View this post on the web at [link removed]

My three weeks on Substack have turned me into a repeat offender when it comes to violating the old Internet rule, “don’t read the comments.”
I do read your comments, and while the guidance against doing so is a tried and true maxim on other social media platforms, I think Substack is different. Sure, there’s the odd troll, but at The Next Move, we really are cultivating a thoughtful, strategic dialogue. The lively thread under my post yesterday (“A Cult of Personality Without a Personality” [ [link removed] ]) continues to grow, and several comments from readers could easily be op-eds in their own right.
So first of all: Thank you for your readership and engagement!
Secondly, in that spirit, I want to respond to one charge that’s come up a couple of times in the comments section below that piece: both-sidesism. In the second half of the article, I explained how four of Donald Trump’s predecessors—Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden—contributed to the toxic stew that gave us not one, but two (and, if we are not careful, an illegal three) Trump presidencies. Several of you felt that by criticizing these other commanders-in-chief, I was suggesting that “both sides” are just as bad.
One commenter writes: [ [link removed] ]
I cannot like this post overall Mr Kasparov, because of the both- Sidisms. With the prior Presidents, we had a democracy. Trump wants to be an authoritarian to accumulate more wealth and power and stay out of jail. He is lawless.
I abhor both-sidesism, along with its sister sin, false equivalence. Sometimes there is a right side and a wrong side. Ukraine versus Russia. Allies versus Axis. Or Kasparov versus Karpov. Too many people mistakenly believe that they will appear smarter by pretending not to know the difference.
So I will say it once more for the benefit of anyone who is new to The Next Move: Donald Trump currently represents a singular, existential threat to American constitutional democracy. Whatever my criticisms of his predecessors, there is no parallel between them.
But I am not going to repeat that ad nauseum. If you are reading this publication, then we probably already agree on the fundamentals when it comes to the current occupant of the White House. I will call out this administration when it is relevant, but for me to go on about how awful Trump is for its own sake would add nothing useful to the conversation. Just self-righteous moral satisfaction. We all know how bad he is.
The focus of The Next Move is laying out a strategy to win against demagogues and wannabe despots—in America and around the world. In order to do that, nothing can be off limits. We need to recognize where others have failed at stopping ascendant authoritarianism and learn from their mistakes.
Another commenter notes: [ [link removed] ]
"Obama was arrogant and unserious."
This sounds like you're offended he dared to rise above "his place." And you really had to dig to find a moment that qualified as being unserious.
Be better.
Comments like this one take us in the exact opposite direction. They will set up pro-democracy forces to lose again and again and again. The not-so-thinly veiled implication that my comments on Barack Obama were racist (please) suggests a reflexive defensiveness of one’s own partisans. He was the president of the United States of America. I assure you, the man can stand up to some light criticism from a retired Russian chess player!
As for the substance of our disagreement: We do not have to do much digging to uncover his flaws. President Obama was underqualified compared with almost all of his predecessors. On his watch, the Democratic Party threw a winnable campaign to an authoritarian agitator who was widely seen as a joke candidate mere months before election day. Obama’s impotent foreign policy helped to lay the groundwork for persistent geopolitical crises from Ukraine to Syria.
If you disagree on the merits, then I invite you to make your case! But do not simply demand those with whom you disagree to “be better.” That is a critical mistake. We need to understand where others have gone wrong in order to avoid producing the same results we are living with now. Even Governor Tim Walz [ [link removed] ], the Democrats’ 2024 vice-presidential nominee, recognizes this. On a recent tour, he had this to say:
Millions of people stayed home because they didn’t think there was any difference between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris and myself on the ticket. We need to acknowledge that.
As I’ve noted, there are those who dishonestly play the both-sides game. But there are millions of people who are earnestly caught in the middle. We might disagree with their assessment of the situation, but that’s less important. We need to approach them without being condescending because winning without them is simply impossible. And that requires taking some hard looks in the mirror. Not because ineffectual democrats are just as bad as the bad guys, but because our self-defeating fear of self-reflection will take us to a place that is even worse.
But now I want to know what you think. What is the most effective way we can make strategic critiques while staying true to our values? How can we chart a new course? I look forward to joining you in the replies.
Remember: At The Next Move, you should read the comments!
Related Content
The Next Move with Garry Kasparov is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. A note that all the proceeds go to my 501(c)(3), and I don’t touch a penny.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?