Claude's Comparison of the Two "101 Follies" Lists

Preface

After a colleague of ours sent us his list of the "101 Ways the Trump Administration has Undermined the Health of American Society and Democracy," we were curious about how Republicans would respond to that list, and what they would come up with regarding how Biden and the Democrats more broadly had been "undermining the health of American Society and Democracy." In the interests of time, we asked Claude to come up with a parallel list. Specifically, our prompt to Claude was:

One of our colleagues put together the attached essay entitled, "101 Ways the Trump Administration has Undermined the Health of American Society and Democracy, and How the American Public Can Respond." It is an attempt to offer an inventory of the things that the Trump administration has done that most everyone (once they step back from the heat of the moment) would agree have gone too far and should not be repeated. These are supposed to be things that went beyond the implementation of a different partisan agenda or the kind of simple mistakes that all administrations make.
While we appreciated his effort to approach this from a neutral, impartial perspective, we still have the sense that someone who approaches the same task from a more right-leaning perspective would generate a similar but also different list.
What we would like you to do is to imagine that you approach the big policy issues from a more conservative perspective and that you, too, are very concerned about the health of democracy and the larger society. In other words, you support many of the goals of the Trump administration, but not necessarily the way in which it's pursued those goals.
We then want you to write up a list of the 101 things that Democrats have done under the Biden administration (or might be reasonably expected it to do under a future Democratic administration) that you think would threaten democracy and the underlying social fabric.
We would like you to follow the same general format, but you should feel free to change the topics to reflect the concerns of more conservative voters.

Claude's response is posted here.

After sharing its "101 items," 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.

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.

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 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.

It went on to say that many of the items on its list were contested, and it listed six come-backs Democratic readers might raise. It then said: "Those disputes are themselves a starting point for the comparison 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:

Heidi’s Follow up Prompt

Can you now write the companion piece, 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.

Also, as you saw, our friend makes the claim that Trump's transgressions have threatened democracy far more than any predecessor has. AND whenever we mention things the Democrats have done, we are accused of practicing "false equivalence." Can you weigh in on the question of whether Trump is indeed, more of a threat to democracy than any president has been before?

Claude responded with another document it entitled, "Common Ground: Comparing the Two '101 Way' Lists."

Common Ground: Comparing the Two "101 Ways" Lists

Read side by side, the two "101 Ways" lists (Original List and Companion LIst) describe the same dozen or so kinds of transgressions, committed by both parties at different times and at different scales. That overlap is the opportunity: where each side can recognize its own behavior in the other's list, it becomes possible to agree on rules that bind whoever holds power next (Emphasis Heidi's).

This piece compares the independent author's list of Trump administration actions (here called the original list) with the conservative companion list of Biden administration and Democratic actions that I (Claude) compiled, (the companion list). This comparison answers three questions:

Which transgressions on one side were essentially duplicated by the other?
On which actions would both sides likely agree about the facts?
Which actions would both sides likely agree should never be repeated?

A final section takes up the harder question underneath the exercise: whether Donald Trump poses a greater threat to democracy than any previous President, and how to respond to the charge of "false equivalence" when Democratic transgressions are raised.

A note on method: "duplicated" here means the same kind of act, not the same size. Two actions can be the same kind of wrong, while differing greatly in scale, intent or consequence. Keeping those two questions apart is the key to the whole exercise, and it is also the best answer to the false-equivalence charge.

1. Mirror Images: What Each Side Duplicated

Of roughly 17 categories of transgression, about ten appear on both lists as close matches in kind. The rest are partial matches, opposite failures of the same duty, or acts with no real counterpart.

How to read this section: each heading below names a kind of transgression. Under it, "Trump side" gives examples from the original list and "Democratic side" gives examples from the companion list. Numbers in parentheses are item numbers in the list that side's examples come from: original-list numbers on the Trump side, companion-list numbers on the Democratic side. "Match" rates how closely the two correspond.

