How to Talk Politics
Knowing how to think is as important as knowing how to talk
Every discussion has a purpose. Whether it is a debate, an argument, a conversation, forum, or a one-on-one-heart-to-heart, talking is supposed to achieve a goal. However, most of the conversations we engage in, on a daily basis, are riddled with psychological snares and traps that serve to undermine the conversation’s intended purpose. In other words, whatever the intention of the discussion is, often it doesn’t happen, because we easily get derailed by drama. This is even more true when talking politics.
By understanding the ways our minds work — regardless of political leanings — and having a few techniques at hand, talking politics with someone who doesn’t agree with you can be an illuminating, fruitful, productive event you will both remember positively.
To be sure, some people, when talking politics, may actually have the goal of derailing whatever purpose you may have, and they may use drama to trigger it. This is called “modern political discourse”. It is why talking heads on t.v. run out of time with no resolution, it is why “both sides do it” wins out in a discussion (when the sides are grotesquely unequal), and it is why nearly every political discussion results in the participants feeling worse.
The sad truth is, even if you really want a resolution, a coming-together, world peace and harmony, etc, from a discussion, you too harbor a secret desire to undermine the conversation. There are many psychological textbooks related to why that’s true, and many personal reasons. But the key here is to know that there is always at least one person with a hidden agenda to achieve zero progress in a conversation, and that one person is you.
Wait, what am I saying? Yes — a first lesson in talking politics is to approach it with the understanding that, “I, myself, may undermine my own intentions to have a good result here.”
Let’s lay out just a couple key reasons why you would want to unconsciously sabotage a political discussion, so you can see if either somehow rings true:
1. Change is uncomfortable
Let’s start with this: people don’t like pain. Our inherent desire to avoid pain is so great, we often choose to also avoid slight discomfort. Avoiding discomfort keeps us safe, but it also prevents change. The purpose of a conversation is always to change something — someone else’s view, or challenge your own beliefs, or to grow in understanding. Talking affects change. It’s easy to mistake discomfort for pain. It’s easy to mistake the threat of disagreement as a threat of pain. This results in someone avoiding confrontation, and thus claiming about themselves, “I’m not a confrontational person.”
There are a couple problems with avoiding discomfort. For instance, the longer you avoid small problems, the bigger everything feels. We live in a culture that not only affords most people to avoid every discomfort, it also allows them to exist quite easily without much contact with others. In this culture of conveniences and virtual living, it is more common than ever to become an agoraphobic recluse, or the more mild form: “not a confrontational person”.
The other problem with avoiding discomfort is that problems do not go away and get worse. If you avoid confrontation, you withhold grievances. Feelings get bottled up, and accumulate. The desire for confrontation also does not diminish, and the reasons to avoid confrontation grow as well.
In summary, expect that you would attempt to sabotage your own political discussion because you want to avoid uncomfortable feelings. You may also want to avoid having someone else feel uncomfortable, because you know how awful it feels when it happens to you. Avoiding feelings is a common, and completely hidden, reason to quickly end a political argument.
2. A challenged belief feels like a personal attack
Personal beliefs are a minefield, and they are a roadblock to all political discussions. Understanding how to deal with someone else’s opinions starts with understanding the nature of beliefs, and how they work in the mind.
A belief is a fixed definition in the mind that allows us to navigate through the world quickly; when you’ve made up your mind on a subject, you don’t have to think about it anymore. In this way, it is a shortcut, allowing your brainpower to focus on to parts of your life that are not resolved and need attention. Your worldview is obviously different if your belief is people are generally trustworthy, or if it is trust no one. Both are shortcuts, fixing the mind into an operating mode.
It’s common wisdom that no one likes to hear from someone else that what they believe is wrong. Not only do beliefs have a self-preserving quality, they generally snuggle up next to our sense of self — ultimately, beliefs about “who I am” are indistinguishable from other beliefs: religious, political, the meaning of life, how things work. It could be said that an “identity” is simply a cluster of beliefs we use to define ourselves. So when someone challenges what you believe, it feels like they are challenging You personally.
Again, our modern culture enables this dynamic. For years, we have been told to respect the beliefs of others, and have been trained to quickly end a discussion by simply claiming “well, that’s just what I believe.” We are a culture, then, of unchallenged beliefs… perhaps to avoid uncomfortable feelings? Take that to its extreme, and you have a society where everyone is allowed — and encouraged — to believe anything they want, even if it is ridiculous. Sound familiar?
The problem with beliefs, when it comes to political discussion, is that beliefs are, by definition, close-minded (remember: they enable you to not-have-to-think about something). If your whole identity and most of your daily life is based on a cluster of beliefs, which are just no-thought shortcuts, then you really aren’t thinking about much at all. By consequence, you are largely closed-minded.
