As you know, I really like Illana Redstone (and was hoping she could join our panel this coming Tuesday), but to suggest that every time Trump’s anti-democratic actions are called out, there should be a simultaneous acknowledgment of the left’s cultural excesses seems like “Both Sides” framing. As you've often discussed, conflict is often asymmetrical and when the scale and nature of Trump’s attacks on democracy are not directly comparable, this approach risks diluting the urgency and importance or creating a false equivalence.
We'll have to bring all these to the table for our panel on Tuesday. I've seen more and more calls for "playing hardball" from those in opposition of Trump. As many in depolarization talk about, we've been on this escalating progression where the bar for what is morally acceptable keeps moving for both sides and how norms only hold as long you believe the other side is playing fair. I'd argue if you could magically give Democrats their version of Trump today, even with the extra-legal tendencies, they'd take it. If we're not there, we're close. We have to reverse this spiral.
I’m def not saying every time. I don’t think she is either. But what we see is hardly anyone being willing to acknowledge their opponents’ concerns (basic nature of conflict). Even a few prominent leaders (or maybe even one) occasionally doing that would go a long way.
I just think Trump-opposed people need to focus less on Trump and more about where Trump has derived his power (people’s grievances). In the long term I mean.
Excellent column and advice. Some of this advice I already provide in political debate training (focusing comments on the audience, not on your opponent). We also need to get into the habit of rewarding the kinds of behavior and media that promote this. It's why I've proposed that X and other social media outlets consider a "green check" program where accounts agree to communicate via a code of behavior that promotes civil discourse without requiring anyone to compromise their beliefs or activism.
Thank you! I often tell communities and activists I work with: if you are hoping others do something different, making fun of them or telling them how ridiculous they are is not a good way to get them to do that different thing you want them to do.
yep, pre-election, I was around many R's who dug in deeper due to the hatred being thrown, the lies - Hitler lover. I wasn't telling people who I was voting for, or if I said I wasn't voting for either, the D's were telling me I HAD to vote for Harris because if I didn't I was voting FOR Hitler.
I was on another site where the writer quoted Axios saying the majority of R's thought there should be violence if Trump didn't win. I followed the link & it actually said 'almost 3' out of 5 said that, & I followed the link further which in reality showed the majority DID NOT (quite a few less than half of 10). The far-to-the-left biased news was definitely riling up those on the right. I'm a R, wasn't planning to vote for T, but that posting really got me riled up. Because it was clumping many R's into a class of violent loving crazies. Just like if someone would clump all lefties into believing all abortions should be perfectly ok up until the 9th month, no questions asked....
Assumptions are ridiculous. Many on the left find out someone is a Republican & automatically assume they're against the environment, ie. Or against women's rights. Or hate gays. Or, or, or, take your pick about any kind of assumption...
thank you! That was a great interview. I'll definitely recommend you to others.
& it stirred a bit more about the bias & wording of polls & the media. My first clear first-hand experience w/ the bias w/ 'journalists', was in the early 1990's, w/ a reporter for a still-published paper newspaper. I had just started a business & she wanted to do an article. I was on cloud 9, wanting that coverage!! The photographer showed up, took a look at the class I was holding (a computer class for toddlers, ages 3-5) & he said he couldn't do the pics. I was totally confused --- why?? Because there were 2 girls, 1 boy. The reporter wanted to show how girls were discriminated against. Of course, the kids were freely enrolled by the parents... anyway, I immediately asked to speak w/ the reporter, buttered her up, suggested she take the angle that in preschool yrs girls show just as much interest, but by the time the kids get older THAT'S when the girls get discriminated against... she ran my story... since then I know to read every article questioningly...
Excellent. My message to progressives is that polarization—not the GOP—is the primary barrier to achieving our political goals. Reducing partisan animosity isn’t just the right thing to do; it’s the only path forward for our nation.
Thanks Zachary! Your excellent article increases our understanding of how escalating anger and spiraling polarization happens and ways to help manage it. I agree that while this is no easy task, making movement of both sides toward the middle is critical for our success. Basically this polarization is like putting our defense mechanisms on steroids. This includes all-or-nothing/black-or-white thinking, projection, mind reading, generalizations, magical thinking, catastrophizing. Ideas that I’d add to aid depolarization: look for common interests/ values - ie. Safety, security (even though the sides see it differently); be curious not judgmental; maintain boundaries, and avoid communication -verbal and nonverbal -that incites anger or is offensive. Remember our common humanity. It should rule.
There are some useful tips here. But so much of it gets buried when I see you saying in all sincerity that you believe Trump wants what’s best for America. A person who is clearly narcissistic, borderline psychopathic, and as deeply damaged as that man clearly is emphatically does NOT want (nor even cognitively understand) “what’s best for America.” He is pure id, laser-focused on self-aggrandizement and revenge. You undercut your arguments by suggesting otherwise.
