How to Talk Politics When You Disagree

Ciaran O'Connor  |  Feb 2020

2024년 6월 18일 shadowing 완료

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TED Talker/연자

Ciaran O'Connor

Chief Marketing Officer for Better Angels, the nation's largest grassroots organization dedicated to the work of political depolarization

Former staff on the Obama 2012 and Clinton 2016 presidential campaigns

You know that moment when you're hanging out with your friends or you're sitting around the dinner table with your parents and all of a sudden the conversation turns to politics? All of a sudden someone says something about the Liberals or the Conservatives or something they saw on Fox or MSNBC or maybe TikTok, I don't know. All of a sudden things start to feel a little bit tense - what should I do in this situation? Is this gonna turn into a fight? Am I gonna have to defend my positions? Is this gonna destroy my relationship? What should I do?   

 

I'm here today to talk about politics but not about what you should believe or who you should vote for. I'm here to talk about what you can do when politics comes up in the conversation and how we can talk to people we disagree with because let's face it, talking politics these days is not easy. Politics has always been a passionate subject and we've always had deep political disagreements - that's the way it's supposed to be. We need passion in our politics because after all, the decisions made by our political leaders affect our lives, our future, our families. But American democracy is built on our ability not just to argue about politics and to try to beat each other at the polls, but to discuss and debate in productive ways so that we can find solutions to our biggest problems whether it's poverty or climate change or decisions of war and peace.

 

But our country has become so divided and our political culture so toxic it threatens the very nature of our democracy because in today's climate, Americans no longer see their political opponents as simply misguided or wrong - they see them as bad people whose ways of thinking are dangerous or incomprehensible. They see them as enemies. This level of rancor and mistrust not only makes it harder for us to have a political conversation, it makes it harder for us to move forward as a nation, regardless of who the president is or which parties are in power. This level of polarization degrades our public discourse. It erodes trust in each other and in our institutions. It harms our relationships. It makes it harder and harder for us to empathize, and easier and easier for us to dehumanize.

 

Now, after the 2016 election, people all over the country started losing friendships over politics. Arguments on social media began to spill into the classroom and the workplace. I know some people who didn't want to go home for Thanksgiving this year because they were afraid impeachment was gonna come up at the dinner table. Two days ago, I was in an Uber and the driver told me he no longer talks to his dad because of an argument they had about Medicare. But it's not just the stories, the data backs it up too. In 1965, 5 percent of Americans said they'd have a serious problem if their son or daughter married someone of the opposite political party. Today, that number is 50%. Another recent study found that 15% of Americans across the political divide agreed that our country would be better off if large numbers of opposing partisans just died. 

 

Who clearly, we need to find a better way to relate to people we disagree with, but we don't have to agree. We don't have to change our positions or necessarily arrive at some kind of mushy centrist compromise, but we do have to change how we think about conflict, how we approach these conversations, and ultimately how we treat one another. Fortunately, there are some simple and proven ways to talk about politics that lead to more understanding, more trust, more empathy - all of which build the foundation needed to find common ground. 

 

So what should you do when you find yourself facing a difficult political conversation? The first thing to keep in mind, and this might be the most important, is you're probably not gonna be able to change the other person's mind. If I go into a conversation immediately trying to tell the other person they're wrong, or tell them their position is foolish or their facts are wrong, they're immediately gonna get defensive. They're either gonna try to shut down the conversation or they're gonna escalate it into a fight, and then both sides are gonna leave the conversation even more polarized, angry and full of mistrust than when they went into it. But if I go into a conversation with the goal of understanding the other side's point of view and then expressing my own without any expectation that I'm gonna persuade them, the conversation is gonna be a lot more productive and a lot less likely to turn into a shouting match. So by treating political conversations as an opportunity to learn and to be heard, rather than opportunities to convince or persuade, we can clarify disagreements. We can reduce stereotyped thinking, and we can begin to overcome fear and anger. We can start to build the trust that we need to explore common ground in good faith, because if you trust that the person you're talking to is actually trying to understand what you're saying, rather than just beat you or humiliate you, you're a lot more likely to recognize the commonalities that do exist. 

