I often find that the reasons people give for refusing to engage involve some pretty large assumptions about what those people believe and what they are like, many of which are not necessarily true. Often what is required is that we look at our own prejudices, about people who live in rural areas or people who might be too busy to pay attention to political news. We need to recognize that these people are often just trying to be good people based on the moral codes in which they were raised. We have a lot more in common with them than we realize, and we won't find out until we actually talk to them.
I suspect you're right that some of the same people who are willing (or *say* they're willing) to literally or figuratively go to the barricades, refuse this simple act of conversation. It bothers me that some of the same people who have publicly posted that they're resigned to martial law, cancelation of elections, or outright dictatorship, won't even talk to their opponents, not even about the weather or their favorite sports team or whatever.
Without necessarily holding my church up as some sort of model, I do know of at least two or three or probably more people who, most likely, did not vote as I did. But you know, I'm not even certain about that. I'm going to shun them or end our friendship or connection because they have named a MAGA supporter in some favorable context, or echoed a conservative talking point once or twice? Ours is neither a MAGA stronghold nor a progressive hotbed. Whatever else we do, we don't shun each other (or anyone) over differences of opinion. I hope it stays that way.
On that note, there is a phrase I heard in my more militant days in the late '70s, which I heard only once, but somehow it stuck. It was "middle reach". In today's terms, it means engaging the reasonable, uncommitted, *reachable* folks, independent voters, for instance. I have no proof of this, but I believe middle reach may have saved this country from becoming the absolute dictatorship many of my peers and I feared, even before Reagan was elected.
One final thought: when it comes to moderates, I want to be careful to distinguish between the ones who really are reachable, and the ones Martin Luther King warned about, who "sound" reasonable, but are always saying the timing is wrong, or balking at commitment at the last moment. Admittedly, this is hard. But unless we engage, how will we know which is which? If a wall still won't come down, then yes, draw some boundaries. And, just maybe, let someone else try engaging that same individual.
Not as many people are as totally unreachable as many of us seem to think.
First, anger can be motivating, propel you to action—but it can also be a substitute for action.
And it’s satisfying, juicy, addictive. Anger is enjoyable.
But it arises from the perception of danger. It’s an emotion, a physical response, tension. It’s an ancient tool for saving yourself from immediate physical danger.
You can make yourself angry by acting angry (try it; we used to do this in karate class, as an exercise). And you can let the anger go, by acting calm. You can observe the anger, notice how it feels, relax tense muscles, smile.
It really is a choice.
In order to change the world—and that, of course, is what this is about—we need to disarm. To dismantle the barriers between people, to establish trust.
And I can only remove my own barriers. I can’t force someone else to disarm. I can only make it feel safe.
And then I can use the sort of second order thinking that lets me enter into someone else’s reality, helps me communicate.
I have other tools for dealing with anger—but one at a time!
Good point, I draw the line at violence not dialogue. But honestly, if you are at a protest, it is hard to have a dialogue, and Trumpers love to trigger people at protests. Among family, yes (although none of my family are Trumpers, but some are apathetic) among individuals yes, and I also usually listen more than discuss and definitely do not argue.
I’m a lawyer who enjoys arguing, but ever since 2015 suddenly my discussions with conservatives felt pointless and circular
In law school, I remember finding smart conservatives who would argue their political and legal perspectives. I wouldn’t always agree, but I found myself learning from them.
But ever since Trump came down that escalator, suddenly I find these conversations to be really exhausting. And yes, pointless.
When I moved to Oklahoma City from California, the first thing I was asked by a local was why did California make it legal to give people aids. California did not in fact, make it legal to give people aids, it’s just nonsense they read on the Internet somewhere.
In a just world, a person being corrected with misinformation would respond “ Wow. I got that one wrong. So wrong. This is embarrassing. I should reevaluate my news sources if I get things this wrong.”
