Newsletter #501 — October 28, 2026

Subscribe to the Newsletter

In the last newsletter, we shared a list compiled by a friend of ours entitled "101 Ways the Trump Administration has Undermined the Health of American Society and Democracy, and How the American Public Can Respond."  Although that friend is an independent, and saw everything on that list as non-partisan, we suspected that some of our conservative readers would not agree. 

Thinking back on the wise advise first offered by Fisher, Brett, and Ury in Getting Disputes Resolved, urging people to focus on contribution, instead of blame, we thought it would be useful to examine how the Democrats have also contributed to the problem of weakening U.S. democracy, though we should be clear, that we do not think they have done so in the same way, or on the same scale in most cases. But we thought it would be interesting to ask Claude to develop a similar list that might be compiled by a conservative reflecting on Biden and the Democrat's actions. That list is available here. 

We also very much agree with the original author's statement in the last newsletter (s/he wanted to remain anonymous) that "as members of a democratic republic, it is our responsibility to raise issues of concern and look for ways to remedy those concerns as positively as possible."  We argue that it is important to examine the potentially anti-democratic moves of both parties, and to look for ways to remedy all of them at the same time.

Thirdly, and this turned out to be by far the most interesting, Claude's comparison of these two lists yielded fascinating observations about things the two sides actually agree on, and it suggested potential solutions to many of these problems that might be acceptable to both sides. Notably, Claude did this on its own; Heidi didn't ask for that.  As before, Claude's full answer to our questions is very long, so we are excerpting them here and linking to the full list here. (This is Claude's comparison list, not the list of Democratic actions linked above.)

After sharing its "companion 101 items list" Claude made what seems to us to be a number of very astute observations:

This list is only part of the story, just as my colleague's is. Read side by side, the two lists tell a single story: each party has convinced itself that the other is so dangerous that the ordinary rules no longer apply. Each side's norm-breaking becomes the other side's justification. Pardons answer pardons, prosecutions answer prosecutions, gerrymanders answer gerrymanders and executive orders answer executive orders. If we keep score this way, the republic loses no matter who wins.

This is a perfect example of what systems theorists call a "positive (or reinforcing) feedback loop" in which "positive" is not good, but actually bad, because a dangerous or destructive action leads to an even more dangerous or destructive action in reply, which leads to a worse response again, and so on. Claude continued, 

George Washington's warning about the spirit of party [which was referred to in the introduction of the original document] applies to conservatives as much as anyone. Loyalty to a party or a leader cannot override loyalty to the constitutional order that protects us all, including when the other side is in power. Here, then, are four responses I would offer to my fellow conservatives, and that I hope my progressive friends will take as an invitation rather than an accusation.

These seem to us to be important rules for everyone to apply! And if they would do so, this would, as Heidi often puts it, "throw a monkey wrench into the gears of escalation." 

• Judge your own side by the standard you apply to the other. Conservatives who objected to Biden's student loan workaround should object to unilateral tariffs. Progressives who objected to January 6 pardons should object to preemptive pardons for allies. A principle that only applies to opponents is not a principle.  
   
• Defend institutions even when they disappoint you. Courts, elections, the civil service and a free press frustrate every administration. The temptation to pack, defy, purge or delegitimize them is strongest precisely when we believe our cause is most urgent. That is when restraint matters most. 
   
• Demand honesty, including from and about our own leaders. Concealing a President's decline and denying a lost election are different failures, but both ask voters to disbelieve what is in front of them. Character and candor matter, and voters of both parties should reward leaders who tell them hard truths. 
   
• Refuse to demonize. Calling half the country fascists, garbage, vermin or enemies of the republic is not only wrong; it is dangerous, as the assassination attempts and political murders of recent years show. We can oppose each other's policies fiercely while treating each other as fellow citizens, and we can start in our own families and communities.
   

Claude went on to say that many of the items on its list off 100 "misdeeds" were contested, and it listed six come-backs Democratic readers might raise to them.  It then said: "Those disputes are themselves a starting point for the comparison activity this companion piece was written for: where both sides can agree on the facts, and where both can agree on what should never be repeated."

Heidi followed that conclusion with a second prompt to Claude: 

Can you now write another essay, drawing from both the original document and your conservative companion piece, indicating 1) what transgressions on one side were essentially duplicated by the other, 2) on which of these actions would both sides likely agree on the facts, and 3) on which of these actions, would both sides agree should never be repeated.

Heidi also asked Claude to weigh in on our friend's assertion that the Trump presidency has clearly been the most destructive to American society, at least for the 75+ years since World War II, and whether pointing out Democrat's misdeeds is a case of "false equivalence," as we have so often been told when we have done this before.

