I like the idea of driving to root causes, but I’m afraid that unless someone comes in with an open mind, willing to be convinced by the argument of the one they disagree with, it’s not very useful for overcoming the partisan divide. This means that the people using this rhetorical guide cannot be honest brokers unless they are ready and willing to learn from and be challenged by Trump supporters.
A good way to start this process is to come up with some examples of what evidence would change your mind on any given issue. For example, what kind of data would convince you that gun-free zones are a bad idea? What kind of data would convince you that enforcement of immigration laws are a good idea? What kind of data would convince you that reducing the scope and size of government is a good idea?
To be truly honest with this process, go one step further, and seek out that data as hard as you can. Look for the evidence that would challenge your beliefs, with all the effort you can muster. Having expended such considerable effort, you’ll be in a much stronger position to speak to the veracity and legitimacy of your own ideas when challenged.
I find that often times the root cause of our differences comes from some very basic fundamentals. There are some people who value freedom, and others who fear it; those who imagine that people are inherently good, and those who imagine that people are inherently evil. Depending on which side of that fundamental divide you live on, you’ll end up with some very, very different conclusions.
Believe it or not, it’s not just possible, but probable, that Trump will be a better president than Obama, if for no other reason than reinvigorating a critical press and encouraging us to reduce the scope and power of the presidency in the future.