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?
I completely understand where you're coming from in regards to feeling authentic and genuine--we've all struggled with that. And when it comes to this sort of thing, we all engage in a little "fake it til you make it" in not just this work but nearly everything new we try. In this case, the idea isn't to try to be "fake," but rather to give it a try, push through the process, and see if just doing it helps create a more genuine feeling in yourself.
I know myself during my years of doing this work, there were lots of steps I felt were uncomfortable or contrived, but I also found that when I pushed myself through them, the intended feelings and connections fell more into place. Faking it isn't about tricking someone, it's about using crutches or training wheels to help us find our way forward into new ways of seeing and framing things. Like that study that found that when we FORCE ourselves to smile, we often FEEL happier.
It seems trite, but it works -- pushing ourselves to talk to folks who may upset us, or for whom we feel distaste or worse, puts us in the (sometimes uncomfortable) position of following the dictated steps but in doing so, learning and showing ourselves they aren't as bad as we feared, and we can handle more than we thought.
As for starting at Step 4, Validate, here's my take on it -- which may be a bit different than Karin's. Karin has very good reasons for making Ask/Listen/Reflect the first steps -- they are there to build trust and understanding on BOTH sides. The idea is that the OTHER person will connect and trust us more and lower their defenses if they feel we're genuinely interested in what they have to say. And so I get why you feel it would disingenuous to "fake" that genuine curiosity, but as I said above, sometimes if we push ourselves to ask questions and listen, we find that can ignite a genuine curiosity and compassion for someone you didn't think you had any for.
That said, my feeling is if you're talking to someone you already know well, and you feel there's already a level of trust and connection with them (so that neither of you will run away and slam the door behind you forever if things get contentious), then sure, if it fits your style and approach better to start with an agreement/validation to find common ground, give it a try.
The trick is that if you start with a validation that comes off feeling like a thinly veiled accusation ("Can we at least agree that we don't want to live in a dictatorship?") or a broad idealistic statement ("we're all Americans, a house divided cannot stand"), the other person is more likely to get defensive ("Yeah, which is why we have to stop the authoritarian Left, they're the ones who want a Leftist dictatorship!" or "We should be united, so why are Democrats and Leftists trying to tear the country apart?")
That's why we say start with a question, and listening, and reflecting -- even if you don't adhere precisely to that order or do the steps "perfectly," just asking them a question can help you start to better understand where they're coming from and makes them feel heard. And even if you struggle to feel sincere compassion for them at first, maybe you can at least muster some curiosity about what they belief and why?
For example, what if you asked a conservative friend how they define "patriotism" and from there move to a discussion of whether Liberals/Democrats are patriotic or not?
Thanks so much for your question, Ann -- I'd say if you're thinking about this and how best you can do, that in itself is a great start! Find a way forward that works for you!
That bit from the comment elsewhere by Gary Edwards ("What if they answered by using your steps intended to convert a [n]on believer? How would you feel if you saw someone trying these tactics out [on] you?") is pretty funny. It reminds me of the SF genre scene where there's two telepaths directly fighting each other using mental control.
Indeed, how would this go?
Anti-Trump voter: "Trump is a fascist kleptocrat who is America's Hitler".
Conservative: "I'm hearing you say Trump is a fascist kleptocrat who is America's Hitler, is that right?”
Emotions: Name what they seem to be feeling. (E.g., "It sounds like, you're worried Trump will send people to concentration camps, 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 Republicans want to kill nonwhites and destroy women's rights. 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 Republicans are Christian fundamentalist racist homophobic misogynists, right?")
Does this sound like it'd change anything? Maybe, but I don't see it.
Hi Seth, thanks for continuing to engage with and comment on our posts!
I'm 100% for a wonderful, ideal world where we ALL talk to each other with this sort of attempts at listening and understanding. I'd much rather have a conversation (all the conversations) with someone I disagree with that is a lot of back and forth reflecting and connecting between both sides, than the current default model of trying to debate and argue facts and sources, often devolving into frustration, name-calling, shaming, and then shunning or banning or blocking or cutting out of lives.
As for what may or may not change from the speculative exchange you shared, it's important to remember that Reflect is literally in the MIDDLE of the Persuasion Conversation Cycle, the Smart Politics approach. Each step can make a difference and improve things, but yes, I agree, eventually you want to move on to sharing your own views or counter points. Ideally, you'd both move on to validating what you can of each other's views or values, and then taking turns sharing your own viewpoints with someone who's no longer as defensive or shut down to your ideas (and yes, you to theirs as well).
Locke, I'm hearing you say "thanks for continuing to engage with and comment on our posts" (joke). Anyway, I'm sincerely interested in strategies, but also quite skeptical.
I often ask "Is this true?", and "If true, what are the implications?". For example, "Can people really be manipulated with rhetoric?" and "If they can, then which of the many sides applying this would win, and why?" I think in specific you're getting into trouble around here:
"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."
That part "aren't fully aware ... they feel subconsciously ..." is what sparked some pushback, which I joked about as telepaths battling. But, well, is the above claim true? Again, if we reversed the example - Anti-Trump: "Republicans are Nazis", Conservative: "So, you believe Republicans are Nazis" - does it seem reasonable that an anti-Trump person would feel good and "dramatically lowering defensiveness and building trust."? Note, I'm not talking about me in specific, since I'm atypical in many ways as an intellectual, very tech, person. I mean, maybe it's a social-media bias, but I think that would tend to come off as dismissive not for tone, but just by nature. I can't fathom how people who think Trump is an existential threat to democracy, would later be open to eventually thinking he's not so bad, if you have a middle step of agreeing that they do believe he's an existential threat to democracy. It's certainly not like anything I've ever seen happen to any significant amount, which tends to indicate this is more wishful thinking than effective technique.
Frankly, this all strikes me as therapy-speak ported over to politics. Yes, there are some people (not everyone, but certainly many) who do feel good if when they say "My [husband or wife] doesn't understand me", you reply "I hear you, that you think your [husband or wife] doesn't understand you". But note, this is very different from whether their spouse really doesn't understand them - the spouse may in fact understand them all too well! Trying to take what might work in "talk therapy", sometimes, for a personal's minor life troubles, and scale it up to mass politics of major issues, seems to me an extremely dubious proposition.
I'm hearing you say... lol (Yeah, I know, it can feel a little loopy, lol)
But kidding aside, I do hear and appreciate what you're saying about manipulation and the subconscious.
Karin often writes about the distinction between manipulation and persuasion--manipulation tends to be secret, subversive, insidious. We hope that in contrast, persuasion is open and honest.
But I get how my mention of how our subconscious minds react seems to blur that distinction, but the fact is our brains operate most powerfully at the unconscious level, or what Haidt would call the Elephant (with the conscious mind as the Rider). The vast majority of what we do, how we interpret what we take in (read, see, hear), how we react and respond is rooted in our unconscious or subconscious minds and the things millions of years of evolution and instinct have trained them to do (assess threats, fight flight freeze fawn, group together ideas, frame perceptions, etc).
Along those lines, so much of our communication (including art) going back to prehistory is intended to manipulate or persuade someone, often using rhetoric. This isn't trickery or sorcery, it's simply how humans communicate with one another. I would like you to do something. Meanwhile, you would like me to change my behavior in some respect. So ideally, rather than reaching for the 2001 femur bone or the biggest rock, we TALK with each other, and yes, we both use rhetoric to persuade (hopefully not manipulate) one another, and hopefully find some common ground or a compromise that works for us both, that stays within the lines of both our values, including our shared values.
All Karin and Smart Politics is doing is codifying more effective ways to have those talks. Of course any study or teaching of communication methods is going to include the unconscious mind, because that's where most of our communication connects to our emotions.
