We ate at a Thai restaurant and the man in the table across from me had on a "Trump 2016" hat. I wanted to go up to him and ask him why he supported this man. But it didn't seem appropriate. But I've been thinking about what I might have said.
Excuse me sir, but I couldn't help noticing your hat. My name is Steve and I'm one of those Democrats that the president says is conspiring to overthrow the country. I don't see myself in that role at all. We're both eating at a Thai restaurant, which means we have at least that in common. And I'm sure we have many other things in common. Do you have children? Grandchildren? Well we share the joys and pains of parenthood.
We've all been played by many parties, encouraged to demonize each other, by various media outlets whose revenues go up the more conflict they report. By politicians preying on people's fears to get people to vote for them. And, it seems, by Russians and probably other foreign operatives, who seem to believe that by sowing internal discord in the US (and other countries) they can weaken our power in the world, just as Brexit has weekend the European Union.
There are probably basic values we disagree on. Republicans seem to believe much more in the idea that people are responsible for their own successes and failures. Democrats seem to believe that we are all parts of communities that help or hinder individuals as they make their way in the world. But I'm sure if we could sit down and talk about specific situations, we'd find we agree on far more than we disagree.
So one question I'd ask is: Do you really think the I'm an evil person who wants to destroy America? Can you look me in the eye and say that honestly? If not, why are we so divided? What things do you fear that people like me want to take away from you?
If you have the energy and the wherewithal to talk to people who vote the opposite of your vote - whether you support Trump or oppose him - look for things you have in common: hobbies, favorite foods, sports teams, religion, nationality, family size, health issue, musical tastes. Listen to the other person. Ask questions:
- what experiences in your life got you to believe this?
- what do you fear most if 'the other party' has control?
- how do you explain the contradictions in your party of choice?
- how has your life improved or declined in the last 10 years? How? What explains it?
- why do you believe that?
- how would one go about proving something like that?
- how do you evaluate the truth of something you hear?
If the first encounter goes ok, make a schedule a second one. I know this is a difficult assignment, but we don't have any choice. Talking politely with the people you've labeled your enemy (or have labeled you theirs) is one thing everyone can do. You don't need money. You don't need an organization backing you. You just need tolerance, curiosity, patience, courage, and decency.
Yup. Did just this, about 3 years ago. And it gave me a frightening insight into just how young, unattached guys can see the world. Absolutely terrifying.
ReplyDeleteIt ended when I had to say good-bye to his men-as-victim view of the world after he texted me gloating about the Brexit and Trump votes as a 'good start'. I have taken months and months to bring myself to feel cleaned of his views. I took his poison on board too much, in order to create the connection I do to understand someone without walls, without judgment.
I had done something a bit like an actor going too deeply into character, I had to finally end the friendship to hold onto my values, the change I want to be. I had really done it; I really had learned how he saw the world.
And it was really a mess, and I had to walk away from the friendship to save myself. It's not easy work if you mean it.
One of my best friends is a Republican (about the only one of my good friends who is) and for a good 15 years we used to be able to have decent discussions about politics. We disagreed, of course, but we could talk about it. That changed in 2016.
ReplyDeleteI knew that she and her husband didn't like Trump; we had talked about that in passing during the primaries. So as the general election approached I asked her what she thought. The response: "I'm totally disgusted with both of them. It's a choice between a thug and a crook."
(Took me a second to figure out which was which...)
I said, mildly, "I certainly agree with you about the thug, but why do you say that Hillary is a crook? What has she done that you think is illegal?" She couldn't answer, of course, but got mad, sputtered, OH, JUST EVERYTHING!!! And that was the end of that discussion. I haven't tried to talk about politics since with her; not worth spoiling the friendship.
Our only close relative on the Republican side, my sister-in-law, has really drunk the KoolAid. For many years we were able to talk about politics -- or at least, about politicians -- on a professional level, because she used to work in DC as a lobbyist and knew lots of Congressmen. In 2015 we tried to make conversation about the Republican primaries and who she liked. That worked for about two paragraphs and then she took offense at some remark we made, and burst into angry tears (she's 68 years old...). That was the end of that discussion and we haven't said a word since.
I understand intellectually why it might be good to have a discussion along the lines you lay out. But I suspect most times it won't work out as nicely as you hope. I suspect that if one of us sits down with the guy in the cap and tries to ask him those questions he will feel patronized and condescended to. I suspect he will feel like we're doing a liberal science project and he's the guinea pig, peppered with intrusive questions (and our pencils and clipboards are poorly hidden under the table). I suspect before very long the guy would be defensive and hostile and the "discussion" part would be over.
I wish I were wrong.
Following on with Jacob's comment:
ReplyDeleteA good friend of ours, a card-carrying liberal, used to go every Saturday morning to have coffee with a bunch of Republicans (although I don't know if that's the technically correct descriptor -- maybe I should say Trump supporters). He felt it was his duty as a good citizen to find out what the other side was worrying about, and build bridges, and all that stuff.
After about a year he quit. He couldn't stand it any more. There was never any rational discussion or exchange of ideas; the conversations mainly switched between gloating about the week's news and taunting Rick for being a no-good liberal. Finally he got tired of being the pinata at the fiesta and stopped going.
Kathy, our 'sides' simply aren't reading from the same song sheet, holding the same world view, personal histories, rules of engagement, or maybe even the belief in the necessity to having democracy work better by getting past 51% deciding it all.
ReplyDeleteThat all said, I hold to something I learned years ago from a poli-sci prof of mine: "Politics is better than becoming combatants."
