There Is A Right Side And A Wrong Side In This Fight

How "Both Sides" Analysis Benefits Authoritarianism

The “both sides” analysis of the dangerous polarization that is undermining democracy in the U.S. is actually a sophisticated form of authoritarian propaganda that serves their strategic interests while accelerating democratic breakdown. Let me break down how this works.

False Equivalency as Authoritarian Shield

The idea that both sides (left and right) are equally culpable normalizes dangerous narratives and acts:

By treating democratic opposition and authoritarian action as equivalent, “both sides” framing makes previously unthinkable authoritarian behavior appear normal:

• Voter suppression becomes “election integrity”

• Political violence becomes “passionate politics”

• Coup attempts become “election disputes”

• Fascist rhetoric becomes “populist messaging”

False equivalencies also undermine moral clarity:

Authoritarianism depends on confusion about right and wrong. When overthrowing democracy gets treated as equivalent to defending it, citizens lose the ability to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate political action.

False equivalencies also drive authoritarian escalation:

Each time authoritarians escalate (from norm-breaking to law-breaking to violence), “both sides” framing provides cover by claiming their opponents, including the Democratic Party, are “equally extreme” for responding with appropriate alarm.

Demobilizes Democratic Response

“Both sides” analysis also invites political paralysis, and can drive wedges between grassroots mobilizers and policy makers:

“Both sides” analysis suggests that taking strong action against authoritarianism makes you part of the problem, encouraging passivity precisely when decisive action is needed.

The analysis also delegitimizes opposition:

It frames democratic resistance to authoritarianism as “partisan polarization” rather than constitutional defense, making opposition appear illegitimate.

And the analysis encourages false moderation:

It pushes more moderate and pro democratic leaders toward “compromise” with authoritarians, treating democratic norms as negotiable rather than foundational.

“Both Sides” Analysis Actually Increases Dangerous Polarization

Asymmetric Polarization Reality

The research shows that we are actually suffering from one-sided, anti-democratic radicalization:

Political scientists have documented that American polarization is primarily driven by rightward movement of the Republican Party, not equivalent movement on both sides:

• Conservative positions have moved much further right than liberal positions have moved left

• Republican voters show greater hostility to democratic norms than Democratic voters

• Right-wing media consumption correlates with more extreme views; mainstream media consumption doesn't show equivalent effects

The “both sides” analysis obscures this reality:

By insisting on false equivalency, this framing prevents accurate diagnosis of the problem, making effective solutions next to impossible.

The Ratchet Effect

Authoritarians deliberately escalate, knowing that “both sides” framing will:

• Split the difference between their extreme position and the democratic response

• Move the center point rightward toward authoritarianism

• Make their next escalation seem relatively moderate

For example, when authoritarians call for political violence, democrats call for law enforcement. “Both sides” framing treats this as equivalent "heated rhetoric," rather than recognizing one side advocates democracy and the other advocates violence.

Result: The center moves toward authoritarianism while democrats get blamed for “polarization” when they resist.

Weaponized Civility

Tone Policing: “Both sides” analysis often focuses on tone rather than substance, criticizing democrats for being “uncivil” while ignoring authoritarian attacks on democratic institutions.

Strategic Advantage: This gives authoritarians tactical advantage. They can break norms and laws while democrats get criticized for responding with appropriate urgency.

Moral Hazard: It creates incentives for authoritarians to escalate further, knowing that any democratic response will be framed as “equally bad.”

The Information Warfare Dimension

Manufactured Doubt

Corporate Strategy Origins: “Both sides” framing borrows from tobacco and fossil fuel industry tactics that create false controversy where scientific consensus exists to prevent policy action.

Applied to Democracy: Just as climate change denial claims “both sides” have legitimate scientific positions, democracy denial claims “both sides” have legitimate concerns about elections, institutions, and norms.

Effect: Creates artificial uncertainty about clear-cut democratic principles, making authoritarian propaganda appear reasonable.

Media Complicity

Professional Bias: Mainstream media’s commitment to “objectivity” and “balance” makes them vulnerable to manipulation through “both sides” framing.