You and Gary keep framing this as something nefarious and sneaky, and I understand how it can seem that way on the surface, because sometimes the tips sound like 'mind hacks" or something, but my goal with this work is to find compassion and connect with all types of people. (Does that include actual leaders like Trump and Miller and Musk and Vance--eh no, probably not in my wheelhouse or bandwidth (but it IS possible), but more likely my friends and family who voted differently than I did, who AREN'T GOP leaders or pundits or online influencers/grifters/trolls.)
To that end, I want to enter any conversation with a Trump voter with as much genuine curiosity and compassion as I can. As I told Ann in this chat, yes, sometimes we have to push ourselves into these conversations and hope to "fake it til we make it" -- maybe we aren't as full of genuine curiosity and compassion for Trump voters as we'd like, but just the ACT of trying to have an open, respectful conversation can help BUILD that compassion as we go.
Things like the Persuasion Conversation Cycle are simply here to guide us, to help us break bad habits (not really listening, not being curious, etc), to be more effective communicators. They aren't intended to be secret or sneaky, they aren't magic life hacks--they're just relatively basic communication approaches that nearly every human being uses to some extent in their daily life.
As I noted to Gary above, this work is usually a slow, incremental process. We do not believe that one conversation using these "secret tricks" is going to magically make a Trump voter renounce their vote and their candidate and join our side. But we do believe honest connection and communication on both sides lowers the temperature and creates ripples of influence (yes, possibly in both directions).
And yes, if I'm talking to a Trump voter, and they ask me what I think and I unload it on them, and they reflect or summarize my point back to me, then yes, as we're saying, on a subconscious level I'm likely to lower my defenses toward them, to feel a (perhaps small) increase in trust and connection with them. That's fine -- that's what I want, what I prefer rather than both sides yelling past each other.
I appreciate your perspective from, as you describe it, as "an intellectual, very tech, person." I'm learning through this work that some folks approach it from more of an engineering perspective: "what are the tools, what do they do, what do they build, is what they build sound and realistic?" I'll be honest, Karin's the science and medical expert here, not me, I'm kind of a loosey goosey artsy "all life is poetry" "vibes" type, lol. So I understand that often my "artsy vibey" take on things can be frustrating from an engineering perspective. So I genuinely do appreciate learning more about why some folks find this work challenging or questionable. The never-ending quest for "quantifiable results." I get that.
You said, "I can't fathom how people who think Trump is an existential threat to democracy, would later be open to eventually thinking he's not so bad, if you have a middle step of agreeing that they do believe he's an existential threat to democracy." Again, it's not a one-step, one-stop, fix-it shop. You have these conversations, repeatedly, and as I told Gary above, maybe you only move the "meter" by a very small sliver. Maybe all you do is "improve the vibes." But maybe you also keep the door open for repeated future conversations, and each of them move the needle just a small bit, lowers the distrust and polarization just a small bit. And repeat. You're not trying to hit a grand slam at every at bat--as smallball teaches us, just get on base.
You also noted, "Frankly, this all strikes me as therapy-speak ported over to politics." Ding ding ding. It absolutely is--Karin is very open and honest about how this work came together for her when she realized her background as a physiatrist and therapist could be effective in her work as a progressive activist. We don't all have to be therapists--what Smart Politics is saying is there are some things therapists do that can be useful and effective in political activism, whether as concrete instruction or simply larger framing.
You closed with, "Trying to take what might work in "talk therapy", sometimes, for a personal's minor life troubles, and scale it up to mass politics of major issues, seems to me an extremely dubious proposition."
I absolutely get that -- not the first time we've heard it :) But my personal thinking is that I'm not trying to scale it up to mass politics -- my work in Smart Politics is not focused on the huge political rally or massive election efforts (though yes, I absolutely believe BOTH those things are important and effective) -- my work here is focused simply on the dinner table conversation. The one to one conversations with friends and loved ones.
As far as scale goes, yes, I do believe the more folks who can have these sorts of productive, connective conversations one on one (in person or online), the better off we are as a nation and a democracy. I do dream of more and more folks trying it--that's why I'm here, that's what I'm doing, why I write these pieces with Karin. But as individuals, we should all do what we can in our own backyard, tend our own small gardens, work to clean our small stretch of the beach or roadside, even improve our influence on local politics first.
That's what I think Smart Politics is best for and at.
I don't see how you addressed Seth's point with your answer. I believe Seth's point is that these tactics will not lead to real communications and any movement towards progress.
Seth's imagined conversation is the entire point ... if a rightist used the tactics you suggest to persuade Seth, it wouldn't work at all.
Why would they work in reverse?
People are not dumb, they just have different beliefs and priorities, but there is some obvious common ground.
Gary, I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "litmus test approach"? I'm not sure how that applies to the Smart Politics goal of having more open, respectful, and effective conversations with folks on the other side of issues -- or them with us.
Smart Politics has a spectrum of goals, keeping in mind that we are always talking with and listening to a wide spectrum of folks who are ALL DIFFERENT. Different folks on different points of the Spectrum of Allies from Leftists to White Supremists, from the very politically active informed and engaged to the non-voting political apathetic, etc. But the vast majority of folks (and conversations with them) fall, as is usual in politics and demographics and culture, into the Vast, Varied Middle. Not politically extreme, somewhat aware but not very engaged, etc.
And within that spectrum of folks, there is a spectrum of potential vs desired outcomes from a conversation.
Maybe it's just to maintain an open, communicative relationship with a friend or loved one you disagree with. Not slamming the door.
Maybe it's to remind Trump voting friends and loved ones that you are a progressive/Liberal/Democrat (or however you define yourself) and that you are not an evil immoral America-hating demon.
Maybe it's to talk with someone you know who voted for Trump but is now having doubts or confusion or just disengaging.
Maybe it's to talk with a more engaged, active Trump voter not to change their vote but to simply show both sides that respectful, honest communication about issues is possible between opposite sides.
The tendency online is toward extreme binary thinking, even when talking about extreme binary thinking (which I'm doing right now by even stating this, lol). So we see and create hypotheticals that play out a Worst Case Extreme Scenario, but the entire purpose of Smart Politics is to encourage and help folks talk with one another so both sides can see in person that their Extreme Hypotheticals and Assumptions aren't always accurate and don't apply to simple one to one conversations between two human beings.
I appreciate that you keep bringing up common ground because that's a HUGE part of the work we do with Smart Politics -- yes, we absolutely want to find common ground, shared values, beliefs, connections, and goals with the people we talk to. The steps I've been slowly working through are driving towards the Validate or Agree step where we do seek out that common ground.
Well I'm not sure what all of that really says with the exception that it's not disagreeable to me. But I guess that's part of your approach, to avoid any disagreements.
It's hard for me to understand managing a disagreement without getting right down to what the disagreement is, what the compromise could be and making a trade where each party gets something of value and each gives up something of value.
But it's not that we at Smart Politics are trying to avoid any disagreements -- when it comes to policy and issues and ideologies, yes, of course, we'll often have disagreements, especially with folks on the opposite side of the political or ideological aisle. That's why we're trying to talk. We describe Smart Politics as "teaching progressive how to have better, more effective and persuasive conversations with folks who DISAGREE with us."
What we're working for is having disagreements over issues that can still be talked about, discussed, shared, thought about on both sides without rigidly debating or arguing or devolving into name calling, etc. Constructive (not destructive) disagreements, let's say. Working, as you rightfully propose, to find common ground, shared values, and even build new alliances across the aisle that work together to find solutions.
The Ask/Listen/Reflect part of this work (in addition to building trust and connection) is trying to understand the nature of the disagreements -- to help us on both sides understand the ways in which we sometimes don't disagree as much as we may think we do. The Validate/Share part works to tease out those shared values and goals, as well as gently sharing why we may disagree on some parts of it.
My take is that the "each party gets something of value and each gives up something of value" applies more to the realm of actual policy making and legislating -- and that can absolutely be part of this work, especially on the local (city, county, state) level. If folks are out there working on those levels in their local government, absolutely more power to them!