That said, I recently was thinking about GOP members of Congress expressing their fear of retaliation — even physical retribution — for stepping out of line by opposing Trump. If these fears are legitimate (and I have to point out here that hundreds of thousands of people with not even a tiny fraction of these officials’ privilege are bravely putting THEIR livelihoods and lives on the line every day opposing this regime), then maybe we protestors should acknowledge that in our messages. Encourage them to be courageous, to band together with their colleagues and rise up to impeach him, to stand up for the Constitution … and remind them that they would be heroes of history if they do so, that they would actually do good for themselves by doing right by their country, etc.
It would require taking into account their fears and feelings, which I imagine you would find laudable. But the only way most of us could stomach doing it is because we realize that getting the GOP to do their frikkin jobs is our only hope. If that means cajoling them and flattering them temporarily, welp … we gotta do whatever it takes at this point.
I disagree. You can believe Trump is narcissistic, that he is harmful, while acknowledging that he can be a true believer of many of the things he says. The important part is seeing that you just can't be certain of his motivations, and that high conflict often leads us to engage in mind reading (e.g., Elon Musk claiming to know Democrats' policies on immigration are driven by a desire for more power/votes).
Have you by chance read my book How Contempt Destroys Democracy? It's at http://www.american-anger.com. I think you'd enjoy it; it addresses many of the objections you are bringing up. It also includes a section about the badness (and polarizing aspects) of claiming to know with certainty that our opponents have malicious intent; the specific reasons why that's bad. I think you'd enjoy it. I wrote it for exactly politically passionate (and angry) people like yourself, to see how they could IMO better approach political divides/disagreements.
I do have contempt for both Trump and Musk, though. And it is well earned by them. They are destroying people’s lives. And all evidence points to Trump and Musk manipulating the system to increase their own wealth. I agree with all that you’ve said except for this point. I don’t acknowledge that he’s a true believer of all he says. He has repeatedly shown that he will change toward whichever way the wind blows. He lies. He has no North Star except for himself. And if he’s constantly lying, then to claim that he is a true believer of what he’s saying means also that he’s delusional. Come, come, now. Don’t be like those who call good evil and evil, good. Waste no more words giving either of them the benefit of the doubt. We can reserve that for those who have not repeatedly shown us that they are manipulating us so that they can destroy us.
My point isn't even that you shouldn't have contempt for specific people; it's more just trying to recognize what happens when our contempt becomes a key aspect of our communication (especially towards the entire 'other side'). If you'd like to learn more about my views on this, check out my book How Contempt Destroys Democracy: www.american-anger.com. I wrote it for people like you, who are angry and concerned about Trump but who also want to reduce political toxicity/conflict.
'Altruistic' is a strong word. A couple things though: a) my main point was just that it's a mistake to assume we know the intentions of people, as we'll often be wrong (and even if you're entirely sure of someone's intentions, it's bad from a practical/strategy perspective to assign malicious motives to people, as you have to think about how their allies perceive that), and then b) me saying 'they believe they are doing good things' I think isn't saying that much; it's a pretty low bar. There are all sorts of horrible narcissists and dangerous people and dictators who see themselves as being the "good guys," so I don't think it's really saying that much; our abilities to see ourselves as the "good guys" has no bounds. And again, my opinion doesn't really matter much (my main point was about the mistake of highly certain views of others' motivations) but I do believe Trump and Elon see themselves as fighting a good-versus-bad fight; they believe they are fighting bad, harmful things (assorted liberal-associated stances/policies they see as harmful; attempts to right perceived harm being done to America by bad deals with other countries, more) and I do understand why they believe those things; some of those things are rational, defensible things to believe (even as I also believe they and many others act very toxically and divisively due to being consumed by warlike, us-vs-them ways of thinking; conflict can draw people into that way of thinking).
But this is all to mainly just defend the idea that it's bad to assume we know our opponents' intentions, as I think we are wrong a lot when our emotions are involved.
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. I'm 100% with you on not making assumptions. And I also agree that most of time, people doing very bad things believe that they are doing very good things. And on one level, it doesn't really matter...I'm gonna oppose things I see as harmful regardless of Trump's intentions.
At the same time, I'm kinda fascinated from a psycho-social perspective with this question. I've seen nothing that makes me think Trump or Musk care about anything other than their own egos. I see them both as afflicted with extreme delusions of grandeur. But I also know that I only see their public behavior and, even there, only the parts of their public behavior that my algorithm wants me to see (though I do try to get outside my bubble). Is it possible that, in their private lives, they are revealing parts of themselves that reflect true concern for others? Sure, it's possible.
What makes this particular situation so vexxing and frightening to me is that never have two powerful US political figures appeared to me to be so mentally ill - I say this not as an insult so much as a very sad and alarming observation (with all the caveats above about how I don't have the full picture). From where I sit, we have two uber-powerful men acting out their narcissistic wounds on the world stage, insulated by sycophants who will never tell them they're wrong.
One thing I’m stuck on is the claim that we need to do more to understand and acknowledge the needs of the other side. But as somebody who consumes a lot of news media, my perception is the mainstream press has gone out of its way to try and understand Trump voters.
