Are You Ready to Lose Again? A Response to the Charge of Both-Sidesism
Conquering our self-defeating fear of self-reflection.
My three weeks on Substack have turned me into a repeat offender when it comes to violating the old Internet rule, “don’t read the comments.”
I do read your comments, and while the guidance against doing so is a tried and true maxim on other social media platforms, I think Substack is different. Sure, there’s the odd troll, but at The Next Move, we really are cultivating a thoughtful, strategic dialogue. The lively thread under my post yesterday (“A Cult of Personality Without a Personality”) continues to grow, and several comments from readers could easily be op-eds in their own right.
So first of all: Thank you for your readership and engagement!
Secondly, in that spirit, I want to respond to one charge that’s come up a couple of times in the comments section below that piece: both-sidesism. In the second half of the article, I explained how four of Donald Trump’s predecessors—Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden—contributed to the toxic stew that gave us not one, but two (and, if we are not careful, an illegal three) Trump presidencies. Several of you felt that by criticizing these other commanders-in-chief, I was suggesting that “both sides” are just as bad.
I cannot like this post overall Mr Kasparov, because of the both- Sidisms. With the prior Presidents, we had a democracy. Trump wants to be an authoritarian to accumulate more wealth and power and stay out of jail. He is lawless.
I abhor both-sidesism, along with its sister sin, false equivalence. Sometimes there is a right side and a wrong side. Ukraine versus Russia. Allies versus Axis. Or Kasparov versus Karpov. Too many people mistakenly believe that they will appear smarter by pretending not to know the difference.
So I will say it once more for the benefit of anyone who is new to The Next Move: Donald Trump currently represents a singular, existential threat to American constitutional democracy. Whatever my criticisms of his predecessors, there is no parallel between them.
But I am not going to repeat that ad nauseum. If you are reading this publication, then we probably already agree on the fundamentals when it comes to the current occupant of the White House. I will call out this administration when it is relevant, but for me to go on about how awful Trump is for its own sake would add nothing useful to the conversation. Just self-righteous moral satisfaction. We all know how bad he is.
The focus of The Next Move is laying out a strategy to win against demagogues and wannabe despots—in America and around the world. In order to do that, nothing can be off limits. We need to recognize where others have failed at stopping ascendant authoritarianism and learn from their mistakes.
"Obama was arrogant and unserious."
This sounds like you're offended he dared to rise above "his place." And you really had to dig to find a moment that qualified as being unserious.
Be better.
Comments like this one take us in the exact opposite direction. They will set up pro-democracy forces to lose again and again and again. The not-so-thinly veiled implication that my comments on Barack Obama were racist (please) suggests a reflexive defensiveness of one’s own partisans. He was the president of the United States of America. I assure you, the man can stand up to some light criticism from a retired Russian chess player!
As for the substance of our disagreement: We do not have to do much digging to uncover his flaws. President Obama was underqualified compared with almost all of his predecessors. On his watch, the Democratic Party threw a winnable campaign to an authoritarian agitator who was widely seen as a joke candidate mere months before election day. Obama’s impotent foreign policy helped to lay the groundwork for persistent geopolitical crises from Ukraine to Syria.
If you disagree on the merits, then I invite you to make your case! But do not simply demand those with whom you disagree to “be better.” That is a critical mistake. We need to understand where others have gone wrong in order to avoid producing the same results we are living with now. Even Governor Tim Walz, the Democrats’ 2024 vice-presidential nominee, recognizes this. On a recent tour, he had this to say:
Millions of people stayed home because they didn’t think there was any difference between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris and myself on the ticket. We need to acknowledge that.
As I’ve noted, there are those who dishonestly play the both-sides game. But there are millions of people who are earnestly caught in the middle. We might disagree with their assessment of the situation, but that’s less important. We need to approach them without being condescending because winning without them is simply impossible. And that requires taking some hard looks in the mirror. Not because ineffectual small-d democrats are just as bad as the bad guys, but because our self-defeating fear of self-reflection will take us to a place that is even worse.
But now I want to know what you think. What is the most effective way we can make strategic critiques while staying true to our values? How can we chart a new course? I look forward to joining you in the replies.
Remember: At The Next Move, you should read the comments!
