How Can We Possibly Validate a Trump Voter's Feelings?
Validating someone's emotions--even finding areas of agreement--is a tricky but key part of building connection, trust, and even an alliance.
Programming Note: This continues my deeper dive into the steps of the Smart Politics Persuasion Conversation Cycle, as developed by our founder, Dr. Karin Tamerius. The Cycle is the core of our hands-on Smart Politics work—it’s what we teach folks to carry out more productive and (as the name suggests) persuasive conversations with folks we disagree with, for example Trump voters.
If you haven’t already, check out the first three steps, Ask and Listen, and Reflect.
These Cycle steps are part of a larger process designed to help teach folks the “how-to” once they’ve decided to try this work, to try to have these kinds of conversations. If you’re new to Smart Politics and this is the first piece you’re seeing, learn more about how the Persuasion Conversation Cycle works to build the Trust Pyramid:
Step Four of the Persuasion Conversation Cycle: VALIDATE
The fourth step of the Smart Politics Persuasion Conversation Cycle is Validate, and I know I always say this, but this is a tough one for many of us.
We used to call this step “Agree,” but that was understandably triggering for some progressives. (The very idea that we try to find something to agree about with a Trump voter! Good heavens!) Finding some places of agreement or common ground is still part of this step, but “validate” is a broader, more effective framing.
Validating (including some agreeing) doesn’t mean misleading the other person or sacrificing our values for the sake of getting along. It’s about being more persuasive by highlighting common emotions, goals, and values, and showing the difference between us and the other person isn’t as great as it seems.
Importantly, the Validate step shifts the conversation’s dynamic from battling over who’s right and who’s wrong into forming an alliance. Rather than two people arguing against each other’s beliefs, we become partners looking for solutions to shared problems.
Finally, validating and agreeing on some points shows the other person we’re making a genuine effort to be unbiased and rational. Often in political conversations, people on the Right assume that progressives aren’t willing to revise their views, so there’s no point in fully engaging with them. If we want to be heard, we need to overcome our resistance to examining—and possibly altering—our own views and demonstrate an openness for weighing evidence fairly.
That said, let’s define these terms in the context of this work:
Validate
For Smart Politics, “validate” means we acknowledge that what the other person is feeling and believing is real and valid for them. Maybe not for us—maybe we feel their beliefs are misinformed or misguided—but we recognize the emotions feel valid for them. It’s a way of essentially (if not literally) saying, “I don’t personally believe that, but I can see that you do, and that it’s a very powerful, emotional belief for you. Given what you believe, your intense feelings are valid.”
Dr. Tamerius often uses the example from her work as a psychiatrist and therapist:
Someone says they believe Lizard People have infiltrated the CIA and are controlling their mind through implants in their molars.
We don’t say “That’s frickin’ crazy pants, there’s no possible way! You’re completely nuts, I can’t even talk to you! You’re completely disconnected from reality!”
Instead, we say, “I can imagine how stressful and upsetting this must be to you. I’m sorry you’re feeling this. If I was in that situation, I’d be afraid and angry, too.”
Okay, most of us won’t be talking Reptilian CIA Mind Control with folks, but we can look around social media and see less extreme examples of the same dynamic:
“Undocumented immigration is part of the evil socialist Democrats’ plot to destroy the United States by rigging votes to turn it into a godless communist hellscape.”
Or, “By not releasing the Epstein Files, Donald Trump is playing 5-D chess, staying many steps ahead of the evil Deep State so that Trump can infiltrate, subvert, and bring down their Elite Pedophilia Ring.”
We may not agree with any of that, but we try to validate the emotions those stances generate and to understand and accept the other person’s experiences. If they feel afraid or persecuted or betrayed or angry, their emotions are real.
As we’ve all learned over time, it’s impossible to demand, command, and control someone’s feelings. We can’t say to someone, “You don’t really believe or feel that.” Instead, validating the underlying emotions driving someone’s statements means if they go on about how the Left wants to destroy America and turn it into an immoral, crime-ridden hellscape, we can say something to the effect of:
“I also love America and don’t want to see it become unlivable. It’s understandable to feel intensely about that.”
Or go deeper into their emotions: “I agree, it can be scary when it feels like our lives and loved ones could be threatened. Like you, I want all people, especially my loved ones, to feel safe.”
Validation, in this context, is saying, “I believe you believe and feel what you say you do, and I understand why that’s upsetting to you.”
Agree
Agree means asking ourselves, “Is there any part of what they’re saying that I can align with?”