I think about the dozens of New York Times is going to an Ohio diner and asking a Trump voter what they think about things, while there’s pretty much no equivalent of going to a liberal enclave by a conservative magazine trying to understand why liberals believe what they believe in a respectful and measured way
As a California native who lived in Oklahoma for two years, my experience was I understood what my conservative associates believed and why they believed it, but the maga people I met repeatedly approached me with an almost cartoonish view of liberals with no interest in understanding why liberals believe what they believe
To give an example, in the first week of meeting locals, I was asked why California made it legal to give people aids on purpose. The person who asked me that didn’t bother to check if that claim was true, and they just naturally assume that there are Democrats walking around Saying “let’s decriminalize giving people aids on purpose”
So what’s my point? I feel like we (lib leaning folk) already are going out of our way to show empathy and understanding to Trump voters. It feels like the entire media system is set up to treat them like some kind of lost tribe that we have to try to understand.
While so-called liberal publications go out of their way to try to understand Trump voters, I do not see any evidence that they have any curiosity about Democrats. So I feel like you’re writing from a perspective that liberal should adopt this tactic. When really I feel like we already do, and it’s the right who is aggressively uncurious about viewing Democrats as anything other than caricatures
I disagree that the mainstream media has done much to understand Trump voters. Sure, they occasionally interview some people, but I don't feel that true attempts at understanding or listening are few and far between. For example, conservative-associated stances are often either ignored or treated with disdain. Many journalists and pundits uncritically repeat worst-case interpretations of conservative-associated people and stances that are subjective opinions, but framed as facts. I recommend reading Musa Al-Gharbi's "Race and the Race for the White House" for understanding just how embedded some of these inaccurate and insulting narratives about conservatives are in liberal-leaning news, academia, and punditry. When you start to see just how embedded some of these polarizing, distorted narratives and assumptions are, you'll start to understand why conservatives/Republicans feel so demeaned.
Put another way, the few attempts of "let's listen to a handful of random Republicans at a diner" or "let's interview these random people at a Trump rally" can seem like a drop in the bucket compared to the overall failure to listen/understand narratives. And often those attempts at listening are themselves polarizing (e.g., many Trump voters would have no wish to attend a Trump rally and aren't that enthusiastic about him as a leader; so talking to people at a Trump rally is interviewing the most polarized members of that political group, and misses why many other less-polarized Americans vote for Trump).
Not to hype my book, but it was written to help liberal/anti-Trump people understand the dynamics of our conflict better and see the role liberals/Democrats have played. How Contempt Destroys Democracy: www.american-anger.com. To get someone else's view of this area, though, you might enjoy Beyond Contempt, by Erica Etelson.
I have spent a lot of time on Substack and other publications post election, and what I’m reading is over and over again people explaining exactly why the election was lost. And they do this by diving into precisely what Republicans say is important to them.
Articles in both Substack and MSM point to conservative anxiety over culture and immigration among other things. A general sense that they feel ignored and it makes them mad. And a general sense that things are getting worse and the people they don’t want to benefit (women, minorities, foreigners) seem to be benefitting
Again, this is not a mystery. I lived with hard right conservatives in Oklahoma.
The things they want and care about are not complicated. In fact, they tell you pretty directly what it is.
I went into Oklahoma with an open heart and an open mind, and I left with a much lower view of conservative America based on the real people I met and tried to understand
What I would like is to see people from a conservative perspective go out of their way to try and understand liberals in a good faith way, and I just don’t see that.
My view is conservatives started this fight by making Trump their standardbearer, and having everybody down the ballot imitate his boorish behavior and treating everybody who doesn’t agree as evil. So it’s their responsibility to lay down their arms.
I’m tired of being made to feel a sucker for trying to understand when that is not reciprocated
That is where the desire to fight harder comes from. A feeling that we’ve tried to be nice and in response we just get sand kicked in our face. Why would anybody want to humiliate themselves that way if it’s not bridging any divide and it just makes them think we are suckers?
Tl;dr— if we’re the people who go high, but the other side keeps going low, we don’t see a good incentive to keep going high. Especially since it doesn’t seem to provide any electoral benefit. All of the sucking up to MAGA skeptic Republicans in 2024 did nothing. Unless than until Maga Republicans go out of their way to try to understand the opposite side of the aisle, this isn’t going to go anywhere.
I will say your point is correct that the polarization leads to counter polarization. I used to be much more kind and patient to conservatives, but the vitriol I was receiving from the other side and seeing how they talk about left leaning people made me go from neutral to outright disdain for lots people I have never met.