But the primary focus and purpose of Smart Politics is to talk one on one with INDIVIDUALS (not so much political or governmental entities) and help both sides if not find (or perhaps shift) common ground on viewpoints, then at least, as I always say, on lowering the polarized and negative partisanship temperature on both sides.
So, if I understand you, any changes that temper the typical progressive stance would he achieved by these individuals who would have their opinions tempered by the non-progressives.
Conversely, position adjustments for the non-progressives would come from talking with the less argumentative sounding progressives following your scheme.
And finally, change would cone to the whole, and political folks would reflect common ground and compromises would be found.
I actually prefer a meltdown when discussing politics. It is honest and clears the air. Mostly my progressive friends just slowly start backing away once they learn I voted for Trump three times.
But on the rare occasion when I actually talk to a Trump hater, I always find it illuminating to listen carefully and respond thoughtfully, like I did on Katie Halpers podcast a few years ago. One of her callers wanted to cancel me and my voice out of the conversation.
We are defined by the company we keep.
We are also defined by the enemies we make. Last night on Katies show one of my enemies requested that she cancel me.
I'm very sorry about the troubles you've had with folks wanting to cancel you -- I listened to the first part of that podcast you posted, and clearly the other caller's stance is one we here at Smart Politics work to counter--I often think right now the majority of our work may need to be done with our fellow progressives, to show them why we feel exactly the sort of stance voiced in that call is not the best way forward for any of us on any side.
I've always appreciated and valued your willingness to talk to folks to the Left of your views (like myself! lol) and engage with groups like Braver Angels. You're doing a good thing, and I'm sorry that brings you some flack.
As for the meltdown part, I guess we all crave and thrive on different types of communication and engagement, lol. That's not exactly my preferred format, but then I do tend to avoid conflict, lol. I do agree a good vigorous clearing of the throat and the air can be helpful or at least feel good, as long as it's between two friends who both know they can take it and still stay connected and talking.
You have always been a perfect gentleman and I have enjoyed chatting with you over the years.
I have had many ugly interactions with progressives and was chased out of several chat rooms for a variety of reasons.
The young man on that call truly worked tirelessly to get me cancelled all over Callin, which made it even more ironic (and funny to me) that he himself was kicked off the site for sexually harassing women.
I know we can all do better, and I confess to using inflammatory language when trying to make certain points, but I have learned so much at Smart Politics and Braver Angels. I am determined to be a beacon of kindness if only to learn how to communicate with my own progressive children more effectively.
I am still estranged from one son and his wife and it breaks my heart.
I reposted that conversation on the Katie Halper podcast on my second Substack site last night with these words as commentary…
All of this talk about a Marxist Muslim being the Mayor of New York got me thinking about the various conversations I have had with Commies over the years. I have chatted with many socialists in a variety of settings but the most memorable was with a fellow on Callin who demanded I be cancelled from all of the shows.
He was ultimately banned from the site for sexually harassing certain women, which is historically the main thing Commies want to “collectivize”.
The old Biblical injunction to not covet another man’s wife does not hold water with these dudes. They believe if they desire a woman, that should be all it takes to “seize the means of production”.
Heavenly Father gave us these rules to help us negotiate life, knowing that inequities would create varying shades of covetous thought and behavior.
The Marxists desire that all people experience the same levels of misery and starvation, except for them and their loved ones. Ayn Rand called this The Aristocracy of Pull.
The elites who deign to rule over us all with blood and horror are the people who should be chased from the marketplace of ideas, NOT cookie baking grandmas who have been gunning for medical freedom for 36 years.
Enjoy the clip from Katie’s Show. I wish I had the foresight to capture more of these chats. But this one was definitely a keeper from 2023.
Thank you for your kind words, Jenny -- like many of us, I'm always trying, working at being better at this, even if it's sometimes two steps forward and one step back, lol.
I'm very sorry about your estranged son and his wife -- I can imagine how hard and sad that is. I truly hope that whatever you're getting from SP and BA continues to help you with that situation. I obviously don't know the exact situation, but often it's both sides that need to work on lowering the temperature, but if the other person isn't, then it falls on us to be the bigger person and use whatever we learn from this work to let the other person know we have a genuine, sincere desire to repair things. Sometimes all we can do is work at being better versions of ourselves, to lower the temperature from our side, and hope that showing ourselves to be sincere and doing the work helps the other person lower their defenses.
And while I'm guessing you and I may personally differ on how we might define a Marxist or a "Commie" versus a socialist or Democratic Socialist and all the pros and cons, I can agree with you on full support for cookie-baking grandmas!
That said, I agree people can often be creepy and jerks especially when it comes to their objects of attention or desire (and yes, often online males) -- we need to work on reducing that across the political and demographic spectrum.
I'm glad you were able to save some of your Callin shows -- Karin had set that up for us back in '22 (when we met YOU!), and I had no idea Callin was going away, so we didn't save any of our podcasts.... BUT, a few months ago I realized we HAD apparently uploaded them to Spotify, and so all our old Smart Politics podcasts (only about a dozen in total) are there on Spotify, whew.
Thanks as always for commenting and sharing your perspectives with us, Jenny!
Wow. Real communicating is not done with an agenda to change minds to follow your way of thinking. Maybe through cpmmin8cation, you might learn something too..
If you are not open to the other side, it's obvious, no matter how you attempt to deceive them about your true intentions to manipulate their thinking.
What if they answered by using your steps intended to convert a on believer? How would you feel if you saw someone trying these tactics outnon you?
Hi Gary, thanks for continuing to comment on our posts--I appreciate that you find our work engaging enough (or maybe just enraging? lol) that you want to keep the conversation going with Karin and me.
I know you've raised these points with Karin in the past, and I hope you saw she wrote an entire piece a few weeks ago almost directly in response to your comments:
As Karin would say, a lot of significant, impactful, thoughtful communication in our daily lives is done with an agenda to change something, change someone's mind, ask them to do something, request something from them, explain ourselves to them. Karin wrote about it in terms of democracy, but even if we pull back to simple daily interactions, notice how many of them are us or someone else wanting to convince the other person of something.
Karin also goes in-depth on the important differences between persuasion and manipulation, and I understand you tend to see this work as the latter not the former. But we always stress that when doing this work we do 1) remain open to the other side's ideas -- with "open" NOT equally "accepting." Someone can tell me what they believe, and I can be open and honest and curious to hear them out, but that doesn't mean I'm somehow agreeing with them.
You asked, "What if they answered by using your steps intended to convert a on believer? How would you feel if you saw someone trying these tactics out on you?"
Gary, that would be FANTASTIC! I'd gladly welcome a world in which we all talked to each other--including folks who disagree with us--using exactly these methods, on BOTH sides. Sure, it could go a little Chip N Dale ("Oh after you" "No, no after you, I insist" "I'll reflect your points" "And I'll reflect your reflection of my points"...) but I'd rather start from a place of mutual respect and curiosity then one of distrust and defensiveness.
If someone wants to convince me of their views and they do so in a compassionate, empathetic way that maintains openness and trust on BOTH sides, then I MORE than welcome that. We can still disagree, maybe neither one "wins" and magically "flips" the other person to their side, but we can have that respectful back and forth in a way that doesn't leave either of us angry and hating the "other side" and willing and able to continue the conversation onward in the future.
Smart Politics isn't some secret magic trick just for progressives to manipulate folks on the Right--we focus on teaching progressives because we're progressives and 1) we can have the most influence and impact on folks similar to us, and 2) we believe many progressives can be better, more effective communicators and persuaders. And again, "persuade" is not a dirty word -- it's what we're ALL out here trying to do on all sides. And if both sides can work at that persuasion in ways that are not only more effective but less destructive and alienating and polarizing, then yes, I would love for both sides to do that.
My point is pretty simple, I see your methods as disingenuous, because you have an agenda and I believe people will see right through it.
What I am suggesting to you is different, trying to compromise rather than to get your way or nothing.
You see, that is a productive stance, not a destructive stance as it pertains to making progress.