But that’s not what my Oklahoma experience was. My Oklahoma experience was two years of engaging in good faith conversations with people more conservative than I, me citing sources that explain why the things they say, are factually in accurate, and the response being “ That’s just your opinion” or “ agree to disagree.”
I remember, I reached a point where I decided it just felt pointless when I asked somebody with whom I developed a friendship to imagine that I am coming to the debate in good faith, and that as a lawyer perhaps I know how to argue the law and statutory interpretation better than he does as a person with no legal training. He said essentially that nobody knows more than anyone else, there’s no such thing as expertise, and nobody can ever know anything for sure.
(how do you have conversations with people who think like that? What possible progress is made?)
A lot of my argument bias comes from being a litigator, and understanding what evidence is admissible and reliable, and what evidence is not. In court, you typically win if you introduce the best evidence, and make the best argument.
But in the real world, nobody is deemed to know anything more than anyone else, and no matter what good evidence You present to someone they typically aren’t going to admit you are correct, or change anything about themselves.
That’s not to say that every political thought I’ve ever had has been correct. It’s just the way MAGA conservatives have debated me in the past, have always felt like a waste of time, because nobody seems to learn anything, all expertise is treated as subjective, and they don’t believe any source I cite
So based on experience I have reluctantly become increasingly of the view that I would rather reach out to the tens of millions of people who didn’t vote (folks who are blank slates), then try to convert a MAGA conservative to my point of view. Even just having a pleasant conversation about things feels like we don’t get anywhere or leave with new understanding of each other
Instead, as you note in your piece, it feels increasingly like I am the only one who’s required to bend over backwards to understand the other side, the latter of whom feels absolutely zero obligation to understand me
I would like to know why the view point that these dialogues are going nowhere is mistaken
People who are seeking to organize others for the greater good need to convince people to trust each other and work together. People who are seeking to get other people to just leave them alone actually benefit from being somewhat unpleasant and sowing distrust. This is, for instance, why Republicans can threaten government shutdowns to get their way while Democrats can't. This is why you have to bend over backwards, and the other side doesn't.
Of course, one could always factor this dynamic into their political opinions in the first place, and see it as a reason to be more libertarian and less socialist. But if you're gonna lean left, yes, the tactics for effective persuasion are going to be very different than those on the right.
Anyway, irreconcilable political differences are a great reason not to talk about politics! It's only when you turn them into an excuse not to talk at all that you're actually actively sabotaging left-wing political aims. Talk about something else. Any pleasant communication increases trust, and increased trust serves left-wing aims. Otherwise, it should be obvious common sense that the people you excommunicate entirely are not going to support you politically.
I get along very well with the Oklahoma folks as long as we just don’t talk politics.
The one benefit I can say to that is before me it sounds like a lot of them have never met a non conservative person IRL who can talk to them about things without screaming at them as they encounter folks doing online
So to that extent I suppose it bridges a small amount of gap, even if we never agree on anything
Based on the title I thought this article might be about restoring limits on executive power, or holding genuinely competitive primaries, or allowing for a wider range of views within your coalition. But yeah I guess talking is a good place to start.
I have offered conversation on several topics, and been told, no, I don't want to talk with you about that. Climate change. Project 2025. Even “how we might have difficult conversations.” Even when I pledge to listen. Nope, not having it. There is no trust. They are afraid. Of what, I'm not exactly sure. Of being called racist? Of finding out they're wrong about science? I won't call them names, and I won't tell them what to think. I will ask them to think, though. Maybe that's the problem!
In a comment exchange to today's Morning Shots newsletter from The Bulwark, I made the comment below in reply to someone who had condemned all of the members of the 49.8% of presidential electors who cast their votes for 45th/47th as being "on board" with all of the transgressions we are witnessing:
*****A horrifyingly large proportion of the 49.8% of those who voted on the presidential line and cast their votes for him did so in the positive expectation that he would do exactly as he is doing.
Not all of them, though. And I make this observation not to be nitpicky or overly polite but rather in the interest of reaching and turning against him as many as we can.