Working around courts and Congress on major policy

Trump side: Tariffs imposed without Congress and struck down by the Supreme Court (52, 60); East Wing demolition and ballroom without required review (47–48)
Democratic side: Student loan cancellation pursued after the Supreme Court struck it down (12–13); eviction moratorium extended despite acknowledged constitutional doubts (14)
Match: Close

Emergency powers and executive orders as a shortcut

Trump side: Record pace of executive orders (63); Iran war and tariffs without congressional authorization (60)
Democratic side: OSHA vaccine mandate (15); COVID emergency stretched for years (69); sweeping rules on major questions (19); proposed climate emergency (101)
Match: Close

Pardons for allies and family

Trump side: Pardons for nearly all January 6 defendants, including those convicted of violence (17)
Democratic side: Hunter Biden pardon after promising not to (30); preemptive pardons for allies (31) and family (32)
Match: Close in kind; differ in who benefited

Using prosecution against political opponents

Trump side: DOJ retribution campaign against critics and investigators (21); efforts to punish military veterans in Congress over a video (22)
Democratic side: Prosecutions of Trump and allies seen as lawfare (23–28); school-board memo (20); FACE Act enforcement (22)
Match: Partial; sharply disputed (see Section 2)

Denying what the public can see

Trump side: False claims of a stolen 2020 election (36, 39); false claims about the Iran war (69, 71–73)
Democratic side: Concealing President Biden's decline (44–46, 52); "border is secure" (5); Afghanistan assurances (48)
Match: Close in kind; Trump's falsehoods targeted election legitimacy

Delegitimizing elections

Trump side: "Stolen election" claims (36, 39); pressure on Georgia officials to "find" votes (37–38)
Democratic side: Georgia law called "Jim Crow 2.0" (53); 2016 result called illegitimate (86)
Match: Partial; no Democratic effort to overturn a certified result

Pressuring media and speech

Trump side: Attacks on the press as "fake news" and pressure on news and entertainment outlets (94); berating journalists (68); control of museum and park messaging (88)
Democratic side: Pressure on platforms to remove content (36–37); Disinformation Governance Board (38); taxpayer-funded media ratings (42)
Match: Close in kind; different methods

Demonizing fellow citizens

Trump side: "Vermin," "left-wing lunatics," "communists" (99); derogatory names for critics (85)
Democratic side: "Semi-fascism" and Independence Hall speech (78); "garbage" (79); Bull Connor comparison (54)
Match: Close; frequency and intensity differ

Excusing violence by one's own side

Trump side: January 6 participants called "patriots" (19); restitution fund (18); silence on violence against perceived enemies (25)
Democratic side: 2020 riots minimized, bail fund (85); celebrations of Kirk assassination (82); Virginia AG texts (84)
Match: Close

Rhetoric against judges

Trump side: Personal attacks on judges (26, 96); threats to judges up sharply (26)
Democratic side: Schumer warning to named justices (81); protests at justices' homes (81)
Match: Close

Changing election rules for advantage

Trump side: Push for federal control of elections (56); efforts to restrict mail voting (57)
Democratic side: Federalizing elections (55); California redistricting (61); ballot-access suits (59); funding election deniers in primaries (57)
Match: Close; mid-decade gerrymanders are an exact duplicate

Politicizing health and science

Trump side: Vaccine skepticism at HHS (33); dismissal of climate and environmental science (97)
Democratic side: COVID origin dismissed (41, 67); clinical guidelines shaped by politics (71); CDC guidance shaped by a union (63)
Match: Close

The civil service

Trump side: Mass firings of career staff, inspectors general and experts (6–9, 35, 82–84); loyalty-based appointments (27)
Democratic side: Rules to entrench career officials against a future President (18)
Match: Opposite failures of the same duty

Immigration

Trump side: Harsh, sometimes unlawful enforcement (1, 3–4); deaths in custody (1); deportations without due process (3, 5)
Democratic side: Mass parole; record crossings; enforcement abandoned (1–11)
Match: Opposite failures of the same duty