You, Karin, and most of your commenter, do not seem to really want progress if it means compromise. I think I proved that point in my commenting convo with Seth in the post you memtion.
It's not about tactics or changing wording away from what has become laughable in today's culture.
It's about changing the whole attitude from a winner take all, ends justifying means point of view.
Karin or anyone seriously considered identifying some areas of potential agreement between left and right and working on those.
I ask you to address that point. Choose something from my prior list and think how you could come to an agreement with the other side and make progress rather that just resist everything.
If you are uninterested in making any progress on things, then just say so.
It is very clear that something like 50% of
Americans have rejected the didactic approach that you seem to be suggesting and a more open approach is necessary for progressives to regain any real say in the world that just said no to them.
Well I'm glad you're not enraged! That's a good thing! lol
Let's start with your "pretty simple" point : "I see your methods as disingenuous, because you have an agenda and I believe people will see right through it."
Good point, but I'm happy to have a conversation with a Trump voter and start it by saying,
"Hi, I'm Locke. I'm a progressive--maybe not totally Left, but a sort of Liberal Democrat with very left-leaning, progressive beliefs. I'd love to talk with you about both our beliefs, how we feel about the country right now. And if you don't mind, I'd like to start by asking you questions, really listening to your responses, maybe even repeating them back to you so I make sure I understand you and you feel heard, and then we can see if we have any common ground (I bet we do), and if you'd like, I'm happy to share with you my views on things. Does that sound okay with you?"
Yeah, that feels like a mouthful and maybe a little awkward, but I've learned in this work that awkward isn't always bad -- being honest and open, even if it sounds a bit goofy, is an ultimate good. So yeah, I'd have no problem saying that.
Gary, you also noted, "What I am suggesting to you is different, trying to compromise rather than to get your way or nothing."
Absolutely. I fully agree with you, "that is a productive stance, not a destructive stance as it pertains to making progress." Nothing in Smart Politics is against compromise--in fact, we embrace the fact that in a democracy, political compromise on policies and legislation is simply how things work and move forward, perhaps slower than we'd like ideally, but still going in the right direction. It's exactly the rise of polarization and negative partisanship that rejects political compromise that Smart Politics was created to counter. We have never ever said "our way or nothing" or in any way embraced or endorsed that attitude. Yes, some progressive folks might feel that way, but that's not what Smart Politics is about.
Does that mean compromising our ideals and values? Of course not. A political compromise should not be a philosophical compromise (unless of course, we are persuaded that parts of our philosophy are misguided, which CAN happen -- as Karin says, we have to be open to change within ourselves if we're going to be honest in this work).
You said, "It is very clear that something like 50% of Americans have rejected the didactic approach that you seem to be suggesting" -- probably more than that, given the polarized nature of our current in person and online/social media landscape. That's exactly why we're out here trying to promote and teach our approach--we feel it's better, we know most of us don't do it, but we feel more of us should.
You continued, "a more open approach is necessary for progressives to regain any real say in the world that just said no to them." 100% agree--that's the very core of what Smart Politics is trying to do. That's what all this is about :)
You said, "Choose something from my prior list and think how you could come to an agreement with the other side and make progress rather that just resist everything." I'm not sure what list you mean and I honestly don't feel like scrolling back though everything to find it -- can you repost the relevant bits? I'm happy to take a stab at it if and when I can, with the idea of, yes, how we make progress.
But also Gary, on a personal note, I appreciate your participation in this chat -- I really do! You challenge us, and I'm assuming you have a good-faith intention to understand better what we do, and how it might fit into your own approaches, even if those come from a different part of the political spectrum.
But Karin's and my ability to answer all your points and questions is going to be limited. We're happy to do what we can when we can, and we'd love for you to stay involved and engaged with us here, but I do ask for some boundaries in terms of expectations. (Which is my way of saying, sure, repost your list, and if I have time or inclination, I'll take a run at it, but no promises, lol.)
Hi Gary, can I ask you a question? I’ve noticed that while you adamantly oppose us persuading people about politics, you simultaneously are actively trying to persuade us that persuading people about politics is wrong. May I ask why one kind of persuasion is okay and the other isn’t? What am I missing? Thanks!
I have no fixed agenda and I am not trying to persuade you no matter what you perceive.
But more importantly, I am asking you to pick out an area where some compromise can be made with the other side.
I am fine if you say none, but given your interactions so far, I'd bet there are some areas where you might agree with your opponents.
See I don't see this as opposing sides, I see this as we are all together on this boat.
It's not my opinion vs yours, it's our ability to see each other as good, well meaning people with valid points of view that do not need to be changed in order to make a compromise we both see as progress.
There is no need for persuasion or manipulation (or whatever word you want to use) in order to make a compromise.
Hmm. Okay. That helps. What I’m wondering now is what you mean by fixed agenda and how you know I have one. Since my beliefs are constantly in flux based on the best information, analysis, and expertise available to me, how can my agenda be fixed? I grant that I start from certain premises and values which are fairly persistent, but if I look back over the course of my life, my views have changed a great deal…
Well, to me you just admitted to having an agenda masquerading as not having one.
Everyone of course has their own opinions, but that's mine.
By "shading" your obvious agenda, you reveal your agenda. The slight of hand may work for magician shows, but not in discourse.
In our past interactions I believe you have stated you are an avowed progressive activist, correct?
What I am saying is that all of this is obvious, you're not fooling anyone, and that it's counterproductive to achieving what I believe are your goals, at least in part, thru a more compromising approach where you get some wins but not complete triumph as your ideology might see it.
By the way, at least part of your goals likely intersect with mine (and others), so are achievable.
In otherwords, ideological purity is performative, not productive.
As a final aside, I answer your questions, but you don't answer mine. Why do you think that is?
You’re right. I do want to persuade people. I say that in my writing and in my conversations with people who disagree with me. In my experience, the majority of folks appreciate my honesty and don’t mind that I’m trying to persuade them. What people dislike is being disrespected and told what to think—behaviors antithetical to Smart Politics. And yes, I am a progressive. Because, at this point in my life, based on everything I’ve learned, that seems like the best path forward for humanity. Is it the only path? No. Am I sure I’m right? Absolutely not. That said, I think it’s a great place to start and I encourage others to consider the merits of progressivism while I consider the merits of their views. When these conversations go well, and they almost always do, all participants leave with a better understanding of how to solve our problems together. More importantly, we part with greater appreciation and empathy for each other as human beings—something the world needs far more than better policies.
Thank you for conforming that you are a progressive activist.
My suggestion is that your tactical approach is disingenuous and that makes it impotent.
I am challenging your whole paradigm of building trust by, in my way of seeing it, trying to not to seem like you are interested in the viewpoint of your "mark" while your intent is to override their belief system.
You do not seem to be aware that things have changed and no one gives their trust away that easily any more.
We watch for evidence of subversion and, once seen, others stop listening because they are tired of being manipulated. Your method will produce the exact opposite of your stated intention, a lack of trust being enhanced once the "mark" realizes that you're not trying to communicate, but to instead, persuade them to change their beliefs.
This is simple logic.
If your goal is to make progress I think you would be much better at producing results if you instead went into communications with an approach of compromise. To find common ground that can can be the basis of agreement and compromise, rather than simply getting the other side to come over to you're way of thinking.
My suspicion is that this inflexibility results from an unconscious pledge of ideological purity that gets in the way of achieving some progress thru compromise where everyone wins, and progress occurs.
That however is suspicion and not fact.
But the fact is that the progressive side has suffered a major set back that I just don't think is due to wording or tactics.
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.
Exactly, Aleksander! Thank you for commenting!
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?
Hi Ann!
I completely understand where you're coming from in regards to feeling authentic and genuine--we've all struggled with that. And when it comes to this sort of thing, we all engage in a little "fake it til you make it" in not just this work but nearly everything new we try. In this case, the idea isn't to try to be "fake," but rather to give it a try, push through the process, and see if just doing it helps create a more genuine feeling in yourself.