False Balance: When one side lies and the other tells the truth, presenting “both sides equally” actually amplifies the lies and undermines truth.

Normalization Process: Constant false equivalencies gradually normalize authoritarian positions by treating them as legitimate political opinions rather than anti-democratic maximalism.

Strategic Implications for Democratic Defense

Why This Matters for Resistance

Diagnostic Accuracy: You can’t solve a problem you won’t accurately diagnose. “Both sides” analysis prevents understanding that we face asymmetric authoritarianism, not symmetrical polarization.

Strategic Response: Fighting “polarization” requires different tactics than fighting authoritarianism. The former suggests moderation; the latter requires mobilization and clear lines. This is not the say that all forms of polarization are destructive. Any mobilization will create polarization which is necessary to create change, both positive and negative.

Here we must distinguish between toxic polarization and good polarization. The Horizon’s Project offers a guide to good versus toxic polarization, writing:

“Toxic polarization is categorically different [from good polarization] and can often lead to destructive and violent engagement. A component of toxic polarization is affective polarization, which refers to when groups aren’t simply in disagreement with each other, but actively dislike and even dehumanize each other. Here, political out-group members are seen to pose a threat not only to ideas and values, but to identities and social groups. Another component is perceptual polarization, which measures the degree to which we view the other side as extreme in comparison to our own. Thus, toxic polarization exists as a state of intense, chronic polarization – marked by high levels of loyalty to a person’s in-group and contempt or even hate for out-groups.”

Coalition Building: False equivalency undermines coalition building by suggesting that strong anti-authoritarian positions are “extreme” rather than necessary.

Counter-Strategies

Factual Accuracy: Consistently cite research showing asymmetric polarization rather than accepting false equivalency premises.

Moral Clarity: Distinguish between democratic norms (voting, peaceful transfer of power, rule of law) and partisan preferences (tax policy, healthcare, etc.).

Historical Precedent: Point to historical examples where “both sides” framing enabled authoritarian consolidation: 1930s Germany, Chile in the 1970s, Hungary in the 2010s.

Consequences Focus: Emphasize concrete harms from authoritarian actions (voter disenfranchisement, political violence, institutional capture) rather than abstract “polarization.”

The Democracy vs. Authoritarianism Frame

Accurate Analysis

Not Left vs. Right: The fundamental conflict isn't ideological but systemic; between those who accept democratic rules and those who reject them.

Cross-Partisan Democracy: Many conservatives support democratic norms; many progressives occasionally flirt with anti-democratic tactics. The relevant division is pro-democracy vs. anti-democracy.

Institutional Focus: The crisis centers on attacks on democratic institutions (elections, courts, legislatures, press) rather than policy disagreements.

Strategic Communication

Reframe the Question: Instead of “How do we reduce polarization?” ask “How do we defend democracy from authoritarian attack?”

Highlight Stakes: Emphasize that democratic institutions enable policy debates, while authoritarianism ends them.

Build Pro-Democracy Coalitions: Unite anyone who wants to preserve democratic rules, regardless of their policy preferences.

Conclusion: Breaking the False Equivalency Trap

“Both sides” analysis of polarization serves authoritarian interests by:

1. Normalizing extreme anti-democratic behavior

2. Paralyzing democratic response through false moral equivalency

3. Moving the political center toward authoritarianism through manufactured balance

4. Preventing accurate diagnosis of asymmetric threats to democracy

The antidote isn’t accepting authoritarian framing but insisting on factual accuracy about threats to democracy. This means:

• Calling authoritarianism what it is, without false equivalencies

• Organizing robust democratic defense rather than seeking impossible “middle ground” with anti-democratic forces

• Building coalitions around democratic norms rather than partisan identity

• Focusing on institutional protection rather than tone policing

Bottom line: When democracy is under attack, “both sides” analysis isn't neutral, it’s collaboration. True neutrality requires taking sides with democratic institutions against those who would destroy them.

The choice isn’t between polarization and unity. It’s between democracy and authoritarianism. “Both sides” framing obscures this choice precisely when clarity is most essential for democratic survival.