Simple talk

A fierce liberal activist led an anti-Trump march a few weeks ago. A pro-Trump group formed and started heckling them. He went over to the ringleader and said, “Let’s talk.” The man said, “I don’t want to talk to you”; but he was convinced by a younger member of his group to at least try.

So the two had a conversation. The anti-Trump guy started by looking for things they could agree on, and they found a few common points. But they disagreed a lot, and they argued for seven or eight minutes. They certainly didn’t resolve their differences.  At the end, the Trump supporter said, “I can’t vote the way you vote.”

But then he added something important:

“See, you’re normal. A lot of people, they don’t want to talk, they just want to impress, they’re haters now.”

“You’re normal.” Everything starts with that. If we see each other as normal, we can reduce the polarization that drives denialism and extremism. People take Limbaugh and Fox as gospel only because they see how strongly the “haters” oppose them; it’s a self-reinforcing cycle, and we liberals are playing into it by yelling and screaming. Many on the right would be less stuck if they knew it wasn’t just the haters -- that other “normal” people also see things differently. And then – only then – we will have a chance to unfreeze the positions, to look at facts together, to make some progress.

What impresses me about this conversation – here’s a spontaneous video of it – is how simple it was. There were no clever dialogic strategies or debating tricks, no facilitators. There was only a willingness to try. We can all do that.

A strategy for civil discussion

In the following, “we” includes a group of young professionals in Washington, DC. We have also spoken with other potential allies.

We're beginning to see the outlines of a strategy with many pieces.

We start from the belief that the current polarization of politics, with people dividing into warring tribes, is extremely dangerous: it is producing self-reinforcing vicious circles of mistrust that undermine the institutions of democracy and produce increasing levels of anger and hatred. No one is going to win in that atmosphere, no matter how elections come out. Therefore it is extremely important to improve the level of understanding and dialogue, and to begin to repair the social fabric through “bridging” conversations that improve the level of civil discourse.

The task is a massive, even quixotic one. Yet there may be an opening now precisely because things have gotten so bad that many people feel a new urgency to overcome the level of dysfunction, polarization, and misinformation in our politics. We are exploring a number of avenues, all very nascent. Here are a number of possibilities, with the current state of action:

Methods of dialogue and communication

Blog

This blog will discuss ways of building bridges across the political divide. Its stance is still fluid: Should it be hortatory or practical (how-to)? Should it try to be nonpartisan? I am increasingly of the view that in this environment, we can’t hide our own stances: we should be clear that we are on the progressive side of the spectrum, but are seeking a genuine dialogue with those in other positions. And part of the thrust has to be a critique of our progressive colleagues for misunderstanding much of the scene, and for reacting rather narrowly and defensively since the election.

Online interviews

We have conducted a series of very interesting online interviews. Recently we have established (somewhat) trusting relations with some conservative sites, which have allowed us to post requests for interviews. Some of the interviewees have been extremely enthusiastic about the effort. Ben Warren has been the driver of this initiative; we are just starting to develop a larger stable of interviewers, with a (flexibly) standardized set of questions and way of reporting.

In-person interviews

The DC group has gone several time to knock on doors in western Virginia -- Trump country -- and just talk openly. In general the reception has been good. Interestingly enough people are less open to discussion in politically mixed suburbs that in more solidly Trumpist rural areas. Others have also talked to marchers at an anti-abortion rally and other conservative gatherings. Again, the reception has been generally favorable.

In-person small-group meetings

This is a natural practice for many people trained in small-group dialogue techniques since the 1960s. The Civil Conversations Project, The National Institute for Civil Discourse, and Essential Partners, among many others, are exploring this avenue. Charles and Lavinia Hall have participated in meetings organized by American Revolution 2.0.

These conversations can be very exciting, but there are serious difficulties with scaling. First, it is extremely difficult to actually get people from both sides of the spectrum to come to such meetings. If it is to happen, it would require a trusted convener with credibility across the divide, which is rare (but we will mention a few possibilities below.) Second, these meetings require strong and highly skilled facilitation, which is in short supply and/or expensive. There is a wide network of sophisticated facilitators that we might be able to draw on, but the good ones can get high-paying jobs in corporate meetings and the like, so would not be able to sustain things on their own.