I know myself during my years of doing this work, there were lots of steps I felt were uncomfortable or contrived, but I also found that when I pushed myself through them, the intended feelings and connections fell more into place. Faking it isn't about tricking someone, it's about using crutches or training wheels to help us find our way forward into new ways of seeing and framing things. Like that study that found that when we FORCE ourselves to smile, we often FEEL happier.
It seems trite, but it works -- pushing ourselves to talk to folks who may upset us, or for whom we feel distaste or worse, puts us in the (sometimes uncomfortable) position of following the dictated steps but in doing so, learning and showing ourselves they aren't as bad as we feared, and we can handle more than we thought.
As for starting at Step 4, Validate, here's my take on it -- which may be a bit different than Karin's. Karin has very good reasons for making Ask/Listen/Reflect the first steps -- they are there to build trust and understanding on BOTH sides. The idea is that the OTHER person will connect and trust us more and lower their defenses if they feel we're genuinely interested in what they have to say. And so I get why you feel it would disingenuous to "fake" that genuine curiosity, but as I said above, sometimes if we push ourselves to ask questions and listen, we find that can ignite a genuine curiosity and compassion for someone you didn't think you had any for.
That said, my feeling is if you're talking to someone you already know well, and you feel there's already a level of trust and connection with them (so that neither of you will run away and slam the door behind you forever if things get contentious), then sure, if it fits your style and approach better to start with an agreement/validation to find common ground, give it a try.
The trick is that if you start with a validation that comes off feeling like a thinly veiled accusation ("Can we at least agree that we don't want to live in a dictatorship?") or a broad idealistic statement ("we're all Americans, a house divided cannot stand"), the other person is more likely to get defensive ("Yeah, which is why we have to stop the authoritarian Left, they're the ones who want a Leftist dictatorship!" or "We should be united, so why are Democrats and Leftists trying to tear the country apart?")
That's why we say start with a question, and listening, and reflecting -- even if you don't adhere precisely to that order or do the steps "perfectly," just asking them a question can help you start to better understand where they're coming from and makes them feel heard. And even if you struggle to feel sincere compassion for them at first, maybe you can at least muster some curiosity about what they belief and why?
For example, what if you asked a conservative friend how they define "patriotism" and from there move to a discussion of whether Liberals/Democrats are patriotic or not?
Thanks so much for your question, Ann -- I'd say if you're thinking about this and how best you can do, that in itself is a great start! Find a way forward that works for you!
Locke
That bit from the comment elsewhere by Gary Edwards ("What if they answered by using your steps intended to convert a [n]on believer? How would you feel if you saw someone trying these tactics out [on] you?") is pretty funny. It reminds me of the SF genre scene where there's two telepaths directly fighting each other using mental control.
Indeed, how would this go?
Anti-Trump voter: "Trump is a fascist kleptocrat who is America's Hitler".
Conservative: "I'm hearing you say Trump is a fascist kleptocrat who is America's Hitler, is that right?”
Emotions: Name what they seem to be feeling. (E.g., "It sounds like, you're worried Trump will send people to concentration camps, 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 Republicans want to kill nonwhites and destroy women's rights. 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 Republicans are Christian fundamentalist racist homophobic misogynists, right?")
Does this sound like it'd change anything? Maybe, but I don't see it.
Hi Seth, thanks for continuing to engage with and comment on our posts!
I'm 100% for a wonderful, ideal world where we ALL talk to each other with this sort of attempts at listening and understanding. I'd much rather have a conversation (all the conversations) with someone I disagree with that is a lot of back and forth reflecting and connecting between both sides, than the current default model of trying to debate and argue facts and sources, often devolving into frustration, name-calling, shaming, and then shunning or banning or blocking or cutting out of lives.
As for what may or may not change from the speculative exchange you shared, it's important to remember that Reflect is literally in the MIDDLE of the Persuasion Conversation Cycle, the Smart Politics approach. Each step can make a difference and improve things, but yes, I agree, eventually you want to move on to sharing your own views or counter points. Ideally, you'd both move on to validating what you can of each other's views or values, and then taking turns sharing your own viewpoints with someone who's no longer as defensive or shut down to your ideas (and yes, you to theirs as well).
Locke, I'm hearing you say "thanks for continuing to engage with and comment on our posts" (joke). Anyway, I'm sincerely interested in strategies, but also quite skeptical.
I often ask "Is this true?", and "If true, what are the implications?". For example, "Can people really be manipulated with rhetoric?" and "If they can, then which of the many sides applying this would win, and why?" I think in specific you're getting into trouble around here:
"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."
That part "aren't fully aware ... they feel subconsciously ..." is what sparked some pushback, which I joked about as telepaths battling. But, well, is the above claim true? Again, if we reversed the example - Anti-Trump: "Republicans are Nazis", Conservative: "So, you believe Republicans are Nazis" - does it seem reasonable that an anti-Trump person would feel good and "dramatically lowering defensiveness and building trust."? Note, I'm not talking about me in specific, since I'm atypical in many ways as an intellectual, very tech, person. I mean, maybe it's a social-media bias, but I think that would tend to come off as dismissive not for tone, but just by nature. I can't fathom how people who think Trump is an existential threat to democracy, would later be open to eventually thinking he's not so bad, if you have a middle step of agreeing that they do believe he's an existential threat to democracy. It's certainly not like anything I've ever seen happen to any significant amount, which tends to indicate this is more wishful thinking than effective technique.
Frankly, this all strikes me as therapy-speak ported over to politics. Yes, there are some people (not everyone, but certainly many) who do feel good if when they say "My [husband or wife] doesn't understand me", you reply "I hear you, that you think your [husband or wife] doesn't understand you". But note, this is very different from whether their spouse really doesn't understand them - the spouse may in fact understand them all too well! Trying to take what might work in "talk therapy", sometimes, for a personal's minor life troubles, and scale it up to mass politics of major issues, seems to me an extremely dubious proposition.
Seth,
I'm hearing you say... lol (Yeah, I know, it can feel a little loopy, lol)
But kidding aside, I do hear and appreciate what you're saying about manipulation and the subconscious.
Karin often writes about the distinction between manipulation and persuasion--manipulation tends to be secret, subversive, insidious. We hope that in contrast, persuasion is open and honest.
But I get how my mention of how our subconscious minds react seems to blur that distinction, but the fact is our brains operate most powerfully at the unconscious level, or what Haidt would call the Elephant (with the conscious mind as the Rider). The vast majority of what we do, how we interpret what we take in (read, see, hear), how we react and respond is rooted in our unconscious or subconscious minds and the things millions of years of evolution and instinct have trained them to do (assess threats, fight flight freeze fawn, group together ideas, frame perceptions, etc).
Along those lines, so much of our communication (including art) going back to prehistory is intended to manipulate or persuade someone, often using rhetoric. This isn't trickery or sorcery, it's simply how humans communicate with one another. I would like you to do something. Meanwhile, you would like me to change my behavior in some respect. So ideally, rather than reaching for the 2001 femur bone or the biggest rock, we TALK with each other, and yes, we both use rhetoric to persuade (hopefully not manipulate) one another, and hopefully find some common ground or a compromise that works for us both, that stays within the lines of both our values, including our shared values.
All Karin and Smart Politics is doing is codifying more effective ways to have those talks. Of course any study or teaching of communication methods is going to include the unconscious mind, because that's where most of our communication connects to our emotions.
You and Gary keep framing this as something nefarious and sneaky, and I understand how it can seem that way on the surface, because sometimes the tips sound like 'mind hacks" or something, but my goal with this work is to find compassion and connect with all types of people. (Does that include actual leaders like Trump and Miller and Musk and Vance--eh no, probably not in my wheelhouse or bandwidth (but it IS possible), but more likely my friends and family who voted differently than I did, who AREN'T GOP leaders or pundits or online influencers/grifters/trolls.)
