This week…April may not prove to be the cruelest month. But I’m sure it won’t be for lack of trying. Battling to prevent the establishment of dictatorship in Germany between the wars, legal theorist Hans Kelsen argued that the essential component to advancing the freedom of liberal democracy was a structure that nurtured compromise, for the simple reason that compromise was the only way to protect (rather than destroy) the critical freedom to disagree. Which is a reminder that polarization is the gateway drug to authoritarism. That’s because polarization is an effort to close rather than open the door to finding reasonable compromise, most commonly by bypassing deliberation about the content of the disagreement and, instead, branding your opponent as being so wrong, so bad, so “other” that you can’t—you shouldn’t)—even be talking to them. See below for examples.

When reading these examples, check the above list and ask yourself: regardless of whether you agree or disagree, is this really advancing an intelligent resolution through the persuasive, rational arguments of advocacy…or simply fueling the fire of conflict through the divisive, emotional manipulations of polarization?

Here are just a few of the blue and red polarizing headlines from the past week.