Why 'Both Sides Are Bad' Is Exactly What They Want You to Think
The Resistance Sabotage Manual: Day 5 of 12
August 18, 2025
Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 people who attacked the Capitol. Including those who assaulted 140 police officers.
The New York Times: "Trump Issues Controversial Pardons."
Not "Trump Frees Violent Insurrectionists." Not "President Pardons Seditionists." Just "controversial."
As if pardoning people who beat cops with flagpoles is equivalent to pardoning someone for marijuana possession. As if releasing the leaders of militias convicted of seditious conspiracy is just another policy disagreement. As if normalizing political violence is simply one side of a debate.
This is how democracy dies: When those who attack it are treated as equally legitimate to those defending it.
In Chile, the media gave "balance" to Allende and the military plotting his overthrow. In Weimar Germany, newspapers treated Nazis as "just another party" deserving equal coverage. In Brexit, the BBC gave equal time to facts and lies. Different countries, same fatal mistake: treating unequal things as equal.
The False Equivalency That Paralyzes Resistance
Joe Kahn, executive editor of the New York Times, said it plainly in May 2024: Defending democracy would be "partisan." He literally said the paper's job is not to be "a propaganda arm for a single candidate" when that candidate warns about threats to democracy.
Think about that. The nation's most influential newspaper believes that pointing out authoritarian threats is partisan. That democracy and autocracy deserve equal treatment. That facts and lies merit the same weight.
Meanwhile, 76% of Americans say democracy is under serious threat, according to NPR/PBS polling — though Republicans (57%) are less likely than Democrats (89%) or independents (80%) to see it that way. But the media keeps covering it like a horse race where both horses are equally valid, even when one is actively trying to burn down the track.
Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, was serving 22 years for seditious conspiracy. Trump pardoned him. The media coverage? "Both sides have concerns about political violence."
Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers, was serving 18 years after telling his militia to prepare for civil war. Trump commuted his sentence. The headlines? "Pardons spark debate."
No. Armed sedition and peaceful protest are not two sides of the same coin.
Why Your Brain Craves Balance (Even When There's None)
Here's the psychological trap: Humans have a deep need to appear reasonable. Taking a clear position feels risky. Saying "both sides have problems" feels safe. It's called system justification theory — we defend the status quo even when it's failing us because change feels scarier than decay.
Social rewards reinforce this. Say "both parties are corrupt" at dinner and everyone nods. Say "actually, one party just pardoned violent insurrectionists while the other didn't" and you're "being political."
But here's what that "reasonable" position creates: A permission structure for extremism. When you treat a party that pardons cop-beaters as equivalent to one that doesn't, you're not being balanced. You're being complicit.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote: "We think American institutions are strong enough to contain whatever designs Mr. Trump has to abuse presidential power."
Those institutions? The ones where 50,000 civil servants just lost job protections? The museums censoring their own exhibits? The courts Trump attacks daily? Those institutions?
The Historical Pattern We're Repeating
Weimar Germany, 1932: "The Communists and Nazis are equally extreme," German centrists said. The Social Democrats were "too radical." The center parties insisted on "balance" between democracy and fascism. By treating the Nazis as a legitimate political party deserving equal coverage and consideration, they normalized what should have been unthinkable.
Ernst Thälmann, the Communist leader, called Social Democrats "social fascists" — treating democratic socialists as equivalent to actual fascists. This false equivalency split the left while the right unified. Hitler won with 33% of the vote.
Spain, 1936: When Franco's fascists rose against the democratic Republic, Western newspapers presented it as "both sides fighting." The legitimate government defending democracy was equated with military rebels overthrowing it. International observers stayed "neutral" between democracy and fascism. Franco won.
Chile, 1973: The media gave equal weight to Allende's democratic socialism and military threats of a coup. "Both threaten stability," they said. When Pinochet overthrew democracy, many said "both sides went too far." Thousands were disappeared while moderates insisted on balance.
The False Equivalencies You're Spreading Right Now
"Both parties are the same" One party just pardoned nearly 1,600 insurrectionists. The other didn't. One party is purging civil servants for "disloyalty." The other isn't. One party has members endorsing political violence at 33% according to 2023 polling. The other: 13%.
"All media is biased" There's a difference between having a perspective and spreading lies. Between reporting facts you don't like and inventing "alternative facts." Between accountability journalism and propaganda.
"Violence is violence" Breaking a window in protest is not equivalent to beating police with flagpoles. Property damage is not seditious conspiracy. A peaceful march that turns rowdy is not a planned insurrection.
"Both sides are angry" Anger at having rights removed is not equivalent to anger at others having rights. Fury at election lies is not the same as fury at election results. Rage at injustice is not rage at democracy itself.
How to Reject False Balance
Easy Mode: The Body Count Test Simply count:
How many police officers did each "side" assault? (January 6: 140 vs protests: near zero)
How many election workers have each threatened? (One side: hundreds, other: virtually none)
How many pardons for political violence? (Trump: nearly 1,600, Biden: 0)
Numbers don't lie. Use them.
Medium Mode: The Power Analysis Ask who actually has power:
Who controls the presidency? Congress? Courts?
Who can pardon criminals? Fire workers? Deploy military?
Who owns the platforms? The corporations? The wealth?
Power matters. Pretending the powerful and powerless are equivalent is not journalism — it's propaganda.
Hard Mode: Moral Clarity Say it out loud:
"Pardoning violent insurrectionists is wrong"
"Attacking democracy is not a valid political position"
"Some things are actually worse than others"
Yes, you'll be called "biased." So what? Reality has a bias toward facts.
Your False Equivalency Audit
Check which of these you've said recently:
☐ "Both parties are the same" ☐ "All politicians are corrupt" ☐ "Everyone's biased anyway" ☐ "Violence on both sides" ☐ "They're all liars" ☐ "The truth is somewhere in the middle" ☐ "Both sides need to calm down" ☐ "Let's hear both perspectives"
Count them. Each one is a small surrender.
The Success Story You Need
Denmark, 1940-1945. When Nazis occupied Denmark, the Danish press could have gone for "balance" — presenting Nazi and Danish positions equally. They didn't.
Danish newspapers kept printing truth. When Nazis demanded "balance," editors refused. When threatened with shutdown, they printed blank spaces where censored articles would go — making the censorship visible rather than pretending both sides were equal.
Result: Denmark maintained the highest survival rate of Jewish citizens of any occupied country. Because they refused false equivalency.
Your neighbor who said "pardoning insurrectionists is disqualifying"? They rejected false balance.
The journalist who wrote "attempted coup" instead of "protest"? They chose accuracy over fake neutrality.
The friend who said "actually, no, both sides are not the same"? They broke the spell.
False equivalency is comfortable. It's also lethal to democracy.
Choose a side. The middle ground between democracy and autocracy is just autocracy winning slowly.
Tomorrow: Your favorite brand just betrayed you — here's the list of companies surrendering before being asked.
The Resistance Sabotage Manual is a 12-day series examining the specific ways we accidentally collaborate with authoritarianism — and how to stop. Based on analysis of democratic collapses from Weimar Germany to present day.
What false equivalencies have you been repeating? Where did you learn them? Who benefits when you say "both sides"?