Failing migrant children in government care

Trump side: First-term "zero tolerance" policy that deliberately separated children, including infants, from their parents with no reliable system for reuniting them; as of February 2023, a federal task force had identified 3,924 separated children, of whom 998 had still not been reunified (first-term action, not on the original list; detention of children is item 2)
Democratic side: Record numbers of unaccompanied children released to sponsors faster than they could be vetted or followed up; HHS could not reach tens of thousands of them after release, and many were found working dangerous jobs; a 2024 DHS Inspector General report found ICE could not monitor the whereabouts of many released children (4)
Match: Partial. Both are failures of the government's duty of care toward children, but Trump separation was an intentional policy that created the harm, while the Biden-era failures were negligence in an overwhelmed system. (The widely repeated claim that 300,000 children were "lost" adds two Inspector General figures together, covers years under both administrations, and has been rated misleading by fact-checkers.)

Personal and family profit

Trump side: Billions in family business income and crypto ventures (62); Qatar jet (50–51); personal lawsuit against the government (64)
Democratic side: Family business dealings and denials (50)
Match: Partial; scale and directness differ greatly

Presidential fitness and accountability

Trump side: No counterpart (Note: Heidi disagrees on this. It seems very likely that Trump and his allies are hiding his own physical and mental decline right now.)
Democratic side: Concealing decline; autopen questions (44–47, 52)
Match: Democratic side only - Again, Heidi disagrees.

Some acts appear on only one list. On the Trump side, the effort to overturn a certified presidential election (original 36–38) and the violence of January 6 (original 16, 20) have no Democratic counterpart. On the Democratic side, the concealment of a President's decline and race-based federal benefit programs have no Trump-side counterpart (Again, Heidi disagrees on President's decline.) These one-sided items matter as much as the matches, because they are where the two parties' self-assessments most diverge.

2. Shared Facts: What Both Sides Would Likely Accept

Most of what the two lists describe is factually settled; the fights are mainly over meaning and motive. Items fall into three tiers. Tier 1 facts are a natural starting point for dialogue, because both sides can accept them. 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 responding to those. 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.

Tier 1: Facts settled by courts, official records or the actors' own words

These are documented by court rulings, government data, recordings or admissions. A good-faith member of either party should be able to accept them, even while disagreeing about their significance.

Court rulings against both administrations. The Supreme Court struck down President Trump's unilateral tariffs (original 52) and President Biden's student loan plan, OSHA mandate and eviction moratorium (companion 12, 14, 15). It also unanimously reversed Colorado's removal of Trump from the ballot (companion 27).
The 2020 election result. Trump lost; more than 60 legal challenges failed; his own Attorney General said there was no fraud on a scale that could change the outcome; the Georgia call asking officials to "find" votes is recorded (original 36–37). (Many Republican voters still doubt the result, but the evidentiary record is not genuinely contested.)
The pardons. Trump pardoned nearly all January 6 defendants, including those convicted of violence against police (original 17). Biden pardoned his son after repeatedly saying he would not, and issued preemptive pardons to allies and family members (companion 30–32).
Border numbers. CBP recorded roughly 10.8 million nationwide encounters in FY2021–FY2024 (companion 2), and crossings fell sharply in 2024 and again after January 2025.
Documented statements. "Vermin" (original 99); "semi-fascism" (companion 78); "garbage" (companion 79); "pay the price" (companion 81); the Jay Jones texts, which he acknowledged (companion 84); the Hur report's description of Biden's memory (companion 44); Zuckerberg's letter describing administration pressure (companion 36).
Outcomes. Thirteen service members died at Abbey Gate (companion 87); inflation peaked at 9.1 percent in June 2022 (companion 88); the Supreme Court narrowed the January 6 obstruction charge in Fischer (companion 29).

Tier 2: Agreed facts, disputed meaning

Here both sides accept what happened but tell opposite stories about it. These are the most productive items for structured dialogue, because the disagreement is about values and standards, rather than reality.