But I think I speak for many liberal leaning people that we feel tired of trying to show empathy and understanding towards people who have gone out of their way to be nasty towards us. We would be more willing to be decent if they would start rather than always requiring us to be the bigger people
Many of us are tired of having to be the bigger people in the face of people who do not seem to care about norms or decency
I think the problem here is whatever efforts you personally may have made toward understanding and empathy have been drowned out by the chronic contempt and ridicule dished out by comedians, social media warriors and others. The rare book like Stolen Pride is lost in the stream of "Stupid White Men" and "you got what you wanted, MAGA loser" schaudenfreude shit-posting. When it's hard and exhausting to bring my best self to the table, and much more fun to join the chorus of sneering and jeering, I remind myself that being snide and scornful will never ever ever open someone's mind. So for me, it's not only the right move from an ethical standpoint but also from a strategic one.
There’s something to be said that there isn’t a great online incentive structure for empathy and understanding
Granted, in my personal life and ways completely unconnected to politics, I don’t have difficulty tapping into empathy and understanding as a way to keep myself humble. Also, as an attorney, I have found putting myself in the shoes of the opposing side makes me a better lawyer.
But with respect to politics, it feels like there’s a complete lack of empathy and understanding being asked of the other side. I say this based on how conservative commentators speak about liberals and lived experience of people I’ve met in blood red states.
In law school, I had many conservative friends who made cogent thoughtful arguments about things, even when we disagreed, and I was enriched by it
But these days, I just don’t have those conversations anymore. I don’t meet conservatives who desperately want understand my point of view or background.
So given the perceived lack of empathy and understanding on the other side, it diminishes my appetite to be understanding and empathetic. Which breeds contempt
I Standby What I said earlier: I believe conservatives started this war by putting up Trump and embracing the politics of scorched earth and character assassination. So I’m not interested in unilaterally disarming by going high if they’re not going to.
I would rather we spend our efforts building a political movement that includes the 90 million who didn’t vote in the last election rather than chasing people who I have not been able to see eye to eye on for quite some time
Tl;dr: I’m not interested in giving endless empathy to people who do not go out of their way at all to try to understand me or my perspective. It’s up to them to make the first move and have the civil conversation. I’m tired of being burned
Just joined in. I don't see any conservatives commenting. I'm a Republican, however, not a Trump fan at all, have voted independent for the last several elections, then R down the line. I thoroughly appreciate reading conversations like these to learn more, & possibly contribute?
I love the "list".
I'll share just a few experiences. I volunteer at an agency where I interact w/ a wide variety of other volunteers & clients. I have no idea what political "tribe" most of them belong to. I live in an area, however, where people are much more vocal about their opinions. I'm going to preface this by saying many don't know how I vote... So far, the most vocal have been the far left. One example, in our book club, right after Trump was elected, a member made a comment that she knew US citizens were being taken from their homes, not being asked for any identification. This comment had nothing to do w/ the book being discussed. I said "prove it". She glared at me, saying that she heard it, that's all that mattered. I've talked to Republicans who have had family members refuse to spend holidays w/ them - they claim they'd be able to keep political conversations out of the dinner conversations...? but the family members refuse to be in the same room w/ them...? I play games w/ groups of people, to the most part we keep politics out of it. There's one group that, however, could be considered MAGA. I don't join in the conversations. One night, one person said a neighbor had something for sale & a potential buyer came to look at the item, saw the garage door open & a Trump sign in the garage & said "No way will I buy anything from a Hitler lover!". Well, everyone thought that was awful. However, the next week, a woman in the group said she found out some dance instructors we know are very liberal & she's quitting their class. Arrgghhhh! So she thinks that's ok???
When I see posts at other sites from Trump haters, I try to ask if there's anything at all the administration is doing that they could consider needed? I usually don't get an answer. I understand his method is what is not liked (I agree - I don't like him. I wish the R's would have nominated someone sane), I ask if the intended outcome could be beneficial...
Thanks for writing this Zach! I think this content is good. I think a tiny tweak would make it more effective and that’s putting all 8 of your tip headings very near the top of the essay. I know this is pretty counter to the current style, but I think it’d draw people in (or let people jump to the thing they’re most intrigued about). Just my 2 cents! Take it or leave it :)
Thank you once again. Your insights and tips are so helpful, especially prior to tomorrow’s big protests around the country. I especially like the phrase “Be hard on issues, soft on people” as a rule. And keeping a thought like this in your mind during a protest can make all the difference: “you don’t have to agree with such views to understand the reasons people have them …”
As you know, I really like Illana Redstone (and was hoping she could join our panel this coming Tuesday), but to suggest that every time Trump’s anti-democratic actions are called out, there should be a simultaneous acknowledgment of the left’s cultural excesses seems like “Both Sides” framing. As you've often discussed, conflict is often asymmetrical and when the scale and nature of Trump’s attacks on democracy are not directly comparable, this approach risks diluting the urgency and importance or creating a false equivalence.
We'll have to bring all these to the table for our panel on Tuesday. I've seen more and more calls for "playing hardball" from those in opposition of Trump. As many in depolarization talk about, we've been on this escalating progression where the bar for what is morally acceptable keeps moving for both sides and how norms only hold as long you believe the other side is playing fair. I'd argue if you could magically give Democrats their version of Trump today, even with the extra-legal tendencies, they'd take it. If we're not there, we're close. We have to reverse this spiral.
