How to Show a Trump Voter We’re Listening
To lower defenses and raise trust, we must demonstrate we truly hear them.
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 two steps, Ask and Listen.
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 Three of the Persuasion Conversation Cycle: REFLECT
We’ve talked about how to ask better questions. We’d gone over how to be better listeners. But wait, you guessed it—there’s more!
Being better listeners helps us more fully understand the person we’re talking with—whether they’re a Trump voter or just someone who disagrees with us. (That can sometimes include our fellow progressives and folks on the Left.) But to keep building the connection and trust needed for more effective and persuasive conversations, we have to demonstrate to the other person that they’ve been heard.
The best way to do that is to “reflect” the gist of their statements and stances back to them—saying something to the effect of, “So, I’m hearing you say that…”
I’ll tell you up front, most of us don’t naturally do this in everyday conversation. We tend to assume we understand what they’re talking about (often filling gaps in comprehension with prior assumptions), and charge ahead to responding or rebutting. In fact, pausing to ask, “You believe _______, is that right?” can feel awkward and unnatural at first.
But doing so achieves two powerful goals:
We make sure we understand their stance correctly, especially if it defies our prior assumptions about them.
All too often, dialogues fail because of misunderstandings. Even when we’re trying to get it right, our stereotypes and communication styles can get in the way. What we think we hear is filtered through our own biases and framing—it may not be what they actually meant. Actively checking that we’re hearing them correctly can minimize these problems.
It shows the other person we really are listening to them, are curious about what they’re saying, and want to get it right.
People are so accustomed to being ignored, dismissed, and spoken over in political conversations with folks on the other side, they can find it hard to believe when someone takes time to listen and understand their perspective. No matter how well we listened, if we don’t offer a reflection, they’re likely to assume we weren’t truly listening. Summarizing their points back to them shows we’re serious about hearing them and their views.
So, it’s worth our while to work past the initial awkwardness, find a tone and form of phrasing our reflections that fits our dialogue style, and practice doing it until it feels more natural and easier. Doing so can have a huge impact, dramatically lowering defensiveness and building trust.
How We Do It
In its most basic form, a reflection is just parroting back what the other person said. Here’s an example from a conversation about immigration:
Trump voter: “Illegal immigration is destroying this country.”
Progressive: “So, you believe illegal immigration is destroying this country.”
Sure, that’s a pretty simplistic response, but it’s a safe, easy place to start until we’re more practiced at reflecting.
However, someone who’s very passionate about an issue isn’t often going to hand us such a simple, singular statement. It’s more likely they’re going to share a lot of ideas at once, perhaps swerving all over the “factual” and emotional map as they go. We can’t—and shouldn’t—parrot all of it back to them verbatim like we did above. Instead, the next level of reflection involves us processing and summarizing the overall gist of their statements in our reflection.
Trump voter: “Liberals and leftists are trying to destroy this country by bringing in millions of illegals and registering them to vote Democrat in elections. They don’t care that most of these illegals are violent criminals and gang members who commit horrific crimes, or that they refuse to assimilate and learn our language and respect our laws—they’re erasing American culture. We have to stop it, all of them, right now, by whatever means necessary, or we won’t have a country anymore!”
Progressive: “I’m hearing you say liberals are using immigration to steal elections and deliberately sabotage America, is that right?”
Take a moment and look at that second reflection above. It might seem difficult or feel wrong to say such a thing, even in the context of trying to accurately summarize and understand someone’s beliefs. We may feel it catch in our throat. Again, we need to do the hard work of managing our emotions and framing this part of the conversation not as an argument or debate and not as a preacher, prosecutor, or politician, (as explained by Adam Grant).
Instead, think of this work as anthropology, as research, even as medical examination and diagnosis. When we reflect back statements and beliefs that we find personally distasteful or triggering, we’re doing so with calm curiosity to better understand and connect. Remember: Understanding does not equal endorsement or appeasement.
Need help managing your emotions and reactions and defusing triggers? Check out Dr. Tamerius’ Keep Calm and Carry On resources for managing emotions in order to do this work:
We may also look at those reflections above and worry they’ll annoy the other person; that they’ll come off as kids playing the super-irritating “I’m just repeating what you say” game. But therapists know from experience that reflections tend to operate at a subconscious level. The people we’re talking with aren’t fully aware we’re repeating back what they said. Rather than annoyed, what they feel subconsciously is that for once a liberal/Democrat/progressive is listening to them—and that feels good to any of us on either side.
Keep Practicing
Yes, like so much of this work, the concept of reflecting seems simple, but actually doing it effectively in a conversation can be challenging. As with our questions, reflections should be studiously impartial—remember, we’re holding up a mirror so they can see themselves clearly, not to make our own points.