Extreme MAGA is a deathly threat to our Constitutional republic. Let's isolate extreme MAGA by generating the biggest oppositional coalition possible.*****
.
That said, I have been having my own struggles interacting with a fellow leader of Braver Angels whose disregard for the importance of due process (he takes the Stephen Miller/J.D. Vance line) and stubborn adherence to lies (he reproaches me for correcting the record and then continues with the lies) are, frankly, repellent to me.
This is no stranger. We otherwise have a warm relationship and a shared commitment to depolarizing America. And yet, engagement with him does seem pointless.
Unfortunately, conversation and persuasion often does not work on individuals who have been brainwashed by a cult, sworn allegiance to an ideology, or radicalized by their leaders (and MAGA is a bit of all three). That is a commonly observed barrier to engaging individuals who have been "programmed" - and de-programming those individuals takes a tremendous amount of time and effort. Do the rest of us have enough of that time and effort to devote to MAGA? Or should we instead put our time and effort into saving our democracy via the easier course which is disempowering MAGA rather than de-radicalizing them? I believe the latter is the best bet. Yes, let's come back for these unfortunate, fellow Americans when the danger to our country has passed; then we can work on dialogue and not write them off as a lost cause. But for now, we shouldn't be trying to save MAGA from themselves via calm discussion; instead, we should be trying to save the innocent people who MAGA fanatics persecute.
We share this conclusion. I engaged in dialogue with a good friend for 5 years, watching him
Become more and more radicalized into MAGA. It was exhausting. When I started seeing people experiencing real harm after the inauguration 2.0, in my family and friends, I became very clear that I needed to preserve my time fighting for them, that I would have spent fruitlessly engaging in dialogue with my friend—such as him insisting that I review DJT’s speech about Charlottesville because “it proves he’s not really a racist.” Five years of earnest engagement. Five years of epistemic conflict and lack of common agreement even regarding what information is believable. I ended the friendship in February 2025. I’m not saying it wasn’t tragic, but I blame MAGA for destroying it.
I don’t go around quoting Jesus much, but he said, “let the dead bury their own dead.” And that’s the decision I made.
Progressives in my state, Wisconsin, have been able to make somewhat of a comeback by running candidates that speak to people's concerns. They have not been wasting time demonizing mainstream conservatives. We just had a second progressive judge win a seat on the state supreme court, Judge Susan Crawford. This gives the court a 4-3 majority for progressives. I'll admit that I voted for her opponent, the conservative, but I'll give credit where credit is due. She pointed out Elon Musk's involvement in the race and all of the money he dumped in it. Democrats raised a TON of money from smaller donors. Because of the strong Democratic debate points and good candidates, I had ZERO motivation to donate or volunteer. The Result? Judge Crawford beat him out by 10% points. There is another retirement on the court and another race. If the progressives use "Smart Politics," they will decisively win a 5-2 majority on the court. We conservatives may have to adapt to progressive change whether we like it or not, lol.. Lastly, Democrats have also defeated the GOP's supermajority with the new and fairer district maps.
Yes! I think many Democrats somewhere along the way, have forgotten how to simply talk to real people about real problems. That’s what I appreciate so much about Pete Buttigieg. He seems better able to connect with people. He’s a brilliant intellectual, but he communicates with genuine humility and concern. Definitely the path we need to learn to walk as a party.
With all respect, I’m weary of the lumping together of “progressives,” as you’ve done here, along with another criticism of what seems to be the thing we are all doing -wrong.
There are plenty of ways to resist. Plenty of ways to take action. Lots of good reasons many of us don’t spend our time seeking out T supporters to talk to them.
I’ve generally found your work to be thought-provoking and helpful but in the current climate, in which there’s already so much to navigate to not fall into fear and despair, I skim this article and sense that the unsubscribe is coming soon.