I’m def not saying every time. I don’t think she is either. But what we see is hardly anyone being willing to acknowledge their opponents’ concerns (basic nature of conflict). Even a few prominent leaders (or maybe even one) occasionally doing that would go a long way.
I just think Trump-opposed people need to focus less on Trump and more about where Trump has derived his power (people’s grievances). In the long term I mean.
If anyone is curious for what I wrote on group asymmetry, it’s here; https://defusingamericananger.substack.com/p/democrats-and-republicans-are-not
Excellent column and advice. Some of this advice I already provide in political debate training (focusing comments on the audience, not on your opponent). We also need to get into the habit of rewarding the kinds of behavior and media that promote this. It's why I've proposed that X and other social media outlets consider a "green check" program where accounts agree to communicate via a code of behavior that promotes civil discourse without requiring anyone to compromise their beliefs or activism.
Thanks, Kelly! Interesting idea.
I think this is a fantastic idea. Opt into social credit for being kind and civil. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you!
Thank you! I often tell communities and activists I work with: if you are hoping others do something different, making fun of them or telling them how ridiculous they are is not a good way to get them to do that different thing you want them to do.
yep, pre-election, I was around many R's who dug in deeper due to the hatred being thrown, the lies - Hitler lover. I wasn't telling people who I was voting for, or if I said I wasn't voting for either, the D's were telling me I HAD to vote for Harris because if I didn't I was voting FOR Hitler.
I was on another site where the writer quoted Axios saying the majority of R's thought there should be violence if Trump didn't win. I followed the link & it actually said 'almost 3' out of 5 said that, & I followed the link further which in reality showed the majority DID NOT (quite a few less than half of 10). The far-to-the-left biased news was definitely riling up those on the right. I'm a R, wasn't planning to vote for T, but that posting really got me riled up. Because it was clumping many R's into a class of violent loving crazies. Just like if someone would clump all lefties into believing all abortions should be perfectly ok up until the 9th month, no questions asked....
Assumptions are ridiculous. Many on the left find out someone is a Republican & automatically assume they're against the environment, ie. Or against women's rights. Or hate gays. Or, or, or, take your pick about any kind of assumption...
You might like my podcast. Might be some topics you appreciate. I’ve also been bothered by overstated fears of political violence, which this episode covers: https://behavior-podcast.com/no-there-isnt-high-support-for-political-violence-in-america-sean-westwood/
thank you! That was a great interview. I'll definitely recommend you to others.
& it stirred a bit more about the bias & wording of polls & the media. My first clear first-hand experience w/ the bias w/ 'journalists', was in the early 1990's, w/ a reporter for a still-published paper newspaper. I had just started a business & she wanted to do an article. I was on cloud 9, wanting that coverage!! The photographer showed up, took a look at the class I was holding (a computer class for toddlers, ages 3-5) & he said he couldn't do the pics. I was totally confused --- why?? Because there were 2 girls, 1 boy. The reporter wanted to show how girls were discriminated against. Of course, the kids were freely enrolled by the parents... anyway, I immediately asked to speak w/ the reporter, buttered her up, suggested she take the angle that in preschool yrs girls show just as much interest, but by the time the kids get older THAT'S when the girls get discriminated against... she ran my story... since then I know to read every article questioningly...
Excellent. My message to progressives is that polarization—not the GOP—is the primary barrier to achieving our political goals. Reducing partisan animosity isn’t just the right thing to do; it’s the only path forward for our nation.
I just saw your piece; I'm gonna figure out a way to link to it prominently in here. Thanks, Karin!
Thanks Zachary! Your excellent article increases our understanding of how escalating anger and spiraling polarization happens and ways to help manage it. I agree that while this is no easy task, making movement of both sides toward the middle is critical for our success. Basically this polarization is like putting our defense mechanisms on steroids. This includes all-or-nothing/black-or-white thinking, projection, mind reading, generalizations, magical thinking, catastrophizing. Ideas that I’d add to aid depolarization: look for common interests/ values - ie. Safety, security (even though the sides see it differently); be curious not judgmental; maintain boundaries, and avoid communication -verbal and nonverbal -that incites anger or is offensive. Remember our common humanity. It should rule.
I’m restacking your article.
This post is a masterclass in how to depolarize. I cannot recommend it enough.
There are some useful tips here. But so much of it gets buried when I see you saying in all sincerity that you believe Trump wants what’s best for America. A person who is clearly narcissistic, borderline psychopathic, and as deeply damaged as that man clearly is emphatically does NOT want (nor even cognitively understand) “what’s best for America.” He is pure id, laser-focused on self-aggrandizement and revenge. You undercut your arguments by suggesting otherwise.