If we distort the mirror with our own bias, the image will be inaccurate, and the other person won’t feel seen or heard. A good rule for any reflection is, “Will this person recognize themselves in what I say?” If not, chances are we’re reflecting ourselves, not them.
As in all these steps, tone is important. (I’ll probably write an entire piece one of these days about self-policing our own tone in persuasive conversations.) We need to try to phrase and offer our reflections in a way that doesn’t drip with contempt or sneering sarcasm.
Bad reflection: “Wow, you can’t really believe all immigrants are a threat and will destroy the American way of life, can you?”
While that may be an accurate reflection of their statement, it's not what the other person was trying to say. Plus, when we let our own emotions slip out in our reflections, it hinders not helps the persuasive process. Overstating their case back to them makes them sound grandiose and paranoid and probably isn’t consistent with their self-perception. All of which is likely to make them more defensive, not less.
Instead, try keeping it neutral and maybe even offering them a chance to clarify: “It sounds like you believe limiting immigration and deporting undocumented workers will make us safer. Do you feel that applies to any immigrant, legal or otherwise, or just those with violent records?”
Sometimes when we accurately summarize and reflect someone’s extreme statements, hearing them repeated back to them will cause the other person to revise and soften their stance a bit, and perhaps reply with something like, “Well, maybe not all of them, but…”
By reflecting without judgment or an accusatory tone, we can maybe open a side door for them to step back from their most extreme rhetoric, and in the process, give them a chance to privately reexamine parts of their stances and statements. And just maybe, the next time they discuss the topic with someone, they’ll take a moment to think about what they really do and do not believe instead of charging straight for the most provocative declarations.
Go a Little Deeper
In addition to being unbiased, the best reflections go below the surface. When people talk, there’s usually a lot of unspoken feelings and attitudes that you should also strive to mirror. Great reflections bring the other person into crystal-clear focus by capturing emotions, subtext, and context:
Emotions: Name what they seem to be feeling. (E.g., “It sounds like, you’re worried immigration will change American culture, and you’re afraid it will make you and your family less welcome and safe.”)
Subtext: State the implicit underlying content. (E.g., “What I’m hearing is you think Democrats intentionally bring in undocumented immigrants so illegal voters can help swing elections to the Democrats. Do I have that correct?”)
Context: Explain how what they said fits with their overall [larger] views. (E.g., “This seems to fit with what you’ve been saying about Democrats wanting to control and destroy America, right?”)
When our reflection is accurate, the other person will usually reply, “Right!” or “Yes! Exactly.” And when it’s pitch-perfect, we may get a hearty “I couldn’t have said it better myself.”
If we’re not getting any sort of affirmation from them, and we’re not sure we’re on the right track, we can ask for feedback: “Am I following you correctly?” or “Is that right?” Don’t worry if they say “No”—we just have them explain it again until we can reflect it accurately. People rarely mind repeating themselves if they feel we’re genuinely trying to understand their views.
As we practice reflecting, each of us will find a phrasing and tone that works best for us personally, that fits with our own style of conversation. Don’t worry if it feels awkward and unnatural at first—we can keep tweaking and trying different styles until we find one that feels comfortable for us and is effective at letting the other person feel heard, not mocked.
If we’ve never used reflections in conversation before, it’s hard to imagine their awesome power. But there’s nothing like being really seen by another person, and the effect on the other person will be obvious. When we reflect well, they’ll relax, smile, share more, and maybe even ask what we think about the topic.
Now that we’re showing we hear them, we have to take a powerful—but tricky—step: Validate some of what they’ve said by finding common ground without sacrificing our own beliefs. In an upcoming piece, I’ll take a look at the next step on the Cycle: Validate.
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.
Reflecting someone’s belief back to them without trying to exorcise it on the spot? Saints preserve us, that's heresy in most activist circles. But maybe the true revolution begins when we put down our rhetorical pitchforks and pick up the mirror. Not to agree—but to accurately show someone what they just said, so they can finally see it.
Half the country’s screaming into the void. The other half’s screaming back with PowerPoints. This piece says: maybe just nod, repeat, breathe, and let awkward grace do its work.
May we all become suspiciously good listeners—dangerous in our compassion.
I have read similar suggestions enough places now that I believe that they work -- BUT I can't personally engage in steps 1-3 with sincerity (at least not yet). My distaste would show on my face, and the fact that I can't genuinely reflect their point of view would be picked up immediately (as it should). I'm wondering if there is any value to starting a conversation with steps 4 (validate - identify common ground) and 5 (share my perspective). My sense is that a conversation could start with something like "We are all Americans," and expressing Lincoln's "House divided cannot stand" concerns, and see if that leads to a useful discussion. I do have a sense that my conservative friends genuinely feel patriotic, it's just that they have mainly heard toxic versions of patriotism in recent years. Liberals don't tend to talk about patriotism much, so maybe it's time for a refresher course for us?