I often find that the reasons people give for refusing to engage involve some pretty large assumptions about what those people believe and what they are like, many of which are not necessarily true. Often what is required is that we look at our own prejudices, about people who live in rural areas or people who might be too busy to pay attention to political news. We need to recognize that these people are often just trying to be good people based on the moral codes in which they were raised. We have a lot more in common with them than we realize, and we won't find out until we actually talk to them.
Exactly!
I suspect you're right that some of the same people who are willing (or *say* they're willing) to literally or figuratively go to the barricades, refuse this simple act of conversation. It bothers me that some of the same people who have publicly posted that they're resigned to martial law, cancelation of elections, or outright dictatorship, won't even talk to their opponents, not even about the weather or their favorite sports team or whatever.
Without necessarily holding my church up as some sort of model, I do know of at least two or three or probably more people who, most likely, did not vote as I did. But you know, I'm not even certain about that. I'm going to shun them or end our friendship or connection because they have named a MAGA supporter in some favorable context, or echoed a conservative talking point once or twice? Ours is neither a MAGA stronghold nor a progressive hotbed. Whatever else we do, we don't shun each other (or anyone) over differences of opinion. I hope it stays that way.
On that note, there is a phrase I heard in my more militant days in the late '70s, which I heard only once, but somehow it stuck. It was "middle reach". In today's terms, it means engaging the reasonable, uncommitted, *reachable* folks, independent voters, for instance. I have no proof of this, but I believe middle reach may have saved this country from becoming the absolute dictatorship many of my peers and I feared, even before Reagan was elected.
One final thought: when it comes to moderates, I want to be careful to distinguish between the ones who really are reachable, and the ones Martin Luther King warned about, who "sound" reasonable, but are always saying the timing is wrong, or balking at commitment at the last moment. Admittedly, this is hard. But unless we engage, how will we know which is which? If a wall still won't come down, then yes, draw some boundaries. And, just maybe, let someone else try engaging that same individual.
Not as many people are as totally unreachable as many of us seem to think.
What to do with your anger?
First, anger can be motivating, propel you to action—but it can also be a substitute for action.
And it’s satisfying, juicy, addictive. Anger is enjoyable.
But it arises from the perception of danger. It’s an emotion, a physical response, tension. It’s an ancient tool for saving yourself from immediate physical danger.
You can make yourself angry by acting angry (try it; we used to do this in karate class, as an exercise). And you can let the anger go, by acting calm. You can observe the anger, notice how it feels, relax tense muscles, smile.
It really is a choice.
In order to change the world—and that, of course, is what this is about—we need to disarm. To dismantle the barriers between people, to establish trust.
And I can only remove my own barriers. I can’t force someone else to disarm. I can only make it feel safe.
And then I can use the sort of second order thinking that lets me enter into someone else’s reality, helps me communicate.
I have other tools for dealing with anger—but one at a time!
Thanks for these posts.
Good point, I draw the line at violence not dialogue. But honestly, if you are at a protest, it is hard to have a dialogue, and Trumpers love to trigger people at protests. Among family, yes (although none of my family are Trumpers, but some are apathetic) among individuals yes, and I also usually listen more than discuss and definitely do not argue.
I’m a lawyer who enjoys arguing, but ever since 2015 suddenly my discussions with conservatives felt pointless and circular
In law school, I remember finding smart conservatives who would argue their political and legal perspectives. I wouldn’t always agree, but I found myself learning from them.
But ever since Trump came down that escalator, suddenly I find these conversations to be really exhausting. And yes, pointless.
When I moved to Oklahoma City from California, the first thing I was asked by a local was why did California make it legal to give people aids. California did not in fact, make it legal to give people aids, it’s just nonsense they read on the Internet somewhere.
In a just world, a person being corrected with misinformation would respond “ Wow. I got that one wrong. So wrong. This is embarrassing. I should reevaluate my news sources if I get things this wrong.”