That said, I recently was thinking about GOP members of Congress expressing their fear of retaliation — even physical retribution — for stepping out of line by opposing Trump. If these fears are legitimate (and I have to point out here that hundreds of thousands of people with not even a tiny fraction of these officials’ privilege are bravely putting THEIR livelihoods and lives on the line every day opposing this regime), then maybe we protestors should acknowledge that in our messages. Encourage them to be courageous, to band together with their colleagues and rise up to impeach him, to stand up for the Constitution … and remind them that they would be heroes of history if they do so, that they would actually do good for themselves by doing right by their country, etc.
It would require taking into account their fears and feelings, which I imagine you would find laudable. But the only way most of us could stomach doing it is because we realize that getting the GOP to do their frikkin jobs is our only hope. If that means cajoling them and flattering them temporarily, welp … we gotta do whatever it takes at this point.
I disagree. You can believe Trump is narcissistic, that he is harmful, while acknowledging that he can be a true believer of many of the things he says. The important part is seeing that you just can't be certain of his motivations, and that high conflict often leads us to engage in mind reading (e.g., Elon Musk claiming to know Democrats' policies on immigration are driven by a desire for more power/votes).
Have you by chance read my book How Contempt Destroys Democracy? It's at http://www.american-anger.com. I think you'd enjoy it; it addresses many of the objections you are bringing up. It also includes a section about the badness (and polarizing aspects) of claiming to know with certainty that our opponents have malicious intent; the specific reasons why that's bad. I think you'd enjoy it. I wrote it for exactly politically passionate (and angry) people like yourself, to see how they could IMO better approach political divides/disagreements.
I do have contempt for both Trump and Musk, though. And it is well earned by them. They are destroying people’s lives. And all evidence points to Trump and Musk manipulating the system to increase their own wealth. I agree with all that you’ve said except for this point. I don’t acknowledge that he’s a true believer of all he says. He has repeatedly shown that he will change toward whichever way the wind blows. He lies. He has no North Star except for himself. And if he’s constantly lying, then to claim that he is a true believer of what he’s saying means also that he’s delusional. Come, come, now. Don’t be like those who call good evil and evil, good. Waste no more words giving either of them the benefit of the doubt. We can reserve that for those who have not repeatedly shown us that they are manipulating us so that they can destroy us.
My point isn't even that you shouldn't have contempt for specific people; it's more just trying to recognize what happens when our contempt becomes a key aspect of our communication (especially towards the entire 'other side'). If you'd like to learn more about my views on this, check out my book How Contempt Destroys Democracy: www.american-anger.com. I wrote it for people like you, who are angry and concerned about Trump but who also want to reduce political toxicity/conflict.
It feels like you undermine your points by constantly plugging your book
Like, you’re not trying to have a conversation you’re just trying to get us to buy your book
I mean, I get the hustle, but you’re copying and pasting your responses rather than engaging with people
I def agree that we can't presume to know what someone's motivations are. What leads you to believe that Trump and Musk's motives are altruistic?
'Altruistic' is a strong word. A couple things though: a) my main point was just that it's a mistake to assume we know the intentions of people, as we'll often be wrong (and even if you're entirely sure of someone's intentions, it's bad from a practical/strategy perspective to assign malicious motives to people, as you have to think about how their allies perceive that), and then b) me saying 'they believe they are doing good things' I think isn't saying that much; it's a pretty low bar. There are all sorts of horrible narcissists and dangerous people and dictators who see themselves as being the "good guys," so I don't think it's really saying that much; our abilities to see ourselves as the "good guys" has no bounds. And again, my opinion doesn't really matter much (my main point was about the mistake of highly certain views of others' motivations) but I do believe Trump and Elon see themselves as fighting a good-versus-bad fight; they believe they are fighting bad, harmful things (assorted liberal-associated stances/policies they see as harmful; attempts to right perceived harm being done to America by bad deals with other countries, more) and I do understand why they believe those things; some of those things are rational, defensible things to believe (even as I also believe they and many others act very toxically and divisively due to being consumed by warlike, us-vs-them ways of thinking; conflict can draw people into that way of thinking).
But this is all to mainly just defend the idea that it's bad to assume we know our opponents' intentions, as I think we are wrong a lot when our emotions are involved.
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying. I'm 100% with you on not making assumptions. And I also agree that most of time, people doing very bad things believe that they are doing very good things. And on one level, it doesn't really matter...I'm gonna oppose things I see as harmful regardless of Trump's intentions.
At the same time, I'm kinda fascinated from a psycho-social perspective with this question. I've seen nothing that makes me think Trump or Musk care about anything other than their own egos. I see them both as afflicted with extreme delusions of grandeur. But I also know that I only see their public behavior and, even there, only the parts of their public behavior that my algorithm wants me to see (though I do try to get outside my bubble). Is it possible that, in their private lives, they are revealing parts of themselves that reflect true concern for others? Sure, it's possible.
What makes this particular situation so vexxing and frightening to me is that never have two powerful US political figures appeared to me to be so mentally ill - I say this not as an insult so much as a very sad and alarming observation (with all the caveats above about how I don't have the full picture). From where I sit, we have two uber-powerful men acting out their narcissistic wounds on the world stage, insulated by sycophants who will never tell them they're wrong.
