Trump Voters Trust Us More When They Feel Heard
So, how do we get better at listening?
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 step, Ask.
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 Two of the Persuasion Conversation Cycle: LISTEN
Last month we discussed the first step of the Persuasion Conversation Cycle, Ask, and I suggested if we want to know what Trump voters are thinking, why they believe and vote as they do, then we need to ask them.
Of course, that’s a good start, but it’s not enough—we also need to truly listen to their answers.
When we look at the Persuasion Conversation Cycle, we may think of Listening as more “passive,” even, “easier” than the other steps. Most of us think we’re decent listeners. “I listen all the time!” we tell ourselves—after all, we just have to sit back and keep our mouths shut for a bit, right? We may have learned to share speaking time, not interrupt too much, and give encouraging, non-verbal cues.
But in political conversations, are we actively paying attention and processing what the other person says? Some of you genuinely are good listeners—you pay close attention, put aside your own thoughts and opinions and stories for a moment, and really lock into what the other person is saying. You’re my inspiration and goals! But for many of the rest of us—myself included when I’m not fully present and locked-in—listening tends to be performative rather than communicative.
Often deep down we’re not particularly interested in what Trump voters think—we assume we already know. And, to the extent we do listen, it’s usually only to rebut what they say, not understand where they’re coming from. Too often, we’re going through the motions of hearing them out while taking turns talking, holding our tongue for a few minutes until we can get back to preaching. This sort of faux listening doesn’t work for political connection or persuasion.
Of course, listening shouldn’t be passive. When we truly listen carefully, actively—not to respond, but to better understand—then everything else in the Cycle becomes clearer and more effective. This stage of the conversation is where we really remind ourselves to focus on them, not us. We want to better understand them, which often means letting them talk and take the conversation wherever they want it to go, while we—yes—listen attentively to what they’re saying, rather than thinking ahead to what we want to say.
Listening carefully and calmly can be challenging if what someone says contradicts our most cherished beliefs, sounds irrational, or includes false information, but overcoming that challenge by managing our emotions is key to genuine listening.
How To Be a Better Listener
In Smart Politics, it’s important to give as much talking time as possible to the other person. Unless they’re actively seeking your opinion, let them have 80% or more of the conversation—if you’re speaking more than 20% of the time, you’re probably not letting them fully express themselves.
Yes, they may say things we disagree with, even things that deeply upset us, but we should remind ourselves that especially at the outset of the conversation, we’re here to understand them, not express our own disagreements with what they say. If we’ve developed a lot of bad “faux listening” habits over the years, this takes time and effort and practice. We’re once again trying to break bad habits we may have reinforced all our lives.
What We Listen For
● Explicit content: Their words and meaning. What are they saying they want and why? We may find ourselves struggling to understand what the other person is talking about—they might be mentioning unfamiliar concepts, working with a different set of assumptions, or using familiar words differently. What do specific, often loaded words and terms mean to them and is it different from how we use those words? (Some examples: corruption, justice, freedom, equality, safety, accountability, transparency.)
If we’re genuinely confused, we can ask them to clarify until we understand what they mean. But we should be careful to differentiate between confusion because we disagree with their argument and confusion because we don’t understand their argument. We already know we probably disagree on some things (but may find we agree on more than we think)—so our primary work is to understand.
● Implicit content: Things that are there, but unspoken, such as values and goals. If they’re talking about immigration in terms of crime, that points at safety as a deep value. If they complain about the social safety net helping people who don’t “deserve” it, maybe fairness is important to them.
Remember, teasing out those values doesn’t mean we fully endorse them as accurate or valid—they may not even be the real reason they believe something, but rather what sociologist Arlie Hochschild calls a “deep story,”1 their narrative for what they feel is going on and happening to them and their lives, their pursuit of happiness and the American Dream.
You might be tempted to think, “Well, the real reason they feel this way is racism, or greed, or sexism,” and maybe there’s some truth to that at the core, but at this stage, we want to understand why they think they feel a certain way—the Deep Story they’re telling themselves. We’re also listening for places where our general values and goals overlap—something that happens much more than we may assume.
● Emotions: Their feelings about the subject. This is the most important part. As they share their views with us, perhaps passionately, something is driving them to feel strongly about the issue. Is it fear? Is it frustration curdling into anger? Is it shame or doubt? Much of our Smart Politics work revolves around understanding that emotions, not logic or reason, are usually driving us and our beliefs—people often adapt and add on those layers of reason and logic later, to rationalize or justify and shore up what are primarily emotional reactions.