But that’s not what my Oklahoma experience was. My Oklahoma experience was two years of engaging in good faith conversations with people more conservative than I, me citing sources that explain why the things they say, are factually in accurate, and the response being “ That’s just your opinion” or “ agree to disagree.”
I remember, I reached a point where I decided it just felt pointless when I asked somebody with whom I developed a friendship to imagine that I am coming to the debate in good faith, and that as a lawyer perhaps I know how to argue the law and statutory interpretation better than he does as a person with no legal training. He said essentially that nobody knows more than anyone else, there’s no such thing as expertise, and nobody can ever know anything for sure.
(how do you have conversations with people who think like that? What possible progress is made?)
A lot of my argument bias comes from being a litigator, and understanding what evidence is admissible and reliable, and what evidence is not. In court, you typically win if you introduce the best evidence, and make the best argument.
But in the real world, nobody is deemed to know anything more than anyone else, and no matter what good evidence You present to someone they typically aren’t going to admit you are correct, or change anything about themselves.
That’s not to say that every political thought I’ve ever had has been correct. It’s just the way MAGA conservatives have debated me in the past, have always felt like a waste of time, because nobody seems to learn anything, all expertise is treated as subjective, and they don’t believe any source I cite
So based on experience I have reluctantly become increasingly of the view that I would rather reach out to the tens of millions of people who didn’t vote (folks who are blank slates), then try to convert a MAGA conservative to my point of view. Even just having a pleasant conversation about things feels like we don’t get anywhere or leave with new understanding of each other
Instead, as you note in your piece, it feels increasingly like I am the only one who’s required to bend over backwards to understand the other side, the latter of whom feels absolutely zero obligation to understand me
I would like to know why the view point that these dialogues are going nowhere is mistaken
People who are seeking to organize others for the greater good need to convince people to trust each other and work together. People who are seeking to get other people to just leave them alone actually benefit from being somewhat unpleasant and sowing distrust. This is, for instance, why Republicans can threaten government shutdowns to get their way while Democrats can't. This is why you have to bend over backwards, and the other side doesn't.
Of course, one could always factor this dynamic into their political opinions in the first place, and see it as a reason to be more libertarian and less socialist. But if you're gonna lean left, yes, the tactics for effective persuasion are going to be very different than those on the right.
Anyway, irreconcilable political differences are a great reason not to talk about politics! It's only when you turn them into an excuse not to talk at all that you're actually actively sabotaging left-wing political aims. Talk about something else. Any pleasant communication increases trust, and increased trust serves left-wing aims. Otherwise, it should be obvious common sense that the people you excommunicate entirely are not going to support you politically.
I get along very well with the Oklahoma folks as long as we just don’t talk politics.
The one benefit I can say to that is before me it sounds like a lot of them have never met a non conservative person IRL who can talk to them about things without screaming at them as they encounter folks doing online
So to that extent I suppose it bridges a small amount of gap, even if we never agree on anything
Based on the title I thought this article might be about restoring limits on executive power, or holding genuinely competitive primaries, or allowing for a wider range of views within your coalition. But yeah I guess talking is a good place to start.
I have offered conversation on several topics, and been told, no, I don't want to talk with you about that. Climate change. Project 2025. Even “how we might have difficult conversations.” Even when I pledge to listen. Nope, not having it. There is no trust. They are afraid. Of what, I'm not exactly sure. Of being called racist? Of finding out they're wrong about science? I won't call them names, and I won't tell them what to think. I will ask them to think, though. Maybe that's the problem!
In a comment exchange to today's Morning Shots newsletter from The Bulwark, I made the comment below in reply to someone who had condemned all of the members of the 49.8% of presidential electors who cast their votes for 45th/47th as being "on board" with all of the transgressions we are witnessing:
*****A horrifyingly large proportion of the 49.8% of those who voted on the presidential line and cast their votes for him did so in the positive expectation that he would do exactly as he is doing.
