broken seesaw

The minority party in politics often benefits from norms like transparency and civility; these rules prevent the majority party from steamrolling them. However, if manipulated strategically, these virtues can be rhetorical levers that accelerate their path to power.

In Massachusetts, the GOP occupies a precarious position: they are heavily outnumbered locally, yet hold all three branches of government on the national stage. While civility and transparency could help them gain influence in the state, these efforts have been undercut by the abrasive, often toxic rhetoric emanating from the federal party leadership—a style the party has nonetheless supported for the past decade.

The tension between principle and strategy can be seen playing out on Massachusetts campuses every day, as they struggle to balance conservative voices being heard with good-faith debate.

Transparency

Growing up, I held some poorly-conceived political views that I eventually grew out of. A large component of my growth was recognizing when I was simply arguing for the “team”, rather than out of principle. Now, I strongly value good-faith discussions and standing firmly behind the principles I espouse.

This can put me at a disadvantage if I’m talking to someone who engages in “proxy arguments”, for example—when they pretend to hold a reasonable belief that defends a less palatable but closely-held one. Transparency puts your ideas in the ring, and if they lose, your foundational beliefs are challenged, compared to opaque views, which obscure an idea’s true pillars of reasoning.

A few weeks ago, I posted about a commenter on a student paper who portrayed a criticism as itself an attack on free speech, instead of, as I argued, an expression of it. I found another one of their comments in a similar context, and one rabbit hole later, found them posting “as a Republican”.

The authors of the articled I linked express their views transparently and thus expose what upholds their reasoning. That puts them in a precarious spot: if someone makes a strong counterpoint, it undercuts the very purpose of the article. The commenter, by contrast, avoids that vulnerability. Though a self-described Republican, they don’t argue as a Republican when confronted with toxic rhetoric from another Republican. Instead, they deploy a sort of rhetorical sleight-of-hand, brushing the article off as “thought police.” Their opacity works to their advantage because even if someone responds with a stellar rebuttal, it never touches the commenter’s actual commitments—and therefore costs them nothing.

This dynamic mirrors the broader tension described above: transparency is a virtue that should empower those with less structural power, yet when selectively disavowed, it becomes a tool for dodging accountability while still reaping rhetorical benefits. And just as transparency can be strategically withheld to avoid being pinned down, so too can the related norm of civility be invoked or discarded depending on which tactic best advances one’s position.

Civility

Civility is often invoked by members of the minority (or those lacking institutional power) as a kind of safeguard: if you’re outnumbered or risk being drowned out, courtesy and reasoned discourse can help preserve a hearing for dissenting views. But when used asymmetrically, it can be leveraged dishonestly as a rhetorical weapon.

The Massachusetts College Republicans proudly endorsed Trump for president in 2024—the same president who, in the past news cycle alone, referred to public figures as “piggy”, “stupid”, and “retarded”. Trump has encouraged police rough-ups of protesters, publicly praised political violence such as the assault of a reporter, and responded to civil unrest with threats of force rather than appeals to dialogue.

The Massachusetts College Republicans selectively appeal to these virtues for political gain, not out of principle.

Power

This tension illustrates a broader hypocrisy: civility becomes the default demand only when the dissenting voices come from the political left, while aggressive or uncivil rhetoric from within one’s own ranks gets overlooked (and endorsed). The normative standard shifts depending on whether one is defending institutional power or challenging it.