Opinion | Maybe a little both-sides-ism is exactly what we need right now

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

For the last several weeks, Minnesotans have been begging leaders to “do something.” But the challenge isn’t doing something; it’s doing something that works.

There’s no question that the federal administration set this crisis in motion with an approach to law enforcement that wasn’t proportionate and — what became the tipping point for a lot of people, despite their political affiliation — by repeatedly violating Constitutional rights. This operation has become another accelerant in a long‑brewing nationwide conflict, aided by professional conflict engineers and the growing distrust we’ve developed toward each other.

After Alex Pretti’s killing, “de-escalation” seemed to be the buzzword of the week. Everyone from Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara to a bipartisan handful of legislators to business community leaders called for a toning down of the rhetoric and an immediate de-escalation.

Calling for de-escalation wasn’t wrong. It’s exactly what was needed. It probably would have been more helpful though if we had a common definition of what “obstructing” means, but we don’t. And in a moment this politically charged, even well-intentioned statements became fuel for more conflict — especially if they placed responsibility on “the other side,” or tried to soften the message for their own side with a little both-sides-ism.

Acts of de-escalation and toning down rhetoric, while essential, are hard to identify at best, and at worst feel like capitulation. But defeating what journalist and author Amanda Ripley calls “high conflict” is going to be essential for Minnesota today, and for the rest of the country in the long term. High conflict is the situation where people become so consumed by the wrongness of their opponents that the conflict itself takes over, and working together to solve a problem isn’t just difficult, it’s unthinkable.

Ironically, our democratic republic may be partly to blame for this. Our winner‑take‑all governing system doesn’t effectively incorporate the values of a diverse and deeply polarized constituency. When one party gains a trifecta of power and uses it to the fullest, people on the other side feel helpless — and helplessness is rocket fuel for high conflict. The inevitability of outsized power is exactly why the Bill of Rights was created in the first place.

We all hope that our leaders are equipped to handle crisis situations. But if they, or even just the people around them, are caught in high conflict, an instance where the only acceptable posture is outrage takes over. That doesn’t make them bad people. It makes them human.

Because here’s the truth. You can be 100% right. You can have the facts, the moral high ground, and the better argument. But in today’s world — with polarized audiences and completely different perspectives — being right isn’t enough to calm a crisis.

And that brings us to the kind of strength we don’t talk about enough — the strength it takes to step away from your own side of a conflict. Not to defect, not to betray, but simply to step into the no‑man’s‑land between two entrenched camps. That space is terrifying. It’s lonely. It’s where you risk being misunderstood by your allies and mischaracterized by your opponents. It’s where people who’ve never met you suddenly feel entitled to assign you motives.

It’s also the only place where progress ever actually happens.

If we want to defeat the real enemy — and in this country, at this time, I believe the conflict itself has become the enemy because it’s heightening all of our other disagreements and enabling the dehumanization of our opponents — we need more people willing to take that step. Not by abandoning their values, but by honoring them. And yes, sometimes the first step, especially from your opponents, is going to come with a little both-sides-ism. If that’s the armor that somebody needs to wear to step into the divide, I’m willing to accept it.

Sometimes the most effective action is the one that keeps a bad situation (or in this case, a really bad situation) from getting worse.

Maybe a little both-sides-ism isn’t capitulation. Maybe it’s triage. Maybe it’s the net that keeps us from falling into a chasm we will spend generations trying to climb out of.