Before you consider that I’m referring to closed-minded people and not you, dear reader, let me make the point more clear: You are largely closed-minded. We all are. We have to be.
If we had to question most things most of the time, we couldn’t do all the things we have to do. For example, imagine driving a car without beliefs. Imagine doing your job without beliefs. Imagine brushing your teeth, putting on clothing, walking down the street, without all the shortcuts to understanding that beliefs provide. So in order to talk politics more effectively, give yourself a break — and most of all, know it to be true: you and your debate partner are both accustomed to avoiding having an open minds, as though your very lives depended on it. Having your beliefs challenged feels like death.
Directing attacks against a person rather than their position, in traditional debate terms, is called ad hominem. It is not allowed… in traditional debates… but most political discussions are, let’s face it, street-fight versions, where no holds are barred, and no rules are discussed. Meanwhile, a person whose beliefs that are wound up with his or her identity (just about everyone) will perceive any challenge as ad hominem and react to it as such. This is a drama trap waiting to happen — and it will happen to you. Be ready for it.
When the above two factors combine, you’re going to have a screaming match on your hands within no time, or the whole operation is going to be abandoned and you will quickly “agree to disagree.” You (or they) will feel personally threatened, you (or they) will avoid feeling something, and all the energy will accumulate.
It’s important to recognize that an energetic reality taking place: Emotions are getting stirred, and the expression of those emotions is being resisted by everyone involved. Heart rates rise, ways of life are put at risk, tears form, voices get louder, breath becomes uneven. We don’t dare admit that we are feeling things, because that allows those feelings to be felt, and we won’t know what to do when that happens. We will be vulnerable. We will show weakness, and when that happens, then the real attacks will begin.The emotional energy in a political discussion is easily “kinked”, like a firehose being stepped on: It’s gotta go somewhere, but it’s not going to come out from the intended place, and it’s not going to come out smoothly.
If this feels true, then I have some good news: there is another way to talk politics. The bad news is, there’s no real shortcut around the minefield. You are going to feel feelings, and you are going to feel threatened. You are going to feel energy rise, and you are going to want to sabotage the conversation. The key will be to notice more quickly that the above stuff is happening, and employ some helpful techniques to get out of it.
Technique 1: Question everything
A political discussion is actually the best time to ask questions, and it is amazing how few questions actually get asked (or answered) when you listen to one. Even expert pundits easily forget that questions are the prime way to spar and win in politics — but an amateur debate field has made winning possible without asking questions for a very long time.
Think about it this way: the reason you are engaging in a discussion is because some problem needs to be resolved. That means all the information you have so far — your entire cluster of beliefs — is actually insufficient to address the problem. So your “closed” mind needs to step aside and make way for your “open” one.
But wait… won’t I become vulnerable when I open my mind up to questions? See Technique 2.
But wait… won’t I bring my own position into question by questioning everything? Keep reading.
It sounds completely counter-intuitive, if you like to have the upper hand in a discussion, ask questions, and don’t defend your position.
You are not likely to change someone’s mind by saying something clever, but you may open someone’s mind by asking a question.
Consider that when you suddenly find yourself talking politics, you are not prepared at all. You don’t have a handy fact sheet, you don’t have many prepared remarks, and you don’t know what is going to get thrown your way. What a better way to be unprepared than to open up the whole thing to questions you don’t need to know the answers to!
Know that your opponent is already questioning your beliefs, and you are questioning theirs. He or she is expecting you to firmly defend your position, and has probably prepared for you to do so. Most of your opponents really good stuff is probably based on you unquestioningly defending your position. By questioning the situation, regardless of what side is being questioned, you suddenly put yourself on the same side of the table as them, and suddenly you are looking at the problem together. They have not prepared for this, but will agree to the shift, because they think they have the advantage. They do not. They will find themselves in unfamiliar territory, armed with weapons that will not apply.
Statements don’t get you much. Face it: you are not likely to change someone’s mind by saying something clever, but you may open someone’s mind by asking a question.
When you ask a question, you imply that an answer is being requested. If your opponent has prepared for only rebutting to statements, they may make the mistake of directly trying to answer your question. I say “mistake,” because if you watch enough pundits, you may notice the really skilled ones rarely answer a direct question. Your opponent may very well be skilled and avoid directly answering questions. That is why questions you come up with should be genuinely curious about the underlying problem, rather than just trying to catch them off guard. An example of this type of question is, “Why is abortion currently legal?” Even if you have a set answer, why not take a moment to bring the whole premise under the microscope? Hearing your opponent’s answer to this will provide you important information regarding the argument they are likely to bring.
A good way to get into posing questions is to first establish a common ground. Start with a simple statement that’s hard to argue with, like, “Why I find this issue so tough is because we all want better lives for ourselves and our families.”
