You Don’t Have to Pick a Team on Everything

One of the most exhausting parts of modern politics, advocacy, and public life is the expectation that every issue requires you to choose a team.

Left or right.

Republican or Democrat.

For or against.

Friend or enemy.

Support everything or oppose everything.

I reject that.

You do not have to pick a team on everything.

Sometimes an issue is simply an issue.

Sometimes the person you usually agree with is wrong.

Sometimes the person you usually disagree with makes a valid point.

Sometimes a good idea comes from the “wrong” side.

And sometimes your own side produces a terrible one.

That should not be controversial.

It should be normal.

Issues Are More Complicated Than Jerseys

Politics increasingly feels like professional sports.

People choose a team, put on the jersey, and then defend everything that team does.

If their side proposes something, it must be good.

If the other side proposes the exact same thing, it must be terrible.

If their politician changes positions, there is suddenly a long explanation for why the change is completely reasonable.

If the opposing politician does the same thing, it is proof of corruption, incompetence, or moral collapse.

That is not critical thinking.

That is fandom.

Government policy is too important to be treated like a football rivalry.

I Can Agree With You Today and Disagree With You Tomorrow

This seems to confuse people.

If I agree with someone on one issue, that does not mean I have joined their team.

If I criticize someone, that does not mean I oppose everything they have ever done.

I can support a politician's position on veterans' benefits and disagree with that same politician on immigration.

I can support an organization's work on military families and criticize its position on another bill.

I can agree with conservatives on one policy and progressives on another.

I can work with people whose politics are very different from mine if we are trying to solve the same problem.

That is not inconsistency.

That is evaluating issues individually.

The Question Should Be: Does It Work?

When I look at policy, I am less interested in who proposed it than in what it actually does.

Who benefits?

Who gets hurt?

How much does it cost?

How is it funded?

What problem is it trying to solve?

Will it actually solve that problem?

What unintended consequences might it create?

Can it be improved?

Those questions matter far more to me than the letter beside someone's name.

A bad policy does not become good because someone I like introduced it.

A good policy does not become bad because someone I dislike supports it.

Loyalty Can Become Intellectual Laziness

There is comfort in picking a team.

Once you do, many decisions become easier.

You no longer have to examine every issue.

Your side tells you what to think.

Your favorite commentators explain why your team is correct.

Social media reinforces it.

Algorithms feed you more of the same.

Eventually, disagreement begins to feel like betrayal.

That is dangerous.

Because the moment you stop evaluating ideas independently, someone else is doing your thinking for you.

You Are Allowed to Say “I Don’t Know Yet”

There is also tremendous pressure to develop an immediate opinion on everything.

A bill is introduced at 10:00 a.m.

By lunch, social media expects you to have a fully developed position.

Sometimes the most responsible answer is:

I have not read enough yet.

That is not weakness.

It is intellectual discipline.

I would rather say, “I need more information,” than adopt a position because people I generally agree with have already chosen one.

The internet rewards speed.

Good policy analysis rewards patience.

Those are not always compatible.

You Can Change Your Mind

Another strange feature of team politics is the idea that changing your opinion is inherently suspicious.

I disagree.

If I learn something new, I reserve the right to change my mind.

If better evidence appears, I should change my mind.

If a policy produces consequences I did not anticipate, I should reconsider my position.

There is nothing admirable about holding the same opinion forever simply because you announced it publicly once.

Consistency is valuable.

So is learning.

Sometimes the two conflict.

When they do, I would rather be informed than stubborn.

Coalition Does Not Require Agreement on Everything

This matters enormously in advocacy.

Very few meaningful reforms happen because everyone involved agrees on every political issue.

Coalitions work because people find one thing they can agree on and work together toward it.

You may disagree on taxes.

Healthcare.

Immigration.

Foreign policy.

Education.

Gun laws.

Social issues.

A hundred other things.

But perhaps you agree that surviving military spouses deserve fair benefits.

Good.

Start there.

You do not need to become best friends.

You do not need matching political philosophies.

You do not even need to particularly like one another.

You need enough common ground to accomplish something useful.

Disagreement Does Not Automatically Make Someone an Enemy

We have become far too comfortable turning disagreement into moral judgment.

Someone disagrees with one position, and suddenly they are assumed to be stupid, evil, brainwashed, hateful, corrupt, or malicious.

Sometimes people are simply wrong.

Sometimes I am the one who is wrong.

Sometimes two reasonable people can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions because they weigh the risks differently.

That does not always require a war.

Civil disagreement should not be revolutionary.

Yet lately, it feels like it is.

Independent Thinking Is Inconvenient

There is a downside to refusing to pick a team.

Everyone gets annoyed with you eventually.

If you criticize Republicans, some conservatives assume you are a Democrat.

If you criticize Democrats, some liberals assume you are a Republican.

If you agree with both sides on different issues, everyone becomes suspicious.

That is fine.

I would rather occasionally annoy everyone than automatically agree with anyone.

My opinions are not a membership card.

The People Affected by Policy Deserve Better

At the end of the day, political team loyalty has real consequences.

Bills affect people's income.

Benefits.

Healthcare.

Housing.

Families.

Jobs.

Retirement.

Education.

Those people deserve more than elected officials and advocates choosing positions based on which side introduced the proposal.

They deserve serious analysis.

They deserve people willing to ask difficult questions.

They deserve advocates willing to support good ideas and oppose bad ones regardless of where they originate.

Final Thought

You do not have to pick a team on everything.

You can agree with someone without endorsing everything they believe.

You can disagree with someone without declaring them your enemy.

You can support one policy and oppose another.

You can change your mind.

You can say, “I don't know enough yet.”

You can work with people whose politics are completely different from yours.

And you can evaluate ideas based on whether they actually work.

That may not fit neatly into today's political culture.

I am okay with that.

My loyalty is to the issue, not the jersey.