After all, as we often say, we agree on much more than we disagree. Maybe not their entire stance on an issue – after all, we’re having these conversations because we disagree with them on some (often major) points. But issues are complex, and within those layers of complexity, there may be policy points we can agree on and in the process, build connection and trust.
For example, let’s use our handy immigration topic, as it remains at the heart of some of the most divisive and emotional actions of this administration.
Trump voter: “We can’t let our country be overrun by foreigners. We must preserve our culture and way of life, and we can’t afford to support them all. We don’t want criminals here making us feel unsafe! Deport them all and make America for Americans!”
Our natural temptation may be to say, “You’re such a racist; I can’t ever agree with anything you’re saying!”
Instead, depending on where we personally stand on immigration issues, we might agree with some part of their statement by saying, “I agree our immigration system is broken and overwhelmed—I want to see it improved. And I also want my loved ones to be safe. I don’t believe we should deport them all, but if an immigrant, documented or not, commits violent crimes and receives due process, then I would support deportation to their country of origin.”
Out of context of the full Persuasion Conversation Cycle, we may worry the other person thinks we agree with everything they said. However, keep in mind that the next step in the Cycle is “Share,” and that’s when we can express our full feelings on the topic. The whole reason we do steps like Validate (and agree) before sharing is to make it more effective (and the other person less defensive) when we do eventually express our thoughts on the issue.
When finding points to agree on, a good rule of thumb is to initially avoid the Three Ps:
Politicians – When it comes to elected officials or people running for office, negative partisanship and the Cult of Personality is often too strong and not worth trying to take on in the early stages
Policies—Getting too specific and into the weeds on proposed or enacted government legislation and actions is likely to bog us down in a crossfire of facts and figures.
Political Parties—Party identification, especially Democratic and Republican, is such a huge factor in many people’s beliefs, going straight at someone’s party is almost always going to put them on the defensive and fail.
(We can make it FOUR Ps if we include “Phacts”—As we always say in Smart Politics, early in the conversation, we shouldn’t let ourselves get bogged down tossing facts and figures around. Feelings first, facts later.)
(NOTE: This doesn’t mean we can’t ever talk about these things with a Trump voter, but in initial conversations, as we’re still working to build connection and trust, it’s helpful to avoid the Three Ps until we feel we have a stronger, more solid conversational footing with the other person—especially if it’s someone we just met in person or online. Once that connection and trust is better established, we can talk with them—still respectfully and attentively—about Trump’s presidencies and policies, or the nature of the GOP today.)
Instead, we embrace themes we can find agreement on:
Goals – Desired outcomes or objectives. For example, “We want broken systems to be improved so everyone feels safe and has an opportunity to thrive.”
Values – Core beliefs and principles about what matters, including things like fairness, liberty, loyalty, sanctity, authority, justice, even safety and security.
Emotions – Our shared feelings about the situation, maybe how we both can get frustrated, confused, frightened, and angry by everything going on.
But what if the other person is saying some really irrational, misinformed, offensive stuff? How can we agree or validate any of that? Isn’t that just supporting and encouraging them?
When that happens, it helps not engage on specific (perhaps toxic) policy points, but to pull back and take a wider view, perhaps refocusing on broader shared values:
“I want an America that’s fair and just for everyone. I want people to feel safe and have equal opportunities, on all sides. I want stronger communities that work together and look out for one another.
Or pull back even further: “I also want a better future for America and my loved ones.”
And if all else fails, there’s always just: “I think we can agree these times can be challenging, confusing, and frustrating for us all.”
When we validate someone’s feelings and find even small points of agreement, the effect is transformative. By showing we’re willing to work with the other person on core concerns, we seem less like an adversary and become more of a friend they can listen to.
Now that we’ve connected, built trust, and lowered defenses, we finally get to the part where most of us used to start: SHARING our own feelings and beliefs, and yes, maybe even some gentle FACTS. Up next, the final step in the Cycle: Share!
(NOTE: I had a whole long section in the drafts of this piece about my distinctions around framing terms like “compromise,” “middle ground” and “common ground,” but I’ll tackle that in a future piece.)
What is the Smart Politics Way?
Smart Politics encourages and teaches progressives to have more productive conversations with Trump voters. We believe the most effective actions for achieving short- and long-term progressive goals involve talking one-on-one with and listening compassionately and constructively to folks with different opinions.
More on our work:
Want to learn more about Smart Politics and get involved?
Every Sunday night (and some Wednesdays), we meet on Zoom to teach, share, and support one another. Sign up for email recaps and reminders about these weekly calls
Locke Peterseim is the Smart Politics Content Manager.