Personal / family discussions

In an earlier post, Ben Warren describes in some encouraging successes talking to conservatives in his own family. I have been interested to find that many of my progressive friends have similarly conservative family members and have been struggling with what to say or how to maintain relations. Most of them just avoid talking politics; but as Ben points out, this is an area where with a little thought we can all act as effective bridging agents.

“Elfing”

This is our tongue-in-cheek term for an online strategy – a benevolent variant of “trolling”. The idea is to go on conservative websites as participants, responding to articles and posts, usually through the comments. Elfing is not meant to be aggressive and partisan – not trying to shout down the opposition and prove them wrong. (That would not work anyway, because most sites have ways of excluding hostile participation.) The point is to engage in genuine dialogue, seeking to understand as well as to be understood.

We have found a number of significant conservative sites that are open to the such participation by progressives: for example, reddit’s r/Conservative site is quite open, though r/The_Donald is not. We have not pursued this very far, but we have learned that it takes a good deal of time and work to establish the initial level of trust that enables engagement. But this is a matter of persistence more than high skill. It seems plausible that a large number of elves could be developed with rather simple training, that could potentially begin to change the discourse from a closed self-amplifying echo chamber to a real discussion of issues.

Online discussions and interactions

These are not interviews (as described above), but deliberately open discussions among people with different views. Hi From the Other Side and Bring It to the Table  are good examples. We have not yet tried this ourselves.

We have had some traction pairing people up to talk about shared interests or information differences.  For example, a person who doesn’t know much about guns from a gun-enthusiast’s perspective might be paired with an informed gun-enthusiast by a mutual friend.  In theory, with the right structure or prompting, mutual respect and care for the shared friend could motivate good behavior.  This is an unusual kind of convention, in which individuals work as best they can across social networks without much structure, but its low startup cost might be a boon.

Within-group discussions

It seems important to have conversations within “tribes” as well as across them. There is much research evidence that affirmation of identity makes people more confident and willing to explore other points of view. And we have been experiencing the problem that it is very hard to start dialogues because both sides are afraid of being ambushed or mistreated by the others.

On the progressive side, I have found that quite a few I have spoken to agree with the basic point that there is a need for more bridging dialogue, but they are almost afraid to say it in their circle. My sense is that it is important to have conversations within the progressive community about the value of, and approach to, bridging dialogue. And I presume the same is true on the conservative side (though so far we have found a good deal of openness on that side, perhaps because conservatives feel more sure of themselves at this moment!)

Potential conveners / sponsors

It has become clear that no method can spread to scale without sponsors or conveners – institutions that have a position of trust in a wide community that bridges the political divide, and that might be enthusiastic about the task of improving civil discourse. We are considering, and starting to explore, three main possibilities:

Religious institutions (churches, etc)

Religion is still a relatively trusted institution for a large majority of the country. (Though some, mostly progressives, are actively suspicious of religion, these constitute quite a small percentage overall.) In conservative territory, churches are especially effective as community conveners. Some of the more fundamentalist churches are of course very closed, but many actually seem quite open and struggling with how to adapt to a cultural landscape that they clearly feel has changed. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, a few years ago elected a Black President and apologized for its history of racism. At the moment the leadership is trying to dismiss pressure to accept gays, but there is a good deal of internal turmoil and counter-pressure. It seems plausible that the Convention, which has deep connections in conservative areas, would be interested in taking a lead in trying to build greater shared understanding and discourse.

We are at the moment reaching out to a few possible connectors into various religious communities.

Unions

Labor unions, usually starting on the other (progressive) side, have likewise been under pressure from their own members, and many were shocked by the level of Trump voting. Some are trying to figure out how to restore internal solidarity across this growing internal divide. They have the tools – regular meeting halls, conventions, member lists, and so – that might make them effective as bridging conveners. We are actively exploring possibilities here as well.

Businesses

This is a longer (and perhaps even more controversial) shot, but one might imagine a campaign by businesses like Dunkin’ Donuts for “conversation over coffee” – playing an active role in organizing conversations in their stores. Many voters across the spectrum feel comfortable in that context and might be intrigued by such a call. We’re haven’t done anything here yet but will try to find connections.

Other?

We are eager to hear other ideas. Some have suggested business schools or K-12 schools. What are other possibilities?

999