Fact check: Is there any merit to the "both sides"-claim, stating that both Republicans and Democrats are about equally nefarious?

1. Where Differences Are Clear and Matter: Economic and Policy Priorities That Separate Parties

Contemporary reporting and analysis show distinct policy frameworks driving Republican and Democratic approaches, particularly on the economy and social programs; Republicans emphasize limited government and market solutions, while Democrats prioritize government intervention for social supports. These differences translate into divergent legislative objectives and bargaining positions during crises such as budget fights and shutdown standoffs, where each side’s demands reflect coherent ideological choices rather than equal wrongdoing ^{[1] [5]}. Framing both parties as equivalently nefarious obscures substantive ideological disagreements that shape real outcomes for voters and policy.

2. Where Symmetry Appears: Misperceptions and the Illusion of Parity

Research from Annenberg researchers demonstrates that partisans vastly underestimate internal diversity within their own party and across the aisle, creating an impression that both parties are monolithic and equally extreme. Those misperceptions make public discourse feel polarized and morally equivalent, but the study suggests the symmetry is often imagined rather than factual, and that correcting misperceptions could reduce tensions and challenge the “both sides” narrative ^[2]. Labeling both parties equally nefarious frequently leverages these perception gaps, which have measurable effects on media consumption and political behavior.

3. Evidence of Bipartisan Action: Concrete Bills and Cooperative Institutions

Practical governance sometimes produces bipartisan results: organizations like the Bipartisan Policy Center and recent congressional actions, such as the Senate passage of the ROAD to Housing Act and reauthorization efforts tied to the Global Fragility Act, show capacity for cross-party lawmaking on specific issues. These examples demonstrate that parties can find shared aims—housing, national security, and stability—contradicting blanket claims of equal malign intent. However, the existence of cooperation on some bills does not erase deep partisan competition on other major fronts ^{[3] [6] [4]}.

4. Conflict Episodes Reveal Asymmetry in Tactics and Stakes

High-profile conflicts like government shutdown fights reveal different tactical priorities and leverage strategies: Democrats pushing to preserve or expand healthcare subsidies and social spending, Republicans often seeking more limited stopgap spending measures tied to other policy goals. These distinct demands indicate that each party’s behavior in crises follows strategic policy aims rather than identical patterns of obstruction or malfeasance. Evaluating each episode on its facts shows asymmetry in what’s at stake and the policy costs imposed on the public ^[5].

5. The Role of Narratives and Incentives: Why “Both Sides” Persists

The “both sides” claim performs political and media functions: it can be used to deflect accountability, signal centrist credibility, or simplify complex partisan dynamics for audiences. Incentives among actors—media outlets, political operatives, and institutions—encourage framing that appeals to broad audiences, sometimes amplifying false parity. Research on misperceptions and institutional examples of bipartisanship both indicate that narrative incentives, not factual symmetry, often explain why the “both sides” trope remains durable ^{[2] [3]}.

6. What Is Omitted When Saying “Both Sides” Equally Nefarious

Saying both parties are equally nefarious omits important context: the policy consequences, legislative trade-offs, historical responsibility for certain laws, and intra-party heterogeneity. It also ignores where bipartisan coalitions have advanced solutions. Overgeneralization can hinder accountability by making voters and watchdogs treat unequally harmful acts as morally equivalent. To assess culpability properly, one must consider policy outcomes, institutional norms, and specific actors rather than rely on a shorthand that collapses important distinctions ^{[1] [4]}.

7. Bottom Line: When the “Both Sides” Claim Holds and When It Falls Apart

The claim has merit in highlighting that both parties contain actors who engage in problematic behavior and that polarization and misperception amplify perceived symmetry; nevertheless, it fails as a blanket explanation because parties differ in platform, tactics, and policy outcomes, and because bipartisanship occasionally produces meaningful legislation. The most accurate assessment is conditional: accuse specific actors or practices when warranted, recognize partisan differences where they exist, and address systemic drivers—misperception, narrative incentives, and institutional design—rather than default to blanket equivalence ^{[2] [1] [3]}.