How to read this section: each heading names an event both sides agree took place. Under it are the opposing interpretations Republicans and Democrats tend to give it. Numbers in each heading say which list the event comes from.

Classified documents cases (companion 23)

Republican reading: Two standards of justice
Democratic reading: Trump's case involved obstruction; Biden's did not.

State and federal prosecutions of Trump (companion 24–27)

Republican reading: Lawfare against a candidate
Democratic reading: Independent prosecutors, grand juries and a trial jury applying the law.

January 6 pardons (original 17)

Republican reading: Correcting excessive sentences and a politicized prosecution
Democratic reading: Impunity for political violence

Biden's preemptive pardons (companion 31)

Republican reading: Self-dealing that shields allies from accountability
Democratic reading: Protection against announced retribution

White House pressure on platforms (companion 36–37)

Republican reading: Censorship by proxy
Democratic reading: Public health persuasion; companies made their own decisions

Mass firings and DOGE (original 6–9)

Republican reading: Overdue reform of an unaccountable bureaucracy
Democratic reading: Destruction of expertise and lawless purges

Deportations of people without criminal records (original 5)

Republican reading: Enforcing the law as written
Democratic reading: Cruelty that breaks the administration's own promise

"Threat to democracy" rhetoric (companion 78, 80)

Republican reading: Demonization that invites violence
Democratic reading: An accurate warning

Tier 3: Facts genuinely in dispute

These claims rest on contested evidence, projections or inferences about motive. Agreement here will require shared standards of evidence first.

How far President Biden's decline went, and who was actually making decisions (the House Oversight report's conclusions are rejected by Democrats; companion 35, 52).
Whether DOJ prosecutions of Trump critics in 2025–26 are retribution or legitimate law enforcement (original 21), and whether the earlier prosecutions of Trump were (companion 23–28).
Modeled estimates of deaths from USAID cuts, which are projections, not counts (original 10).
Whether the 2024 bipartisan border bill would have reduced crossings, and what drove the declines in 2024 and 2025.
Claims about concealed damage in the Iran war, which rest partly on reporting not yet fully confirmed (original 73).
The circumstances of deaths in ICE custody and during enforcement actions, many of which remain under investigation (original 1).

3. Never Again: What Both Sides Could Agree Should Not Be Repeated

The strongest candidates for bipartisan agreement are the ones where each party has recently been burned by the other and fears what the next President of the other party will do. That fear is useful: rules written behind a "veil of ignorance" about who will hold power next are the rules both sides can live with.

How to read this section: each heading states a principle both sides could endorse. Under it are an example of the violation from each side, a possible reform, and how much bipartisan support that reform is likely to draw. As in Section 1, numbers on the Trump side refer to the original list and numbers on the Democratic side refer to the companion list.

Presidents comply with Supreme Court rulings and do not seek workarounds

Trump side: Actions on immigration and spending ruled unlawful, and disputes over compliance with court orders (3)
Democratic side: Student loan cancellation after Biden v. Nebraska (12–13); eviction moratorium (14)
Possible reform: Bipartisan resolution affirming compliance; Congress tying funding to compliance
Likely support: High in principle

No pardons for family, no preemptive pardons for allies, no mass clemency without review

Trump side: January 6 pardons (17); pardons of allies
Democratic side: Hunter Biden, family and preemptive pardons (30–32); mass commutations (33–34)
Possible reform: Mandatory public disclosure of each pardon's rationale and process; proposed constitutional amendment barring self- and family pardons
Likely support: High

Emergency powers and tariffs require Congress

Trump side: Tariffs under emergency law (52, 60); Iran war without authorization (60)
Democratic side: Extended COVID emergency (69); proposed climate emergency (101)
Possible reform: National Emergencies Act reform requiring congressional approval to extend an emergency beyond 30 days (proposals such as the ARTICLE ONE Act have had sponsors from both parties); tariff authority returned to Congress
Likely support: High

Candidates stay on the ballot absent a conviction; losers accept certified results