 

One of the biggest problems with social media is that it's trained us to be jerks. After all, a tweet or a post that's making fun of somebody or dunking on them, as some people like to call it, it's probably gonna get a lot more retweets than a carefully considered tweet that wrestles with the nuances of alternate positions, because more and more on social media we're just playing to the home crowd. We're not actually trying to engage people we disagree with. We're trying to show our own tribe, our own team, that we're on the right side and doing battle with the enemies on the other. But this approach to conversation is ultimately self-defeating. It might give you a momentary rush of validation, but it's counterproductive, and if you bring this approach to in-person conversations, you're just gonna push people further and further into radical, take-no-prisoners attitudes. 

 

Instead, try to understand the other person's viewpoint before responding with your own. Try using "I" statements like "this is how I see it", rather than true statements like "well this is how it is". Try sharing your perspective rather than just making pronouncements. See if you can find something in common, if at all possible. If you lead with agreement, it softens the other person up and it actually makes it easier for you to get your point across. See if you can acknowledge what the other person said before you respond. Try going back and forth between acknowledging what they said and then making your own points. This one's really important: try asking people about their own lived experiences, the experiences that have led them to their positions. This will help people explain why they feel the way they do in a way that's unique to them. It's a lot harder to invalidate someone's experience than it is to invalidate a partisan talking point that may or may not be relevant or accurate.  

 

Now there are also some things that you probably shouldn't do if you want to have a healthy conversation. First off, try to avoid getting agitated or raising your voice. This is easier said than done, but even something as simple as taking a breath before you speak or respond will help you avoid escalating. Try to avoid asking "gotcha" questions rather than questions of understanding. So what's a gotcha question? A gotcha question is a question that's designed to make the other person look stupid or ignorant or cruel, versus a question that's actually trying to figure out what they think. So for example, you could say "do you have any concerns about X politician's comments about Y group of people?" versus "how could you vote for such a monster?" If you immediately jump to the labels and the generalizations and the stereotypes, it's just gonna inflame the situation and get the other person to shut down. Another thing people tend to do is they take the worst characteristics in a certain politician and then they ascribe it to anyone who supports that politician: "Well if you support so-and-so, then you must believe such-and-such." Making these assumptions makes the other person feel like you're intentionally trying to misrepresent what they think. 

 

Overall, try to respect the worth and dignity of the person you're talking to, even if the views they express leave you dumbfounded or appalled, because we all have friends or family members whose views don't align with ours, and if you want to maintain these relationships, especially if politics is important to them and it's also important to you, it's crucial to try to empathize rather than demonize. Because at the end of the day, engaging with perspectives you don't agree with is not the same as surrendering or compromising. In fact, talking to people you disagree with actually broadens your own perspective and it improves your ability to articulate your own positions. If you simply stay in your own little bubble, you're just gonna limit yourself. You're gonna rely more and more on tribal stereotypes and less and less on what you actually think and feel.

 

So by observing these simple principles and practices, and beginning to think of conversations as opportunities to learn, listen, to be heard rather than just opportunities to win or score points, we can break down barriers. We can overcome that natural fight-or-flight response we get to conflict, and we can actually find the common ground where it does exist. This doesn't require us to agree. It doesn't require us to abandon our values. It doesn't require us, again, to come to some kind of false centrist compromise or meet in the mushy middle. But it does require respect, empathy and courage, all of which are qualities we can cultivate if we want to strengthen our relationships, if we want to reduce stereotypes, and if we want to help bring our nation together in 2020 and beyond. So no pressure, but the future of our democracy depends on it. Thank you.

 

 

Words&phrases/어휘공부

• mushy: soft and having no firm shape: Cook the lentils until they are mushy. too emotional: I hate those mushy love stories. 
• dunk on someone:  to publicly make fun of (someone or something) especially on social media. Justin Bieber decided he was up for a fresh new hairstyle (or just got sick of people dunking on him) and ditched the dreadlocks 
• take no prisoners  : be ruthlessly aggressive or uncompromising in the pursuit of one's objectives. a businessman with a take-no-prisoners attitude toward dealmaking. 
• ascribe something to something : to believe or say that something is caused by something else: To what do you ascribe your phenomenal success?