Resilient democracy: How to stay sane while discussing politics

I’ve been active in politics since I was a student and have gone on to lead teams on state and national campaigns. That experience has given me front row seats to the devastating impact that political polarization is having on our mental health as well as the health of our relationships, communities and ultimately, our democracy.

I remember meeting a young man who belonged to a political party which made him a minority in his small town. The town was small enough that he knew almost everyone, and everyone knew him. When he was a kid, the general store downtown was a place to hang out and joke with neighbors and friends. Now, when he walks in, no one will look him in the eye. He described how families who’ve known each other for years are boycotting each others stores, and how no one at school feels safe to talk about politics. He became active in politics because he cared about the issues impacting his community - but now politics itself has become a source of distrust and fear that’s ripping his community apart.

I remember the distress in his eyes and the way his shoulders slumped when he described the feeling of being a stranger in his own home town. It made me wonder how I could apply the principles of resilience to heal the divide that so many of us are experiencing in our communities, our schools and our families.  

Principle:

Resilience is about building relationships that help us maintain equilibrium under volatile conditions. Building resilience into our politics means finding the relationships that connect us even – and especially – when we don’t agree on the issues. Behind even the most polarizing issues, we can find shared values that give us common ground. When we identify shared values – even if we can’t find anything else we agree on – it helps us make sense of each other and increases our feelings of security in community.

Practice:

Think of someone in your life who shares a radically different opinion on a political issue. This could be a friend, family member, colleague or fellow student. Just for the moment, put aside the action they’re advocating for and consider instead the reason that action would be meaningful for them. You may believe that the action they’re advocating for is ineffective or unethical – but can you find the positive value behind it, and is it possible that you share that value?

For example, one person may advocate for greater taxation and wealth distribution because they believe that’s the best means to achieve social harmony. Another person may be advocating for stronger restrictions on immigration for the same reason. Those two people are likely on different ends of the political spectrum and may strongly believe that the other person’s methods to achieve social harmony are either ineffective or unethical – but they can both agree that social harmony is a good thing.

It may sound simplistic, but the reality is that starting from an acknowledgement of shared values can transform an interaction and lead to deeper understanding and insight on both sides. Next time you talk to this person, or anyone on the opposite side of an issue, consider acknowledging the values that are meaningful to them, looking for values that you share and framing your point of view in the context of your shared values.