To that end, I want to enter any conversation with a Trump voter with as much genuine curiosity and compassion as I can. As I told Ann in this chat, yes, sometimes we have to push ourselves into these conversations and hope to "fake it til we make it" -- maybe we aren't as full of genuine curiosity and compassion for Trump voters as we'd like, but just the ACT of trying to have an open, respectful conversation can help BUILD that compassion as we go.
Things like the Persuasion Conversation Cycle are simply here to guide us, to help us break bad habits (not really listening, not being curious, etc), to be more effective communicators. They aren't intended to be secret or sneaky, they aren't magic life hacks--they're just relatively basic communication approaches that nearly every human being uses to some extent in their daily life.
As I noted to Gary above, this work is usually a slow, incremental process. We do not believe that one conversation using these "secret tricks" is going to magically make a Trump voter renounce their vote and their candidate and join our side. But we do believe honest connection and communication on both sides lowers the temperature and creates ripples of influence (yes, possibly in both directions).
And yes, if I'm talking to a Trump voter, and they ask me what I think and I unload it on them, and they reflect or summarize my point back to me, then yes, as we're saying, on a subconscious level I'm likely to lower my defenses toward them, to feel a (perhaps small) increase in trust and connection with them. That's fine -- that's what I want, what I prefer rather than both sides yelling past each other.
I appreciate your perspective from, as you describe it, as "an intellectual, very tech, person." I'm learning through this work that some folks approach it from more of an engineering perspective: "what are the tools, what do they do, what do they build, is what they build sound and realistic?" I'll be honest, Karin's the science and medical expert here, not me, I'm kind of a loosey goosey artsy "all life is poetry" "vibes" type, lol. So I understand that often my "artsy vibey" take on things can be frustrating from an engineering perspective. So I genuinely do appreciate learning more about why some folks find this work challenging or questionable. The never-ending quest for "quantifiable results." I get that.
You said, "I can't fathom how people who think Trump is an existential threat to democracy, would later be open to eventually thinking he's not so bad, if you have a middle step of agreeing that they do believe he's an existential threat to democracy." Again, it's not a one-step, one-stop, fix-it shop. You have these conversations, repeatedly, and as I told Gary above, maybe you only move the "meter" by a very small sliver. Maybe all you do is "improve the vibes." But maybe you also keep the door open for repeated future conversations, and each of them move the needle just a small bit, lowers the distrust and polarization just a small bit. And repeat. You're not trying to hit a grand slam at every at bat--as smallball teaches us, just get on base.
You also noted, "Frankly, this all strikes me as therapy-speak ported over to politics." Ding ding ding. It absolutely is--Karin is very open and honest about how this work came together for her when she realized her background as a physiatrist and therapist could be effective in her work as a progressive activist. We don't all have to be therapists--what Smart Politics is saying is there are some things therapists do that can be useful and effective in political activism, whether as concrete instruction or simply larger framing.
You closed with, "Trying to take what might work in "talk therapy", sometimes, for a personal's minor life troubles, and scale it up to mass politics of major issues, seems to me an extremely dubious proposition."
I absolutely get that -- not the first time we've heard it :) But my personal thinking is that I'm not trying to scale it up to mass politics -- my work in Smart Politics is not focused on the huge political rally or massive election efforts (though yes, I absolutely believe BOTH those things are important and effective) -- my work here is focused simply on the dinner table conversation. The one to one conversations with friends and loved ones.
As far as scale goes, yes, I do believe the more folks who can have these sorts of productive, connective conversations one on one (in person or online), the better off we are as a nation and a democracy. I do dream of more and more folks trying it--that's why I'm here, that's what I'm doing, why I write these pieces with Karin. But as individuals, we should all do what we can in our own backyard, tend our own small gardens, work to clean our small stretch of the beach or roadside, even improve our influence on local politics first.
That's what I think Smart Politics is best for and at.
I don't see how you addressed Seth's point with your answer. I believe Seth's point is that these tactics will not lead to real communications and any movement towards progress.
Seth's imagined conversation is the entire point ... if a rightist used the tactics you suggest to persuade Seth, it wouldn't work at all.
Why would they work in reverse?
People are not dumb, they just have different beliefs and priorities, but there is some obvious common ground.
The litmus test sort of approach is so last year.
Gary, I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "litmus test approach"? I'm not sure how that applies to the Smart Politics goal of having more open, respectful, and effective conversations with folks on the other side of issues -- or them with us.
Smart Politics has a spectrum of goals, keeping in mind that we are always talking with and listening to a wide spectrum of folks who are ALL DIFFERENT. Different folks on different points of the Spectrum of Allies from Leftists to White Supremists, from the very politically active informed and engaged to the non-voting political apathetic, etc. But the vast majority of folks (and conversations with them) fall, as is usual in politics and demographics and culture, into the Vast, Varied Middle. Not politically extreme, somewhat aware but not very engaged, etc.
And within that spectrum of folks, there is a spectrum of potential vs desired outcomes from a conversation.
Maybe it's just to maintain an open, communicative relationship with a friend or loved one you disagree with. Not slamming the door.
Maybe it's to remind Trump voting friends and loved ones that you are a progressive/Liberal/Democrat (or however you define yourself) and that you are not an evil immoral America-hating demon.
Maybe it's to talk with someone you know who voted for Trump but is now having doubts or confusion or just disengaging.
Maybe it's to talk with a more engaged, active Trump voter not to change their vote but to simply show both sides that respectful, honest communication about issues is possible between opposite sides.
The tendency online is toward extreme binary thinking, even when talking about extreme binary thinking (which I'm doing right now by even stating this, lol). So we see and create hypotheticals that play out a Worst Case Extreme Scenario, but the entire purpose of Smart Politics is to encourage and help folks talk with one another so both sides can see in person that their Extreme Hypotheticals and Assumptions aren't always accurate and don't apply to simple one to one conversations between two human beings.
I appreciate that you keep bringing up common ground because that's a HUGE part of the work we do with Smart Politics -- yes, we absolutely want to find common ground, shared values, beliefs, connections, and goals with the people we talk to. The steps I've been slowly working through are driving towards the Validate or Agree step where we do seek out that common ground.
Well I'm not sure what all of that really says with the exception that it's not disagreeable to me. But I guess that's part of your approach, to avoid any disagreements.
It's hard for me to understand managing a disagreement without getting right down to what the disagreement is, what the compromise could be and making a trade where each party gets something of value and each gives up something of value.
I'll take "not disagreeable" any day!
But it's not that we at Smart Politics are trying to avoid any disagreements -- when it comes to policy and issues and ideologies, yes, of course, we'll often have disagreements, especially with folks on the opposite side of the political or ideological aisle. That's why we're trying to talk. We describe Smart Politics as "teaching progressive how to have better, more effective and persuasive conversations with folks who DISAGREE with us."
What we're working for is having disagreements over issues that can still be talked about, discussed, shared, thought about on both sides without rigidly debating or arguing or devolving into name calling, etc. Constructive (not destructive) disagreements, let's say. Working, as you rightfully propose, to find common ground, shared values, and even build new alliances across the aisle that work together to find solutions.
The Ask/Listen/Reflect part of this work (in addition to building trust and connection) is trying to understand the nature of the disagreements -- to help us on both sides understand the ways in which we sometimes don't disagree as much as we may think we do. The Validate/Share part works to tease out those shared values and goals, as well as gently sharing why we may disagree on some parts of it.
My take is that the "each party gets something of value and each gives up something of value" applies more to the realm of actual policy making and legislating -- and that can absolutely be part of this work, especially on the local (city, county, state) level. If folks are out there working on those levels in their local government, absolutely more power to them!
But the primary focus and purpose of Smart Politics is to talk one on one with INDIVIDUALS (not so much political or governmental entities) and help both sides if not find (or perhaps shift) common ground on viewpoints, then at least, as I always say, on lowering the polarized and negative partisanship temperature on both sides.