Unfortunately, I really have stared long and hard into the maw of this beast I spoke of in my story above, and many do want war. Sigh.
I tried to thank Jacob for his first comment yesterday, but Blogspot no longer recognizes me here (I can't comment or edit from this page anymore), and so when I hit publish, it just vanished. And since habits die slowly, I just did it again. (OK, I just signed in like anyone else has to.)
ReplyDeleteJacob, your story, and Kathy's are instructive. What you're describing , let me speculate here, are people who are emotionally invested in Trump, and possibly even know that, rationally, they can't defend that position. Trump is tapping into some deep emotional need - maybe anger, frustration, or both. They take heart in his saying all the socially unacceptable things about blacks and women and immigrants and world leaders that they want to say, but haven't because they are "politically incorrect" in their jargon. They take heart in his simplistic solutions because they want Daddy to fix things. Their lives aren't going as well as they thought they would. Their pensions - if they have one - aren't enough. Their kids aren't what they'd hoped. Blaming 'the others' for their misfortunes relieves them of their own responsibilities -to have looked more long term than they did in any number of things - money, kids, health, politics, relationships.
So no, they can't talk to us about the facts of Trump's presidency because they are mostly bad to horrible. They listen to Fox News because it tells them it's not their fault and their anger is justified, and that makes them feel better. Trump has become their religion, their sports team and they're sticking with it through thick and thin. Or until the hangovers get too harsh.
So, there's a business opportunity here for rehabilitation centers for Trump addicts.
And thanks for clarifying for me why I didn't talk to the guy in the Trump hat. But I do think we should work on serious, professionally facilitated discussions that get to these deep issues. Perhaps some religious centers could sponsor these. (This time I'm copying this before hitting publish.)
Interesting hypothesis, Steve, and I'm sure it applies to a lot of Trump supporters. But neither my good friend nor my sister-in-law are particularly prejudiced against blacks or women, as far as I can tell. Their pensions are quite generous and either their health is fine or their health insurance is fabulous (retired military). They are not religiously impelled to oppose abortion. I'm sure they both have some emotional need to support Trump, but I sure can't figure out what it is.
ReplyDeleteOne last point about serious discussion with Trumpists: it's not going to work unless the participants are pretty equal socioeconomically. Former college professors aren't going to be able to have decent conversation with guys who dropped out of high school and work for $9.25 an hour at RotoRooter; the RR guys will feel defensive and patronized, and the college professors are going to find it very hard not to lecture. If you could find a former college professor who supports Trump, you might have a chance of a productive heart-to-heart.
9 October 2018, London, England, UK
ReplyDeleteKathy and Steve. This is what good talk is about. Thank you. I could cry for what I see is the rising normalisation of surliness in our democracies round the world.
Strong men history is now (once again) strong man fact and we will pay, once more, for the choices we’re making. Kathy, the irony in much of our opposition to this recreated absolutism is that it reflects precisely what sends its proponents over the edge -- a total disregard of those who disagree. I can only think of the time when we laughed at Archie Bunker – we gathered in our living rooms across America to laugh at what we knew we once were. We laughed too soon.
I have my 'friend' who came from Bulgaria. Steve knew (on line) a Hungarian high school kid entering uni who was (to me) becoming part of this ‘re-birther’ (nationalistic) team as well. He was like my friend from Bulgaria, too many things said by him to ignore his support for the same kind of right-wing ascendancy, so long as the Austro-Hungarian Empire might be restored. Or was his true hope Rome, Steve?
This is still a minority view throughout Europe now. However, I am reading regional news groups (moderate-lefty) in various countries across Europe. Their focus has little to do with Trump -- they are Europeans, not Americans. They write on the growing strength of these (yes, often called fascist) groups. I can offer observation on London, the ways in which news-cycles break and what stays reported. The middle and higher classes in Britain were (are?) concerned with civility (you do hear Brits say 'sorry' for having crossed your path on the street). This same group has become engrossed in examining the meaning of Democracy (popular vote to exit a political/economic union with Europe) as narrow majority takes us over what most consider a metaphorical cliff.
We are told – daily– we are following the 'Will of the People' even though our very British constitution has no custom to decide single issues. What I see is that we turn our aphorisms on their heads, as if Pol Pot said, "Be the change you want to see" or Mitch McConnell, "Truth Always Wins"? The point of it becomes: Whose change is it one ‘wants to see’ or is Mitch’s ‘truth’ best? This is the very heart of belief; our battle is in winning disciples to our way of seeing, to win hearts and minds to do the good we know is good. Some would call this the work of propaganda.
And isn’t propaganda what our opponents believe of us / of us of them?
So Kathy, I see us encamping like armies before battle, each with fires that warm us at night, yet seen across battleground’s gulf, as only points of light. Their light doesn’t warm us; it only shows how large our enemy, if we are to believe its report.
Yes, we need engaged, facilitated dialogue, Steve, but having worked under a nationally-funded program of the Ford Foundation in the early 00s, I am familiar with its costs, its barriers to participation, and how it fails to engage using tools agreed by many wary of its very assumption of reaching concord. Find agreement?, we ask. But you’re wrong!
And I think of trying to reason, to find concord, with my (past) Bulgarian friend. I think of an American president who apologized for the entire USA yesterday for the Senate Judiciary Committee process revealing raw partisanship of a now-sitting associate justice of the US Supreme Court. As an American, I have been insulted. I need no dialogue. I see little I can talk about with those who call themselves victorious today.
A note to myself: A bit 'surly', dontcha think? (smile)
Delete