The more unarguable the statement, the better you will establish a forum for questions and curiosity. Once your opponent has agreed to something you have said, you have established an environment for that to occur more. If you start with the opposite approach — attack their opinion and put up your dukes — you are establishing an environment that encourages more disagreement. So don’t do that.
When you then ask your opponent to provide an answer to that problem, and ask more questions based on how they answer, you are giving them the opportunity they didn’t expect to be given: a chance to express their opinions, beliefs, and solutions to someone who is prepared to listen. Meanwhile, you have not given them any of your own solutions they have prepared to disagree with. If you keep questioning their solutions, you don’t have anything to defend, and remember you still don’t have to agree with anything they say. On top of it all, you will be given the rare opportunity to listen to someone else and know them better.
When it comes to politics, curiosity doesn’t feel natural. Statements, opinions, answers, will come easily out of your mouth, while you will have to force yourself to ask questions — especially ones that don’t support your position. Another way to remember about asking questions is to train yourself to “lead with curiosity.” Become curious about what you yourself know and don’t know about the subject you’re discussing.
Remember that if you keep alive an intention to ask a question, the discussion will likely be very fruitful. The problem is, you simply won’t ask questions unless you do Technique 2 as well.
Technique 2: Chill out. It’s not about you.
I usually forget that my opponent and I are not going to actually solve the world’s problems… until close to the end, when I don’t have anymore big points to make. It’s a good thing to remember at the beginning, as part of an overall plan to chill out.
Operation Chill Out is to notice when your emotions are getting stirred, and de-escalate the intensity of those feelings. A good habit — one that takes some practice, to be sure — is to take a moment to immediately acknowledge a feeling out loud . This could sound like, “Wow, when I hear you say that I notice I feel really angry,” and then go back to the political discussion — hopefully with a question. Don’t dwell on your emotion. Don’t accuse them of causing your emotion. Don’t escalate the feeling. Express it and move on.
This is really hard to do, and yet it is crucial for talking politics successfully. If you find that you can’t de-escalate your emotions, ask more questions. Doing so will help you come back to a state of less drama. Remember that their beliefs aren’t really attacking you or affecting your life directly.
One thing we are all naturally really good at is reading someone else’s emotional state. If you express an emotion, right away before anything else, you can bet that it will have less impact than if you didn’t express it. If you don’t tell them you feel something, they will probably imagine you are feeling it anyway, and if you don’t tell them what you’re feeling, they get to make up in their own heads what you’re feeling.
Telling someone how you feel doesn’t happen very often, and, done right, it contributes to a conversation, rather than derails it. So if you share an emotion with words and without a lot of anything else, it puts your opponent in an unexpected position of having personal feelings integrated into the discussion. If they attempt to acknowledge your emotion, probably with the intention of exposing a weakness in your armor, tell them some reasons for why you think you feel that way — reasons that are easy to agree with. Now they are forced to listen to your point of view and feel some compassion.
Another way to chill out is to be okay with your beliefs being attacked. Beliefs are just bundles of information you’ve assembled, but they are also parts of how you think about yourself. If you allow your beliefs to be questioned, challenged, and even destroyed by new information, your sense of self will be much more agile and flexible. This is also not easy to do, unless you make a habit out of reminding yourself with a little mantra: “I am not my beliefs.”
Beliefs change over time, but they don’t like to be shocked into change. We may think that beliefs are some precious thing to be preserved at all costs, but it’s really just because we want to feel like we are on solid ground, that we understand the world. But the mind is a belief-maker by design. If you destroy a belief, your mind will assemble a new one in no time, and it will probably look similar to the one you just blew up. Remember: There is no wound, beside perhaps on the ego, that comes from a destroyed belief. You will survive.
Technique 3: Have the internet handy
A final tool for good political discussion, when you and your opponent start asking questions together, you’ll want a way to cite sources and find out the truth. Contrary to the general wisdom, the internet is a great source of truth, even in the era of fake and biased information sources.
Be ready to look at sources together, the more unbiased, the better. If your opponent challenges the source of your information, ask them where you should go to find out, and go there together. Once you are there, bring more questions to your search, and endeavor to find another source that corroborates the first source’s claims. Show your opponent how you like to investigate information. Suffice it to say: looking up information with a political opponent is a memorable experience.
If something is true, you should be able to find at least 2 unbiased sources that say the same thing, or 2 sources from opposite ends of the political spectrum. There are also a number of fact-checking sites that provide results of investigations into questionable claims. Until you have two credible sources that corroborate, keep an open mind about what’s true, and what’s possible.
Talking Politics Cheat Sheet
Try out these techniques the next time you find yourself across from a different opinion…
Be curious| Chill out | Investigate together
… And you might just have a happy holiday!