So, if I understand you, any changes that temper the typical progressive stance would he achieved by these individuals who would have their opinions tempered by the non-progressives.
Conversely, position adjustments for the non-progressives would come from talking with the less argumentative sounding progressives following your scheme.
And finally, change would cone to the whole, and political folks would reflect common ground and compromises would be found.
Is that it?
I actually prefer a meltdown when discussing politics. It is honest and clears the air. Mostly my progressive friends just slowly start backing away once they learn I voted for Trump three times.
But on the rare occasion when I actually talk to a Trump hater, I always find it illuminating to listen carefully and respond thoughtfully, like I did on Katie Halpers podcast a few years ago. One of her callers wanted to cancel me and my voice out of the conversation.
We are defined by the company we keep.
We are also defined by the enemies we make. Last night on Katies show one of my enemies requested that she cancel me.
https://jennyhatch.substack.com/p/we-are-defined-by-the-company-we?utm_source=publication-search
Hi Jenny!
I'm very sorry about the troubles you've had with folks wanting to cancel you -- I listened to the first part of that podcast you posted, and clearly the other caller's stance is one we here at Smart Politics work to counter--I often think right now the majority of our work may need to be done with our fellow progressives, to show them why we feel exactly the sort of stance voiced in that call is not the best way forward for any of us on any side.
I've always appreciated and valued your willingness to talk to folks to the Left of your views (like myself! lol) and engage with groups like Braver Angels. You're doing a good thing, and I'm sorry that brings you some flack.
As for the meltdown part, I guess we all crave and thrive on different types of communication and engagement, lol. That's not exactly my preferred format, but then I do tend to avoid conflict, lol. I do agree a good vigorous clearing of the throat and the air can be helpful or at least feel good, as long as it's between two friends who both know they can take it and still stay connected and talking.
Thank you as always for commenting, Jenny!
Locke
Locke,
You have always been a perfect gentleman and I have enjoyed chatting with you over the years.
I have had many ugly interactions with progressives and was chased out of several chat rooms for a variety of reasons.
The young man on that call truly worked tirelessly to get me cancelled all over Callin, which made it even more ironic (and funny to me) that he himself was kicked off the site for sexually harassing women.
I know we can all do better, and I confess to using inflammatory language when trying to make certain points, but I have learned so much at Smart Politics and Braver Angels. I am determined to be a beacon of kindness if only to learn how to communicate with my own progressive children more effectively.
I am still estranged from one son and his wife and it breaks my heart.
I reposted that conversation on the Katie Halper podcast on my second Substack site last night with these words as commentary…
https://healthyfamilies.substack.com/p/the-enemies-we-make
All of this talk about a Marxist Muslim being the Mayor of New York got me thinking about the various conversations I have had with Commies over the years. I have chatted with many socialists in a variety of settings but the most memorable was with a fellow on Callin who demanded I be cancelled from all of the shows.
He was ultimately banned from the site for sexually harassing certain women, which is historically the main thing Commies want to “collectivize”.
The old Biblical injunction to not covet another man’s wife does not hold water with these dudes. They believe if they desire a woman, that should be all it takes to “seize the means of production”.
Heavenly Father gave us these rules to help us negotiate life, knowing that inequities would create varying shades of covetous thought and behavior.
The Marxists desire that all people experience the same levels of misery and starvation, except for them and their loved ones. Ayn Rand called this The Aristocracy of Pull.
The elites who deign to rule over us all with blood and horror are the people who should be chased from the marketplace of ideas, NOT cookie baking grandmas who have been gunning for medical freedom for 36 years.
Enjoy the clip from Katie’s Show. I wish I had the foresight to capture more of these chats. But this one was definitely a keeper from 2023.
Jenny Marie Hatch
Thank you for your kind words, Jenny -- like many of us, I'm always trying, working at being better at this, even if it's sometimes two steps forward and one step back, lol.
I'm very sorry about your estranged son and his wife -- I can imagine how hard and sad that is. I truly hope that whatever you're getting from SP and BA continues to help you with that situation. I obviously don't know the exact situation, but often it's both sides that need to work on lowering the temperature, but if the other person isn't, then it falls on us to be the bigger person and use whatever we learn from this work to let the other person know we have a genuine, sincere desire to repair things. Sometimes all we can do is work at being better versions of ourselves, to lower the temperature from our side, and hope that showing ourselves to be sincere and doing the work helps the other person lower their defenses.
And while I'm guessing you and I may personally differ on how we might define a Marxist or a "Commie" versus a socialist or Democratic Socialist and all the pros and cons, I can agree with you on full support for cookie-baking grandmas!
That said, I agree people can often be creepy and jerks especially when it comes to their objects of attention or desire (and yes, often online males) -- we need to work on reducing that across the political and demographic spectrum.
I'm glad you were able to save some of your Callin shows -- Karin had set that up for us back in '22 (when we met YOU!), and I had no idea Callin was going away, so we didn't save any of our podcasts.... BUT, a few months ago I realized we HAD apparently uploaded them to Spotify, and so all our old Smart Politics podcasts (only about a dozen in total) are there on Spotify, whew.
Thanks as always for commenting and sharing your perspectives with us, Jenny!
Locke
Wow. Real communicating is not done with an agenda to change minds to follow your way of thinking. Maybe through cpmmin8cation, you might learn something too..
If you are not open to the other side, it's obvious, no matter how you attempt to deceive them about your true intentions to manipulate their thinking.
What if they answered by using your steps intended to convert a on believer? How would you feel if you saw someone trying these tactics outnon you?
Hi Gary, thanks for continuing to comment on our posts--I appreciate that you find our work engaging enough (or maybe just enraging? lol) that you want to keep the conversation going with Karin and me.
I know you've raised these points with Karin in the past, and I hope you saw she wrote an entire piece a few weeks ago almost directly in response to your comments:
https://karintamerius.substack.com/p/yes-i-want-to-persuade-peopleand
As Karin would say, a lot of significant, impactful, thoughtful communication in our daily lives is done with an agenda to change something, change someone's mind, ask them to do something, request something from them, explain ourselves to them. Karin wrote about it in terms of democracy, but even if we pull back to simple daily interactions, notice how many of them are us or someone else wanting to convince the other person of something.
Karin also goes in-depth on the important differences between persuasion and manipulation, and I understand you tend to see this work as the latter not the former. But we always stress that when doing this work we do 1) remain open to the other side's ideas -- with "open" NOT equally "accepting." Someone can tell me what they believe, and I can be open and honest and curious to hear them out, but that doesn't mean I'm somehow agreeing with them.
You asked, "What if they answered by using your steps intended to convert a on believer? How would you feel if you saw someone trying these tactics out on you?"
Gary, that would be FANTASTIC! I'd gladly welcome a world in which we all talked to each other--including folks who disagree with us--using exactly these methods, on BOTH sides. Sure, it could go a little Chip N Dale ("Oh after you" "No, no after you, I insist" "I'll reflect your points" "And I'll reflect your reflection of my points"...) but I'd rather start from a place of mutual respect and curiosity then one of distrust and defensiveness.
If someone wants to convince me of their views and they do so in a compassionate, empathetic way that maintains openness and trust on BOTH sides, then I MORE than welcome that. We can still disagree, maybe neither one "wins" and magically "flips" the other person to their side, but we can have that respectful back and forth in a way that doesn't leave either of us angry and hating the "other side" and willing and able to continue the conversation onward in the future.
Smart Politics isn't some secret magic trick just for progressives to manipulate folks on the Right--we focus on teaching progressives because we're progressives and 1) we can have the most influence and impact on folks similar to us, and 2) we believe many progressives can be better, more effective communicators and persuaders. And again, "persuade" is not a dirty word -- it's what we're ALL out here trying to do on all sides. And if both sides can work at that persuasion in ways that are not only more effective but less destructive and alienating and polarizing, then yes, I would love for both sides to do that.
Thanks again for commenting!