One thing I’m stuck on is the claim that we need to do more to understand and acknowledge the needs of the other side. But as somebody who consumes a lot of news media, my perception is the mainstream press has gone out of its way to try and understand Trump voters.
I think about the dozens of New York Times is going to an Ohio diner and asking a Trump voter what they think about things, while there’s pretty much no equivalent of going to a liberal enclave by a conservative magazine trying to understand why liberals believe what they believe in a respectful and measured way
As a California native who lived in Oklahoma for two years, my experience was I understood what my conservative associates believed and why they believed it, but the maga people I met repeatedly approached me with an almost cartoonish view of liberals with no interest in understanding why liberals believe what they believe
To give an example, in the first week of meeting locals, I was asked why California made it legal to give people aids on purpose. The person who asked me that didn’t bother to check if that claim was true, and they just naturally assume that there are Democrats walking around Saying “let’s decriminalize giving people aids on purpose”
So what’s my point? I feel like we (lib leaning folk) already are going out of our way to show empathy and understanding to Trump voters. It feels like the entire media system is set up to treat them like some kind of lost tribe that we have to try to understand.
While so-called liberal publications go out of their way to try to understand Trump voters, I do not see any evidence that they have any curiosity about Democrats. So I feel like you’re writing from a perspective that liberal should adopt this tactic. When really I feel like we already do, and it’s the right who is aggressively uncurious about viewing Democrats as anything other than caricatures
I disagree that the mainstream media has done much to understand Trump voters. Sure, they occasionally interview some people, but I don't feel that true attempts at understanding or listening are few and far between. For example, conservative-associated stances are often either ignored or treated with disdain. Many journalists and pundits uncritically repeat worst-case interpretations of conservative-associated people and stances that are subjective opinions, but framed as facts. I recommend reading Musa Al-Gharbi's "Race and the Race for the White House" for understanding just how embedded some of these inaccurate and insulting narratives about conservatives are in liberal-leaning news, academia, and punditry. When you start to see just how embedded some of these polarizing, distorted narratives and assumptions are, you'll start to understand why conservatives/Republicans feel so demeaned.
Put another way, the few attempts of "let's listen to a handful of random Republicans at a diner" or "let's interview these random people at a Trump rally" can seem like a drop in the bucket compared to the overall failure to listen/understand narratives. And often those attempts at listening are themselves polarizing (e.g., many Trump voters would have no wish to attend a Trump rally and aren't that enthusiastic about him as a leader; so talking to people at a Trump rally is interviewing the most polarized members of that political group, and misses why many other less-polarized Americans vote for Trump).
Not to hype my book, but it was written to help liberal/anti-Trump people understand the dynamics of our conflict better and see the role liberals/Democrats have played. How Contempt Destroys Democracy: www.american-anger.com. To get someone else's view of this area, though, you might enjoy Beyond Contempt, by Erica Etelson.
Thank you for responding.
I have spent a lot of time on Substack and other publications post election, and what I’m reading is over and over again people explaining exactly why the election was lost. And they do this by diving into precisely what Republicans say is important to them.
Articles in both Substack and MSM point to conservative anxiety over culture and immigration among other things. A general sense that they feel ignored and it makes them mad. And a general sense that things are getting worse and the people they don’t want to benefit (women, minorities, foreigners) seem to be benefitting
Again, this is not a mystery. I lived with hard right conservatives in Oklahoma.
The things they want and care about are not complicated. In fact, they tell you pretty directly what it is.
I went into Oklahoma with an open heart and an open mind, and I left with a much lower view of conservative America based on the real people I met and tried to understand
What I would like is to see people from a conservative perspective go out of their way to try and understand liberals in a good faith way, and I just don’t see that.
My view is conservatives started this fight by making Trump their standardbearer, and having everybody down the ballot imitate his boorish behavior and treating everybody who doesn’t agree as evil. So it’s their responsibility to lay down their arms.
I’m tired of being made to feel a sucker for trying to understand when that is not reciprocated
That is where the desire to fight harder comes from. A feeling that we’ve tried to be nice and in response we just get sand kicked in our face. Why would anybody want to humiliate themselves that way if it’s not bridging any divide and it just makes them think we are suckers?
Tl;dr— if we’re the people who go high, but the other side keeps going low, we don’t see a good incentive to keep going high. Especially since it doesn’t seem to provide any electoral benefit. All of the sucking up to MAGA skeptic Republicans in 2024 did nothing. Unless than until Maga Republicans go out of their way to try to understand the opposite side of the aisle, this isn’t going to go anywhere.
I will say your point is correct that the polarization leads to counter polarization. I used to be much more kind and patient to conservatives, but the vitriol I was receiving from the other side and seeing how they talk about left leaning people made me go from neutral to outright disdain for lots people I have never met.
