Why Else Trump Loathers Should Talk to Trump Voters: Part 2
Besides the major reasons discussed in Part 1 of this series that Trump Loathers should talk to Trump Voters, such as the need for the latter, too, to reduce its climate emissions, and the mutual need to repair our democracy, there are at least nine other reasons. Together, these provide support for a difficult effort — talking to those who voted in a way we can’t fathom — that could help us in these de-spiriting times. Talking could help re-put together the country, help restore what else is severely broken, such as the loss of the primacy of facts; address issues only starting to emerge, such as severe sea level rise, what that will do to coastal beaches, properties, and infrastructure, and where displaced people will live. There is even a chance that addressing the mutual loathing could even make life a little more pleasant and meaningful.
These other reasons are:
• We’re going to have to find some Republicans to work with to get anything decent accomplished on climate change (to say nothing of avoiding more back-tracking), or almost anything else, through the Congress. The same is true in the States as Republicans control most of the governorships and State Legislatures. It won’t be sufficient if only Democratic Governors follow the new strategy to join with California in accepting Paris Agreement-type goals. As John McCain, perhaps sensing his mortality, said recently on the Senate floor, we will need bi-partisanship (see below). He mentioned qualities that go along with it, such as “humility” (also see below), “cooperation,” “(recognition of) our dependence on each other; with some observers saying he once again has shown “honor.” He also admitted that sometimes by making a “harsh” comment, he had “made it harder to find common ground…”
• While not the direct opposite of mutual loathing, bi-partisanship is facilitated the less of it there is. If you can’t stand to be in the same room as someone, are focused on giving or taking an insult, or can’t believe that the other party has anything like the same goals you do, it makes it harder to generate the creativity to find common ground. And, as we saw with Senator McCain, sometimes it can also involve a personal journey, probably not made easier knowing the other person loathes you. Speaking of bi-partisanship, Sam Daley-Harris, a longtime activist, advisor to activist groups, and head of the Center for Citizen Empowerment & Transformation, spoke about it at a recent lecture to environmental, justice, and voting rights advocates, of all audiences. The latter could be described, I think, as usually seeing issues as a battle against a defined opponent, if not necessarily as a “war” (or maybe that). “We (also) need bi-partisan relationship-building,” particularly with “your Congressman,” even if you don’t like your Congressman. You “must decide if the goal is to be right or effective in causing a transformation.” “We won’t solve climate change with checks and protests alone.” Look for the “humanity and similarities in a Congressman you oppose.” He discussed an advocate he counseled who “meets with many Congressional offices who see things very differently.” The former “had to let go of emotional baggage, no longer judge them or hold hostility in his heart towards them.” Daley-Harris also discussed the “patience, love,” and common-ground-building involved in eventually turning then-Congressman Pat Swindall around on hunger aid to developing countries. (“Writing Checks, Signing Petitions, and Protest Marches: Is That All There Is?” Nassau Presbyterian Church, Princeton, New Jersey. November 9, 2017.)
• We live in an age of simplistic generalizations about people. Perhaps we always have, but there’s something inherently anti-individual in this too-easy common practice. Perhaps it would help if we could more frequently recall Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous, but mostly forgotten statement: “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” and use it to guide us. Hana Assafiri, who started “Speed Date a Muslim,” an initiative in Australia that gives the public the opportunity to ask Muslim women “frank questions,” said that “most people are decent, and that when we do humanize one another’s issues, we do all walk away a little more changed and accepting.” Her program “highlights the nuance of the individual, and female, Muslim experience.” A participant, Saara Sabbagh, adds: “I’m from Syria. People don’t need to tell us what ISIS is doing. We are at the receiving end of ISIS. We’re all in this together. There’s no us and them,” which is also vital to realize about climate change (and probably many other issues)
• While you don’t hear much anymore about the abstract/philosophical idea of “seeking the truth,” even within academia, some of us still quietly pursue it. We are not satisfied that anyone, or any group, has all the answers, and no cognitive biases affecting what they think they know, often with such certainty. Therefore, either some aspects of the truth are still unknown to us (which in the sustainability world we occasionally admit, although not always to our students), or our ideological or political adversaries might also have a piece of the truth. For those who have forced themselves to occasionally watch “Fox News,” or are stuck with it on the gym treadmill, or are sent by a conservative relative an editorial from The Wall Street Journal, can we honestly say “they are always wrong — about everything?” I cannot. Even Carl Sagan, in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, while of course defending science, also urged “kindness” and “compassion” towards those with “unreasonable beliefs” about science. He advised trying to give them the tools that they lack. He told us it would be hard for us, also, to have to re-examine our own beliefs, and that the process “takes wisdom.” “None of us comes fully equipped.” No one has a “monopoly on truth.” He reminded us that “even scientific truth is merely an approximation, and we are ignorant about nearly all of the universe…” If we “slip into self-righteousness,” it contributes to the “deadly force of polarization.” If we come to see things as “us versus them…that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons…this is unconstructive.” I’ll add that loathing the other side makes it extremely hard to identify their piece of the truth, to then add to ours in the search for the greater whole truth (which still may be partially obscure)
• Beyond this, while few seem to believe it anymore, and our culture doesn’t help, humility might be its own reward, an attribute of a person less dependent on external societal rewards for how they feel about their own worth. And, as we saw above, it can help with bi-partisanship
• In a world where too many of us are going around in cones created by our smart phone addiction, and inadvertently (or maybe not) cutting ourselves off from social contact, we might make new lifelong friends, or interesting acquaintances once we get past our political differences. The loathing makes it difficult to even envision the possibility