Related Content
A Cult of Personality Without a Personality
There’s an H.L. Mencken quote that’s been stuck in my head over the past couple of months. Read it and you’ll know why:
Thank you for the commenting on the comments. It is refreshing to hear constructive critique. You have an important and uniquely informed perspective that helps to shed light on the current challenges and opportunities our nation is facing. To step back and look at the patterns, the consequences and both the strengths and weaknesses of historic administration's leadership and decisions could establish the ground on which to build a strategy to propel us forward. Honest self reflection could help to move this beloved nation toward a more mature, effective, stronger democratic republic. I see opportunity in this moment of history, as frightening, disruptive as it is. And I think you have pointed out something very important to help us. Though perhaps a little out of the box, it occurred to me while listening to the recording today that it would be very interesting if you were to have a (another?) live conversation with Heather Cox Richardson. Your two perspectives together could result in some powerful insights and ideas as to how to best meet this moment by looking thoughtfully and critically at our past. Just a random thought.
I am going to offer something enormously controversial - something I have been thinking about since the last pre-election campaign - something I think the Democrats get very wrong - also something I think YOU, Mr. Kasparov, spend too much time pooh-poohing.
While no Democrat may ever get a MAGA vote, it is self-defeating - indeed, worse, dismissive and insulting - to simply ignore and antagonize them (not you personally) by assuming (and often stating) that they are mostly a group of undereducated racist hicks and rubes. I think one of the most important things the Democrats have to do is to ACKNOWLEDGE THEM - tell them that their voices count, that they are Americans (if possibly flawed ones) just as we are, and genuinely and humbly accept that at least SOME of their anger and grievances are legitimate.
Imagine that Bernie Sanders or AOC - who are both "preaching" to crowds that include both Dems and MAGAs - actually openly said something like: "And we acknowledge and hear our fellow Americans on the MAGA side. We hear and acknowledge your anger and grievances. And even if no Democrat ever gets your vote, we will NOT ignore you or reject your voices. All of us are Americans, and only by working to lessen the division between us can we beat the true "common enemies" that are the billionaire class and transnational corporations."
And they can add, "Democrats and MAGA members have more "enemies" in common than we generally acknowledge. Not just billionaires, oligarchs and corporate America. But the "Bigs" - Big Pharma, Big Agra, Big Oil, Big Health, Big Real Estate, etc. These and others are hurting ALL Americans, no matter what Party or political ideology they follow. But the only way we can beat them is to do so as a unified nation. The division and polarization between us was created by those who WANT us divided - who WANT us fighting each other instead of them. We know that MAGA moms and dads rely as much on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as Democratic ones. So let us ALL fight to protect those things - for all of us. We know that MAGA members support our military, and particularly our veterans. So let's ALL fight to protect those vets. We know that the tariffs are disproportionately adversely affecting farmers - the heartland of America, which is heavily populated by MAGA members - so let us all fight to help make things easier for you. We know that the overwhelming majority of MAGA members are peace-loving, patriotic Americans who love our country. So let's throw off the phony, manufactured divisions that have us fighting each other instead of our common enemies, and say with one voice that we support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans and others."
Imagine the power of an acknowledgement like that to people who have consistently stated that they feel ignored! Imagine the power of ACTIVELY and VERBALLY making a REAL attempt to at least ease the polarization, and get more people acting together. ("Hug a MAGA/libtard today!")
This is the one thing no Democrat has EVER attempted, particularly not openly and verbally. I have NEVER heard a Democratic representative openly acknowledge MAGA members. I hear euphemisms ("We are all Americans. I will be representative/voice for all my constituents,"
etc.) But I have never heard anyone make even the slightest attempt to lessen the division and polarization by actually "addressing" and acknowledging MAGA members and their grievances.
Again, this may not earn a single vote for a Democrat from a MAGA member. And many MAGA members may be too deeply entrenched in culture war issues to care (though even some THEM might be "dislodged" by something like this). But not even TRYING to reach them is not an effective strategy. And Ignoring, dismissing and insulting them is an even LESS effective strategy.
Mr. Kasparov - you have made many comments about "siphoning off" those MAGA members who are not as deeply entrenched as the "25%." But I think we can do better than that. And I don't think we as a nation are going to get back to anything resembling "normalcy" (even without Trump & Co.) if we DON'T make these kinds of attempts to ease the (phony and manufactured) division and polarization between the Democrats and MAGA members.