We’ve said before that rather than approaching these conversations as preachers, prosecutors, or politicians, we should think of ourselves as scientists, perhaps anthropologists or even doctors: We are here to pay attention to the other person and learn and understand. In that framing, when we’re listening, we’re taking field notes and drawing mental maps. We’re charting territories and doing so with minimal emotional investment at this stage. We don’t judge what the other person says, and we manage our reactance when they say something we find upsetting, wrong, or disagreeable. We simply, calmly take what they say as data, as information to be mapped—we aim for less “Oh my god,” and more, “Ah, okay, I see.”
That can take some practice at compartmentalizing—hearing what they say, noting it (mentally or literally jotting it down—see below), and if it’s emotionally triggering to us, setting it to the side for now so it doesn’t get in the way of our conversation. Reframe it as an observation, not a provocation.
What We Try to Avoid
● Making assumptions: Refrain from filling gaps in our understanding with assumptions and stereotypes, especially negative ones. If we find ourselves jumping ahead to “knowing” why they believe what they believe, that’s a good time to pause and make a mental note to ask them about it later—we need examine and question as many of our assumptions as possible.
● Passing judgment: Quiet the voices in your head telling you the other person is wrong. Yes, those voices are there—sometimes louder than we can easily ignore. We need to work on compartmentalizing them, setting them aside, and reminding ourselves that at this point, we’re here to listen to the other person, not ourselves. That doesn’t dismiss or invalidate our disagreements with them, it’s just a reminder that right now—while listening—is not the time to center them.
● Preparing a rebuttal: Avoid mentally keeping a running list of counter arguments. This one is really challenging to many of us. As I’ll explain later, I find that if I jot down my rebuttals as they pop up, it defuses their immediate energy—the need to say something in response or start throwing around facts, figures, and sources becomes much less pressing. We’ll craft our points later in the conversation as part of a “share” rather than a debate rebuttal.
● Planning what we’re going to say next: Instead of mentally rehearsing our next comment, we should keep our full attention on the other person. This gets easier with practice. We've all had those moments where we forgot what we wanted to say once it was finally our turn—but over time, we learn that much of what feels urgent in the moment often isn’t that important in hindsight.
As we get more comfortable with active listening, we become better at setting aside our own thoughts and trusting that we’ll remember what really matters. Often, what we felt we had to say turns out to be less relevant later. We feel an impulse to jump in? Let’s let it pass—we’ll likely realize it wasn’t as essential as it seemed.
If we’ve spent most of our lives listening to respond, shifting to listening to understand can be tough—but that’s okay. The more we do it, the more natural it becomes. Once we've truly heard the other person, we can reflect back what we believe they said before moving forward.
With practice, we find we don’t need to respond to everything. As we learn to really listen, our minds stay focused on the speaker, not our future replies. We grow confident that we’ll know what to say when the time comes.
A NOTE ON NOTETAKING
Early on, it can help to take notes—especially during phone or video calls. We can jot down key points and any thoughts or responses we want to remember. In person, this is more delicate; taking notes might make the other person feel self-conscious—we don’t want them to feel like we’re “studying” them. Of course, we can always ask, “Do you mind if I take a few notes as we speak? It can help me better listen and understand.” Otherwise, we can learn to mentally bookmark thoughts without losing focus. That’s not easy, but like anything else, it gets easier with practice.
When we feel compelled to speak, we can try writing our reactive thoughts down instead. Our brains often treat writing as a substitute for speaking—jotting down a note often feels the same as saying it out loud, even if it ultimately goes unshared. It satisfies the urge, takes the heat and energy out of our burning need to reply, and allows us to stay present and keep listening.
As we’re learning to do this work, notetaking can help us compartmentalize reactive emotions and manage our impulse to jump in. Over time, it also teaches us how little we need to respond to everything. The more we practice, the more we realize thoughtful listening matters more than immediate replies.
For some of us, notetaking itself becomes a way to slowly wean ourselves off incessant notetaking—taking notes during conversations, when appropriate, if only to help us grow past needing them.
Now that we’re listening better, we can reinforce trust and connection with the other person by working to Reflect what we think we heard them say. In an upcoming piece, I’ll take a look at the next step on the Cycle: Reflect.
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.
I’m forever recommending Hochschild’s fantastic 2016 book Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right, where she lays out the Deep Story framing through the lens of Tea Party Louisianans—as well as her recent follow-up, 2024’s Stolen Pride: Loss, Shame, and the Rise of the Right, focused on an Appalachian Kentucky mining community.