• It may actually be true that in many cases what Jo Cox, the British Parliamentarian who was shot and killed, had said was actually right: “We have more in common with each other than things that divide us.” A war, us-versus-them mentality severely discourages us from seeing that common ground
• There are also some connections to be made by extending this theme to business. Businesspeople might be running into the same loathing in their business or personal lives…as anyone else. But also a company might be thinking of picking up on Andrew Winston’s argument that, as the title of his piece earlier this year states: “Is it Time to Add Morality to the Business Case for Sustainability?” Winston writes that maybe he has been “missing how much the world is changing.” He cites that post-election, “the conversation in executive meeting rooms is not just about shareholder value anymore,” and now include moral issues like their positions on LGBT rights, immigrant employees, climate change. He acknowledges that companies are “finding themselves in uncomfortable territory.” And he notes, as I have too, “companies are increasingly standing up” for, among other things, LGBT rights and immigrants. He concluded that, “Depending on the audience or particular executive, it may be time to throw in an element of ‘Hey, this really is the right thing to do and your kids will be proud.” If Winston, is right, and I think he is, it could open up a whole new front on stalled social issues. But what he does not do, at least in this article, is give advice to companies worried about losing the business of Trump voters. (I recognize the possibilities for the inverse: a business may make a conservative argument on moral grounds, such as Hobby Lobby objecting to covering birth control in their employees’ health plan, and might be worried about losing Trump loathers as customers.) For that, Gustke gives some creative approaches, but also notes that “In general, though, experts advise small-business owners to avoid politics.” While this is the conventional wisdom, if you believe that in these urgent times we have to actually do more “talking politics,” by, in part, removing its social stigma, following that advice becomes a wasted opportunity we cannot afford. Therefore, to minimize the downside financial risk of taking a moral stand, from either direction, the ideas of this series about how to have these conversations could be relevant to business, as well
• Finally, we could be setting a better example for our children by showing them how to better live up to the above ideals, such as listening and not pre-judging.
Yes, it will be hard to start and have these conversations. It would be much easier to rely on reasons why it won’t work, and no one really knows how to make it fully work.
But then there are all those other reasons to find ways to overcome the obstacles.
An International Connection
I note an international audience might also find this topic and guidance useful. The U.S. is going to go through some of the same conflicts it has for addressing climate change for some of the other United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, like “No Poverty” and “Zero Hunger,” although, presumably denial will be less of a problem. It might be worse, though, because the challenges will be exacerbated as the U.N. does not have a lot of currency in many U.S. circles, so there might be some “Why should we listen to them (i.e. the U.N.)?” which will be a separate challenge. Following our performance in addressing the mutual loathing will enable other countries to better understand what the U.S. is going through. And they might be going through much of the same thing between groups in their own countries or regions, and could learn from us how (or how not) to handle it.
Or, we might learn from them. For instance, for decades attempts have been made to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Nothing conventional has worked — no matter how many times we repeat the usual patterns or war, failed peace negotiations…(you know the drill). Each side never diverts from its narrative, which it sees as totally correct and complete, and does not hear the others. Meanwhile the status quo takes us ever further in the wrong direction. Clearly (well, to some of us), it is time for another approach with which both sides could live! But getting there has always been a huge problem. Here’s a possible first step.
As everyone needs drinking water (which is one of the few things it is easy to agree on), “A Good Story About Israelis and Palestinians” discusses a recent agreement that not only looks like it will make substantial progress on water supply (including to Jordan), but has the secondary benefit of generating an uncommonly “warm engagement” between traditional bitter adversaries.
If it works, maybe it will be something to build upon.
Looking Ahead to the How Could We Do This?
If we did make the attempt to talk to Trump voters — which will probably take multiple attempts (see Part 3), how could we even do it? He could we begin the transformation of our dismal social relationships?
What may be surprising to know is there are over a half dozen projects, as well as guidelines emerging, that at least get us started on “the how” (or the complementary “how not to”) question. Perhaps realizing this may induce more people who could not even envision trying.
Those who strongly disagree with the talking approach will likely continue the traditional resistance strategy. However, these apparently opposite approaches could actually be complementary by creating a positive dynamic, a productive tension that creates pressure and space that could facilitate more diplomatic efforts. Participants in a discussion would be enabled to meet as their mutual negotiating demands could seem more broachable than those “not in the room.” However, those having the discussion are accountable to produce sufficiently acceptable agreements, knowing about the observation and potential criticisms from those in the resistance camp.
So there really is a place for both: talking and resistance. However, this positive dynamic would be disrupted if resistance turns to violent opposition, however and whomever caused, as that creates new tensions on top of an already difficult process. It would take major astuteness and savvy to keep a shaken discussion process going.
In Part 3, I’ll explore some of my other attempts to talk with Trump voters; and one major bi-partisan initiative during the President Clinton era, with government, businesses, and non-profits’ participation. Many of the projects and guidelines discussed in Part 3 and later are from a sustainability perspective, although not always explicitly.
Even if the questions and points in this series resonate and lead to some progress, they are not enough by themselves to fully solve the loathing and re-building democracy problem. There are other steps that are necessary, too, and it’s not clear what they all even are.
But even without these other steps, reducing the mutual loathing would help disrupt the continued diminishment of our democracy discussed in Part 1 to which we are clearly headed.
