A lot of dust has been kicked up in the wake of the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk. There’s been the rush to assign blame, examples of how our individual algorithms give us widely different perspectives on the same people and events, and the ever present struggle with how we think and talk about controversial figures in the wake of their deaths.
In an attempt to show impartiality and be open minded, I see many well-intentioned people talk about the problems that exist on “both sides”. It feels like saying that there aren’t clearly defined “good guys” and “bad guys” is a necessary starting point for any productive dialogue across differences. I am 100% on board with an acknowledgement of fault wherever it is found, no matter what team jersey someone is wearing. But I think it would be helpful to stop talking about “both sides” and start talking about “universal problems.” Here’s why:
“Both sides” lumps a wide diversity into two boxes
I have seen so many talk about “the right” and “the left” in the last few weeks, and I think those categories are increasingly less helpful. In fact, I think lumping together your ideological opponents into one category is useful only when you are trying to unite the disparate elements of “your side” together against a “common foe”. You could only think that there is a unified “left” if you never spend time listening to the infighting between centrist democrats and progressives and true leftists. No one disliked Joe Biden more than his critics on the political left. And the same diversity exists on the right.
So when, for instance, we are talking about political violence, there are absolutely people on both the political left and right who affirm and endorse it. (Check out this terrific piece by David French on that front). Are there are others who fall in that part of the political spectrum committed to peace. So any of the saber rattling that you’ve seen about how “they” are the ones who are really violent is unhelpful and inaccurate. There is a “we” that is violent too.
I think it also stops us from having productive dialogue, because when you engage with the melting pot of all your political rivals, you aren’t really talking to anyone in particular. You are engaging an aggregate of all other opinions instead of a real person or movement within that range.
That isn’t to say there aren’t trends or broader movements that are worth addressing. But I think the two “sides” aren’t useful categories anymore. Especially in light of a rising nihilism in younger generations that really ascribes to no particular ideology other than trolls and lolz.
“Both sides” keeps us from properly critiquing
But, more importantly, even when we can usefully identify movements or trends, using “both sides” language often keeps us from properly critiquing the problem. There is a bland centrism that retreats to “everyone does it” instead of naming problems where they exist. Almost as if the malice that exists in some capacity on each sides cancels the other sides out, and we can no longer call balls and strikes anymore.
To think of a historical example: racism was prevalent on both sides of the Civil War. The North was not a shining example of equality, embodying the founding claim of this nation that “all men are created equal.” And yet, when it comes to the Civil War, members of the confederacy were clear about who they were: “[the] corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.” (from Alexander Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech) When we retreat to “all sides were racist”, we are no longer able to name that one side was built upon an explicit declaration of racism.
This is where I think it’s better to identify problems as universal. It is true that we live in a time where political problems feel so existential that many are drawn to the siren’s call of violence as a solution. And you will find that in all corners of political space. It is a temptation that transcends ideology, and it needs to be named and rejected wherever it is found. The weeds don’t care about the fence line, they are happy to grow in any yard they can.
I am particularly grieved to see more and more Christian leaders resort to violent rhetoric. And as a pastor I want to name this as deeply unChristian. Christians in particular have the opportunity and obligation to insist that we serve a God who loved us when we were still his enemies (Romans 5:8), that while anyone can love their friends, we are called to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48), and that the ministry of the Gospel is a ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:16-21).
On any given day, or on any given issue, there will be more people on one side than another embodying a particular problem. We can spend all of our time trying to tally the score to see which bundle of people are worse, or we can throw up our hands in defeat and say that “both sides” are bad. Instead, I think we need to name evil as evil, stand up for those who are oppressed or in harm’s way, and worry less about the scoreboard and more about loving our neighbor.
May we resist sin in all its forms, from all its origins, and proclaim the truth that Jesus is Lord, and the Prince of Peace.
Photo by Sahand Babali on Unsplash