Even when furious at the "other side," we must see the bigger picture of what's at stake for America

Conflict makes us increasingly agitated by the effects of conflict

Societal conflict makes us less tolerant of and more agitated by some standard and expected events and behaviors.

For one thing, in a highly polarized society, there will be many people doing biased and unfair things; many people, sometimes without knowing it, will behave in team-based ways. That shouldn’t be surprising to us; that is the nature of being highly divided. And yet, in our anger we’ll be increasingly agitated by that reality.

For another thing, even for some pretty standard events, events that could have happened even in the absence of our divides, we’ll reach for overly pessimistic interpretations. We’ll read lots of meaning into events; we’ll be more catastrophizing about what one-off events tell us about the world and our opponents.

Our agitated reactions — whether reasonable or unreasonable — will in turn anger the “other side” more, which in turn leads to even more bad, divisive things happening, and so on.

If we care about reducing toxic polarization and care about building a more stable, less toxic, less chaotic future, we must see the importance of putting things in perspective and not overreacting -- even when we think the "other side" has behaved in bad, unfair ways. We must try to see the narratives and beliefs that drive the other side and not reach for the most pessimistic, catastrophizing narratives about their views and motivations.

In the context of Trump’s verdict, this means Trump supporters being willing to try to understand the rational arguments for why people see the verdict as correct. And, for people who hate Trump, it means trying to see the rational arguments for why people find the conviction unfair. (Some readings on this that might help people on both sides: some thoughts from John Wood Jr. of Braver Angels on our polarized narratives; for anti-Trump people, some well-reasoned criticisms of the case and conviction; for pro-Trump people, views that Trump being involved in his own defense and his belligerent engagement style may have hurt him).

For everyone who’s upset, it can help to imagine the shoe being on the other foot and seeing how you’d feel. For Trump supporters, you can try to channel how you’ve felt in the past when liberals claimed that a court case they didn’t like proved that the “system was rigged” or the “system was racist”; you probably thought something like, “One court case doesn’t prove that, even if was the wrong decision; stop being so pessimistic and divisive!” For anti-Trump people, you can try to imagine how you’d feel if a Democrat president had similar charges against him; you can try to imagine how you might be a bit team-based in your thinking; you might extend much more benefit of the doubt than you would for Trump; you might reach for pessimistic conclusions about the motives of the people involved in persecuting that case.

Such things are of course hard for us to do. They require us to engage in more healthy, respectful, empathetic ways even as we’re very angry and emotional — even as we think "those people are doing bad and unfair things” — even when we have valid, rational reasons to be upset.

These approaches require discipline and they require bravery. They require us to keep an eye on the bigger, more important picture of American stability and its future, even as we have much anger.

We aren't well suited for such things.