But I think I speak for many liberal leaning people that we feel tired of trying to show empathy and understanding towards people who have gone out of their way to be nasty towards us. We would be more willing to be decent if they would start rather than always requiring us to be the bigger people
Many of us are tired of having to be the bigger people in the face of people who do not seem to care about norms or decency
I think the problem here is whatever efforts you personally may have made toward understanding and empathy have been drowned out by the chronic contempt and ridicule dished out by comedians, social media warriors and others. The rare book like Stolen Pride is lost in the stream of "Stupid White Men" and "you got what you wanted, MAGA loser" schaudenfreude shit-posting. When it's hard and exhausting to bring my best self to the table, and much more fun to join the chorus of sneering and jeering, I remind myself that being snide and scornful will never ever ever open someone's mind. So for me, it's not only the right move from an ethical standpoint but also from a strategic one.
There’s something to be said that there isn’t a great online incentive structure for empathy and understanding
Granted, in my personal life and ways completely unconnected to politics, I don’t have difficulty tapping into empathy and understanding as a way to keep myself humble. Also, as an attorney, I have found putting myself in the shoes of the opposing side makes me a better lawyer.
But with respect to politics, it feels like there’s a complete lack of empathy and understanding being asked of the other side. I say this based on how conservative commentators speak about liberals and lived experience of people I’ve met in blood red states.
In law school, I had many conservative friends who made cogent thoughtful arguments about things, even when we disagreed, and I was enriched by it
But these days, I just don’t have those conversations anymore. I don’t meet conservatives who desperately want understand my point of view or background.
So given the perceived lack of empathy and understanding on the other side, it diminishes my appetite to be understanding and empathetic. Which breeds contempt
I Standby What I said earlier: I believe conservatives started this war by putting up Trump and embracing the politics of scorched earth and character assassination. So I’m not interested in unilaterally disarming by going high if they’re not going to.
I would rather we spend our efforts building a political movement that includes the 90 million who didn’t vote in the last election rather than chasing people who I have not been able to see eye to eye on for quite some time
Tl;dr: I’m not interested in giving endless empathy to people who do not go out of their way at all to try to understand me or my perspective. It’s up to them to make the first move and have the civil conversation. I’m tired of being burned
Well said. If someone tells you who they are - and there’s a lifetime of evidence - believe them.
Just joined in. I don't see any conservatives commenting. I'm a Republican, however, not a Trump fan at all, have voted independent for the last several elections, then R down the line. I thoroughly appreciate reading conversations like these to learn more, & possibly contribute?
I love the "list".
I'll share just a few experiences. I volunteer at an agency where I interact w/ a wide variety of other volunteers & clients. I have no idea what political "tribe" most of them belong to. I live in an area, however, where people are much more vocal about their opinions. I'm going to preface this by saying many don't know how I vote... So far, the most vocal have been the far left. One example, in our book club, right after Trump was elected, a member made a comment that she knew US citizens were being taken from their homes, not being asked for any identification. This comment had nothing to do w/ the book being discussed. I said "prove it". She glared at me, saying that she heard it, that's all that mattered. I've talked to Republicans who have had family members refuse to spend holidays w/ them - they claim they'd be able to keep political conversations out of the dinner conversations...? but the family members refuse to be in the same room w/ them...? I play games w/ groups of people, to the most part we keep politics out of it. There's one group that, however, could be considered MAGA. I don't join in the conversations. One night, one person said a neighbor had something for sale & a potential buyer came to look at the item, saw the garage door open & a Trump sign in the garage & said "No way will I buy anything from a Hitler lover!". Well, everyone thought that was awful. However, the next week, a woman in the group said she found out some dance instructors we know are very liberal & she's quitting their class. Arrgghhhh! So she thinks that's ok???
When I see posts at other sites from Trump haters, I try to ask if there's anything at all the administration is doing that they could consider needed? I usually don't get an answer. I understand his method is what is not liked (I agree - I don't like him. I wish the R's would have nominated someone sane), I ask if the intended outcome could be beneficial...
It’s almost like everything we need to know about combatting polarization we learned in couples therapy.
On that topic, you might like this talk: https://behavior-podcast.com/resolving-conflict-in-our-relationships-and-in-our-political-divides-with-bill-doherty/
Was good! Thanks for sending.
Zack, this was great. I listen to you frequently and appreciate your calm lessons. I will be cognizant of this when I post or talk about things.
thank you, Carrie; it means a lot, for real.
Thanks for writing this Zach! I think this content is good. I think a tiny tweak would make it more effective and that’s putting all 8 of your tip headings very near the top of the essay. I know this is pretty counter to the current style, but I think it’d draw people in (or let people jump to the thing they’re most intrigued about). Just my 2 cents! Take it or leave it :)
Thank you once again. Your insights and tips are so helpful, especially prior to tomorrow’s big protests around the country. I especially like the phrase “Be hard on issues, soft on people” as a rule. And keeping a thought like this in your mind during a protest can make all the difference: “you don’t have to agree with such views to understand the reasons people have them …”