Trump side: 2020 election denial (36, 39); pressure on Georgia officials (37–38)
Democratic side: Colorado and Maine ballot removals (27); ballot-access lawfare (59)
Possible reform: Build on the bipartisan Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022; clearer federal standards for ballot access
Likely support: High

Presidents disclose their fitness to serve

Trump side: (Both parties have now nominated the two oldest Presidents in history)
Democratic side: Concealment of Biden's decline (44–47)
Possible reform: Annual independent medical and cognitive examination with public summary
Likely support: High

Government does not pressure private platforms or outlets to suppress lawful speech

Trump side: Pressure on news and entertainment companies (94); threats to broadcast licenses
Democratic side: Pressure on social media platforms (36–39)
Possible reform: Public, real-time disclosure of all government requests to remove or demote content
Likely support: Medium–high

Leaders condemn violence by their own side, without qualification

Trump side: January 6 participants called patriots (19); silence on violence against opponents (25)
Democratic side: 2020 riots minimized (85); Kirk celebrations (82); Jay Jones (84)
Possible reform: Joint public pledges by party leaders; bipartisan condemnation as a standing practice
Likely support: High in principle

No dehumanizing language about fellow citizens

Trump side: "Vermin," "lunatics" (99)
Democratic side: "Semi-fascism," "garbage" (78–79)
Possible reform: Norm, not law: shared commitments like those promoted by bridging organizations
Likely support: High in principle, hard in practice

No President directs prosecutions of named political opponents

Trump side: DOJ campaign against critics (21)
Democratic side: Perceived lawfare against Trump (23–28)
Possible reform: Codify limits on White House contact with DOJ about specific cases
Likely support: Medium

No mid-decade partisan redistricting

Trump side: Texas 2025 redraw
Democratic side: California Proposition 50 (61)
Possible reform: Federal ban on mid-decade redistricting; independent commissions in all states
Likely support: Medium

Neither purge nor entrench the civil service

Trump side: Mass firings (6–9, 35, 84), loyalty tests (27)
Democratic side: Rules shielding officials from a new President (18)
Possible reform: A negotiated, statutory line between political and career positions
Likely support: Medium

Presidents and their families do not profit from the office

Trump side: Family crypto and business income (62); Qatar jet (50)
Democratic side: Family business dealings (50)
Possible reform: Stronger presidential ethics and divestment requirements, enforced by an independent office
Likely support: Medium–high

Science and health guidance is shielded from political and interest-group pressure

Trump side: Vaccine policy at HHS (33)
Democratic side: COVID origin (41); WPATH guidance (71); CDC school guidance (63)
Possible reform: Disclosure of outside input into federal scientific guidance
Likely support: Medium

Children are never used as a deterrent, and never released faster than the system can protect them

Trump side: Family separation as a deterrent to illegal entry (first term)
Democratic side: Unaccompanied children released to sponsors without adequate vetting or follow-up (4)
Possible reform: A statutory ban on separating children from parents except for documented risk to the child; mandatory sponsor vetting, home checks and post-release follow-up, with funding for legal counsel so children appear for their hearings
Likely support: High

The most promising starting points are pardon reform, emergency-powers reform, presidential fitness disclosure and ballot access. On each, both parties have a recent grievance, both fear the other side's next President, and the reforms constrain whoever holds office rather than a particular person.

4. Is Trump a Greater Threat Than Any Predecessor? And What About "False Equivalence"?

The short answer: among scholars who study democracy, there is broad agreement that Donald Trump's presidency represents the most serious threat to American democratic institutions in modern times. Whether it is the greatest threat in all of American history depends on what you measure, and on that question, thoughtful people genuinely differ.