Not all of them, though. And I make this observation not to be nitpicky or overly polite but rather in the interest of reaching and turning against him as many as we can.
Extreme MAGA is a deathly threat to our Constitutional republic. Let's isolate extreme MAGA by generating the biggest oppositional coalition possible.*****
.
That said, I have been having my own struggles interacting with a fellow leader of Braver Angels whose disregard for the importance of due process (he takes the Stephen Miller/J.D. Vance line) and stubborn adherence to lies (he reproaches me for correcting the record and then continues with the lies) are, frankly, repellent to me.
This is no stranger. We otherwise have a warm relationship and a shared commitment to depolarizing America. And yet, engagement with him does seem pointless.
I am in a quandary.
Unfortunately, conversation and persuasion often does not work on individuals who have been brainwashed by a cult, sworn allegiance to an ideology, or radicalized by their leaders (and MAGA is a bit of all three). That is a commonly observed barrier to engaging individuals who have been "programmed" - and de-programming those individuals takes a tremendous amount of time and effort. Do the rest of us have enough of that time and effort to devote to MAGA? Or should we instead put our time and effort into saving our democracy via the easier course which is disempowering MAGA rather than de-radicalizing them? I believe the latter is the best bet. Yes, let's come back for these unfortunate, fellow Americans when the danger to our country has passed; then we can work on dialogue and not write them off as a lost cause. But for now, we shouldn't be trying to save MAGA from themselves via calm discussion; instead, we should be trying to save the innocent people who MAGA fanatics persecute.
We share this conclusion. I engaged in dialogue with a good friend for 5 years, watching him
Become more and more radicalized into MAGA. It was exhausting. When I started seeing people experiencing real harm after the inauguration 2.0, in my family and friends, I became very clear that I needed to preserve my time fighting for them, that I would have spent fruitlessly engaging in dialogue with my friend—such as him insisting that I review DJT’s speech about Charlottesville because “it proves he’s not really a racist.” Five years of earnest engagement. Five years of epistemic conflict and lack of common agreement even regarding what information is believable. I ended the friendship in February 2025. I’m not saying it wasn’t tragic, but I blame MAGA for destroying it.
I don’t go around quoting Jesus much, but he said, “let the dead bury their own dead.” And that’s the decision I made.
Progressives in my state, Wisconsin, have been able to make somewhat of a comeback by running candidates that speak to people's concerns. They have not been wasting time demonizing mainstream conservatives. We just had a second progressive judge win a seat on the state supreme court, Judge Susan Crawford. This gives the court a 4-3 majority for progressives. I'll admit that I voted for her opponent, the conservative, but I'll give credit where credit is due. She pointed out Elon Musk's involvement in the race and all of the money he dumped in it. Democrats raised a TON of money from smaller donors. Because of the strong Democratic debate points and good candidates, I had ZERO motivation to donate or volunteer. The Result? Judge Crawford beat him out by 10% points. There is another retirement on the court and another race. If the progressives use "Smart Politics," they will decisively win a 5-2 majority on the court. We conservatives may have to adapt to progressive change whether we like it or not, lol.. Lastly, Democrats have also defeated the GOP's supermajority with the new and fairer district maps.
Yes! I think many Democrats somewhere along the way, have forgotten how to simply talk to real people about real problems. That’s what I appreciate so much about Pete Buttigieg. He seems better able to connect with people. He’s a brilliant intellectual, but he communicates with genuine humility and concern. Definitely the path we need to learn to walk as a party.
With all respect, I’m weary of the lumping together of “progressives,” as you’ve done here, along with another criticism of what seems to be the thing we are all doing -wrong.
There are plenty of ways to resist. Plenty of ways to take action. Lots of good reasons many of us don’t spend our time seeking out T supporters to talk to them.
I’ve generally found your work to be thought-provoking and helpful but in the current climate, in which there’s already so much to navigate to not fall into fear and despair, I skim this article and sense that the unsubscribe is coming soon.
Disappointing.