actors to get you to think you’re being noble and impartial while you provide cover for their bad actions. At best, “both sides” prevents would-be-referees from seeing the chasm between frequency and degree of wrongdoing; yes, President Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky so he lied just like Donald Trump lied about the severity of coronavirus. But Trump’s lies were relentless throughout 2020 and are a predominant factor in the deaths of 400,000 Americans and counting. Frequency and degree matter! 

What’s far more nefarious and troubling is when the bad actors know that their actions will be sanitized through the lens of “both sides.” It’s easy to think of “both sides” as a noble, objective lens through which to view politics, but to a malevolent actor, it’s a great way to escape accountability and scrutiny.