Claude came up with an extensive answer with four different parts, each illustrated in a lengthy chart.  We have reformatted its charts as lists, so they are readable on a phone. The full document is available here. The four sections are:

1. Mirror Images: What Each Side Duplicated
2. Shared Facts: What Both Sides Would Likely Accept
3. Never Again: What Both Sides Could Agree Should Not Be Repeated
4. Is Trump a Greater Threat Than Any Predecessor? And What About "False Equivalence"?

1. Mirror Images: What Each Side Duplicated

Putting the two documents together, Claude compared 17 categories of transgressions. Of those, about ten appear on both lists as "close matches in kind," though not necessarily in degree. The rest, it says, "are partial matches, opposite failures of the same duty, or acts with no real counterpart." 

For example, Claude thought both sides closely matched on 

• the tendency of Presidents Trump and Biden to try to work around courts and Congress when those blocked their desired policies, 
• to use emergency powers and executive orders as shortcuts, 
• and to change election rules for their own advantage, together with 7 other items. 
• (If you follow the links above, the numbers in parentheses refer to the item numbers on the original two lists.) 

It thought using prosecution against political opponents was a partial match, as was delegitimizing elections, although it noted there was no Democratic effort to overturn a certified result.  

Items that were listed as "opposite failures of the same duty" were civil service and immigration, and 

The one that was listed as having no counterpart was concealing decline of the President, although Heidi wonders if that isn't going on now on the Republican side. Heidi and Guy would also list the events of January 6, 2023 and related attempts to overturn a certified electoral result as having no counterpart. 

2. Shared Facts: What Both Sides Would Likely Accept

Here Claude explained that:

Most of what the two lists describe is factually settled; the fights are mainly over meaning and motive. Items fall into three tiers. 

1. Tier 1 facts are a natural starting point for dialogue, because both sides can accept them. 
2. Tier 2 are situations in which both sides agree on what occurred, but interpret it in opposite ways, so progress depends on understanding the values and fears behind each reading, and then responding to those.
3. Tier 3 items are disputed at the level of fact, so both sides first need to agree on how the facts would be established before they can usefully discuss how to deal with them. 

Its list of "tier 1 facts" included 

• Court rulings against both administrations, 
• The 2020 election result (here Claude notes that "Many Republican voters still doubt the result, but the evidentiary record is not genuinely contested,") 
• Border crossing numbers, 
• Various documented statements, and 
• Measured outcomes.   

It's list of "tier 2 facts" included:

• the significance of the two classified documents cases, 
• state and federal prosecutions of Trump, 
• the two presidents' pardons, 
• DOGE actions, 
• deportations, and 
• "threat to democracy" rhetoric.    

Among the "tier 3 facts" it listed were: 

• how severe President Biden's decline was, and who was actually making decisions, 
• whether DOJ prosecutions of Trump critics in 2025-26 were retribution or legitimate law enforcement, 
• deaths from USAID cuts, 
• claims about concealed damage in the Iran war, and 
• the circumstances of deaths in ICE custody, among others.    

We will share Claude's answers on "Never Again: What Both Sides Could Agree Should Not Be Repeated" and Heidi's question asking whether Trump is a greater threat than any predecessor and the notion of "false equivalence" in the next newsletter.

Please Contribute Your Ideas To This Discussion!

In order to prevent bots, spammers, and other malicious content, we are asking contributors to send their contributions to us directly. If your idea is short, with simple formatting, you can put it directly in the contact box. However, the contact form does not allow attachments.  So if you are contributing a longer article, with formatting beyond simple paragraphs, just send us a note using the contact box, and we'll respond via an email to which you can reply with your attachment.  This is a bit of a hassle, we know, but it has kept our site (and our inbox) clean. And if you are wondering, we do publish essays that disagree with or are critical of us. We want a robust exchange of views.

Contact Us

About the MBI Newsletters

Once a week or so, we, the BI Directors, share some thoughts, along with new posts from the Hyper-polarization Blog and and useful links from other sources.  We used to put this all together in one newsletter which went out once or twice a week. We are now experimenting with breaking the Newsletter up into several shorter newsletters. Each Newsletter will be posted on BI, and sent out by email through Substack to subscribers. You can sign up to receive your copy here and find the latest newsletter here or on our BI Newsletter page, which also provides access to all the past newsletters, going back to 2017.

NOTE! If you signed up for this Newsletter and don't see it in your inbox, it might be going to one of your other emails folder (such as promotions, social, or spam).  Check there or search for beyondintractability@substack.com and if you still can't find it, first go to our Substack help page, and if that doesn't help, please contact us. 

If you like what you read here, please ....

Subscribe to the Newsletter