What is settled

The 2020 transfer of power is without precedent. No previous President sought to remain in office after losing an election, pressed state officials and his own Vice President to overturn certified results, or declined to attend his successor's inauguration after a mob attacked the Capitol during the count. Andrew Jackson called the 1824 result a "corrupt bargain," but he did so as a losing candidate and then won the next election; he did not try to reverse the outcome.
Expert measures show a decline far larger than under any recent President. Since 2017, Bright Line Watch has asked hundreds of political scientists to rate the overall quality of U.S. democracy, covering elections, checks and balances, the rule of law and civil liberties, on a scale from 0 (complete dictatorship) to 100 (perfect democracy). The experts' average rating fell from 67 just after the 2024 election to 55 by February 2025, the largest drop the survey has recorded, and bottomed out at 54 later that year. It has since recovered somewhat, to a rating of 60 in July 2026. The lowest rating during the Biden administration was 66, in November 2021.
International indices agree. The V-Dem Institute's 2026 Democracy Report downgraded the United States from a liberal democracy to an electoral democracy, the first time in more than 50 years, and described the speed of decline as unusual among democracies in modern times.

On these measures, the companion list's items, though real, did not register as comparable threats: expert ratings under Biden stayed well above any reading from Trump's second term.

The strongest case against "worse than any President"

History has graver abuses of liberty. John Adams signed the Sedition Act, under which critics including a sitting congressman were jailed. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and shut down opposition newspapers. Woodrow Wilson's administration imprisoned opponents of World War I, including presidential candidate Eugene Debs. Franklin Roosevelt ordered the internment of roughly 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry and tried to pack the Supreme Court. Measured by the number of people directly deprived of liberty, several of these exceed anything on either list.
Who the experts are. Political scientists lean heavily Democratic, and conservatives argue that expert surveys partly measure the profession's politics. Bright Line Watch's own public surveys show Republican voters rating democracy at their highest levels since 2017.
Institutions have largely held. Courts have struck down major actions, including the tariffs; elections continue; the 2026 midterms will be held under existing law. Critics of the "unprecedented threat" framing argue that resilience is evidence the threat has been overstated.
The cycle had two authors. Conservatives argue that the companion list's items (lawfare, censorship pressure, ballot removals, concealment of Biden's condition) helped create the conditions in which Trump's supporters came to see norm-breaking as self-defense.

How to weigh it

The disagreement usually turns on which criteria matter most. Each item below names a criterion and where Trump stands on it relative to earlier presidents.

Attacks on the electoral transfer of power itself: Without precedent
Breadth (how many institutions are challenged at once: courts, civil service, press, universities, independent agencies, elections): Broader than any modern President, by most expert accounts
Peacetime vs. wartime: Most earlier abuses came during wars or existential crises and were later repudiated; most of Trump's have not
Direct deprivation of liberty at scale: Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt-era actions were larger
Reversibility: Contested; depends on whether courts, Congress and elections continue to check the executive

On the criteria political scientists weigh most heavily, the transfer of power, breadth, and peacetime context, the scholarly case that Trump is the gravest threat since at least the Civil War is strong and widely held. On the criterion of direct harm to individual liberty, wartime predecessors did more. The original author's claim is best stated in the narrower, well-supported form: "by most measures, the most serious threat to democratic institutions in the post-war era," which is close to what the original essay actually says.

Answering the "false equivalence" charge

The charge is correct when someone implies the two lists are equal in size. It is wrong when it is used to rule the companion list out of bounds. Both errors are common, and both undermine bridging work. "Both sides have done this kind of thing" and "both sides have done equally much of it" are different claims. The first is often true; the second often is not. Trump supporters are unlikely to apply a standard to their own side that its proponents won't apply to theirs. Holding Democrats to the same rules is not a concession; it is the precondition for persuading anyone on the right. And Democrats who want to restore norms will one day need Republican votes to do it. In addition, many items on the two lists were justified at the time as responses to the other side. Breaking that cycle requires each side to examine its own contributions, without pretending they are the same size or impact.

Sources

Item references are to "101 Ways the Trump Administration has Undermined the Health of American Society and Democracy" (original list, items numbered 1–101) and the conservative companion list prepared for this exercise (companion list, also numbered 1–101), which carries its own source list.