Locke
I'm not enraged at all, sorry if you think I am.
My point is pretty simple, I see your methods as disingenuous, because you have an agenda and I believe people will see right through it.
What I am suggesting to you is different, trying to compromise rather than to get your way or nothing.
You see, that is a productive stance, not a destructive stance as it pertains to making progress.
You, Karin, and most of your commenter, do not seem to really want progress if it means compromise. I think I proved that point in my commenting convo with Seth in the post you memtion.
It's not about tactics or changing wording away from what has become laughable in today's culture.
It's about changing the whole attitude from a winner take all, ends justifying means point of view.
Karin or anyone seriously considered identifying some areas of potential agreement between left and right and working on those.
I ask you to address that point. Choose something from my prior list and think how you could come to an agreement with the other side and make progress rather that just resist everything.
If you are uninterested in making any progress on things, then just say so.
It is very clear that something like 50% of
Americans have rejected the didactic approach that you seem to be suggesting and a more open approach is necessary for progressives to regain any real say in the world that just said no to them.
Well I'm glad you're not enraged! That's a good thing! lol
Let's start with your "pretty simple" point : "I see your methods as disingenuous, because you have an agenda and I believe people will see right through it."
Good point, but I'm happy to have a conversation with a Trump voter and start it by saying,
"Hi, I'm Locke. I'm a progressive--maybe not totally Left, but a sort of Liberal Democrat with very left-leaning, progressive beliefs. I'd love to talk with you about both our beliefs, how we feel about the country right now. And if you don't mind, I'd like to start by asking you questions, really listening to your responses, maybe even repeating them back to you so I make sure I understand you and you feel heard, and then we can see if we have any common ground (I bet we do), and if you'd like, I'm happy to share with you my views on things. Does that sound okay with you?"
Yeah, that feels like a mouthful and maybe a little awkward, but I've learned in this work that awkward isn't always bad -- being honest and open, even if it sounds a bit goofy, is an ultimate good. So yeah, I'd have no problem saying that.
Gary, you also noted, "What I am suggesting to you is different, trying to compromise rather than to get your way or nothing."
Absolutely. I fully agree with you, "that is a productive stance, not a destructive stance as it pertains to making progress." Nothing in Smart Politics is against compromise--in fact, we embrace the fact that in a democracy, political compromise on policies and legislation is simply how things work and move forward, perhaps slower than we'd like ideally, but still going in the right direction. It's exactly the rise of polarization and negative partisanship that rejects political compromise that Smart Politics was created to counter. We have never ever said "our way or nothing" or in any way embraced or endorsed that attitude. Yes, some progressive folks might feel that way, but that's not what Smart Politics is about.
Does that mean compromising our ideals and values? Of course not. A political compromise should not be a philosophical compromise (unless of course, we are persuaded that parts of our philosophy are misguided, which CAN happen -- as Karin says, we have to be open to change within ourselves if we're going to be honest in this work).
You said, "It is very clear that something like 50% of Americans have rejected the didactic approach that you seem to be suggesting" -- probably more than that, given the polarized nature of our current in person and online/social media landscape. That's exactly why we're out here trying to promote and teach our approach--we feel it's better, we know most of us don't do it, but we feel more of us should.
You continued, "a more open approach is necessary for progressives to regain any real say in the world that just said no to them." 100% agree--that's the very core of what Smart Politics is trying to do. That's what all this is about :)
You said, "Choose something from my prior list and think how you could come to an agreement with the other side and make progress rather that just resist everything." I'm not sure what list you mean and I honestly don't feel like scrolling back though everything to find it -- can you repost the relevant bits? I'm happy to take a stab at it if and when I can, with the idea of, yes, how we make progress.
But also Gary, on a personal note, I appreciate your participation in this chat -- I really do! You challenge us, and I'm assuming you have a good-faith intention to understand better what we do, and how it might fit into your own approaches, even if those come from a different part of the political spectrum.
But Karin's and my ability to answer all your points and questions is going to be limited. We're happy to do what we can when we can, and we'd love for you to stay involved and engaged with us here, but I do ask for some boundaries in terms of expectations. (Which is my way of saying, sure, repost your list, and if I have time or inclination, I'll take a run at it, but no promises, lol.)
Thanks!
Hi Gary, can I ask you a question? I’ve noticed that while you adamantly oppose us persuading people about politics, you simultaneously are actively trying to persuade us that persuading people about politics is wrong. May I ask why one kind of persuasion is okay and the other isn’t? What am I missing? Thanks!
Hi Karin,
Good question, I think its very different.
I have no fixed agenda and I am not trying to persuade you no matter what you perceive.
But more importantly, I am asking you to pick out an area where some compromise can be made with the other side.
I am fine if you say none, but given your interactions so far, I'd bet there are some areas where you might agree with your opponents.
See I don't see this as opposing sides, I see this as we are all together on this boat.
It's not my opinion vs yours, it's our ability to see each other as good, well meaning people with valid points of view that do not need to be changed in order to make a compromise we both see as progress.
There is no need for persuasion or manipulation (or whatever word you want to use) in order to make a compromise.
Hmm. Okay. That helps. What I’m wondering now is what you mean by fixed agenda and how you know I have one. Since my beliefs are constantly in flux based on the best information, analysis, and expertise available to me, how can my agenda be fixed? I grant that I start from certain premises and values which are fairly persistent, but if I look back over the course of my life, my views have changed a great deal…
Well, to me you just admitted to having an agenda masquerading as not having one.
Everyone of course has their own opinions, but that's mine.
By "shading" your obvious agenda, you reveal your agenda. The slight of hand may work for magician shows, but not in discourse.
In our past interactions I believe you have stated you are an avowed progressive activist, correct?
What I am saying is that all of this is obvious, you're not fooling anyone, and that it's counterproductive to achieving what I believe are your goals, at least in part, thru a more compromising approach where you get some wins but not complete triumph as your ideology might see it.
By the way, at least part of your goals likely intersect with mine (and others), so are achievable.
In otherwords, ideological purity is performative, not productive.
As a final aside, I answer your questions, but you don't answer mine. Why do you think that is?
You’re right. I do want to persuade people. I say that in my writing and in my conversations with people who disagree with me. In my experience, the majority of folks appreciate my honesty and don’t mind that I’m trying to persuade them. What people dislike is being disrespected and told what to think—behaviors antithetical to Smart Politics. And yes, I am a progressive. Because, at this point in my life, based on everything I’ve learned, that seems like the best path forward for humanity. Is it the only path? No. Am I sure I’m right? Absolutely not. That said, I think it’s a great place to start and I encourage others to consider the merits of progressivism while I consider the merits of their views. When these conversations go well, and they almost always do, all participants leave with a better understanding of how to solve our problems together. More importantly, we part with greater appreciation and empathy for each other as human beings—something the world needs far more than better policies.
Thank you for conforming that you are a progressive activist.
My suggestion is that your tactical approach is disingenuous and that makes it impotent.
I am challenging your whole paradigm of building trust by, in my way of seeing it, trying to not to seem like you are interested in the viewpoint of your "mark" while your intent is to override their belief system.
You do not seem to be aware that things have changed and no one gives their trust away that easily any more.
We watch for evidence of subversion and, once seen, others stop listening because they are tired of being manipulated. Your method will produce the exact opposite of your stated intention, a lack of trust being enhanced once the "mark" realizes that you're not trying to communicate, but to instead, persuade them to change their beliefs.
This is simple logic.
If your goal is to make progress I think you would be much better at producing results if you instead went into communications with an approach of compromise. To find common ground that can can be the basis of agreement and compromise, rather than simply getting the other side to come over to you're way of thinking.
My suspicion is that this inflexibility results from an unconscious pledge of ideological purity that gets in the way of achieving some progress thru compromise where everyone wins, and progress occurs.
That however is suspicion and not fact.
But the fact is that the progressive side has suffered a major set back that I just don't think is due to wording or tactics.