First off, that's a really great interview and I'm really glad that I've gotten to read it now. Secondly, while I can't point to the origin (my best bet would be the Bowling Alone theory of decline in civic group connections and/or Kruse/Zelizer's theory of 1974 as this dividing line in polarization but I'm just grabbing straws), I total…
First off, that's a really great interview and I'm really glad that I've gotten to read it now. Secondly, while I can't point to the origin (my best bet would be the Bowling Alone theory of decline in civic group connections and/or Kruse/Zelizer's theory of 1974 as this dividing line in polarization but I'm just grabbing straws), I totally agree that this is where we're at and it's a mess. And then, we try to change the minds of folks with whom they disagree, we assume they can start at the end point-- like "ok, let me try to get you on board for the Green New Deal or convince you that defund the police is good not bad." While it's great to be urgent and honest about critical issues we care about, what it says implicitly is "the only way you matter to me is if you end up agreeing with me on this issue" rather than building a relationship deep and complex enough that you have a sense of somebody's motivations and fears and that, out of that relationship, you help that person bring a fuller and more loving version of themselves into their politics.
That is beautifully said. I think Bowling Alone's points brought out a lot of this, though I agree it started earlier. One of the things I wrote about in my book (not trying to promote it here, just want to be transparent about my sourcing) is that a big factor is the *physical* silo-ing through highway building and subsidizing suburbs, themes that come up in Bowling Alone, too, especially when he talks about people flocking to mega-churches because they no longer have physical communities where they can gather for other reasons. Chris Lehane, a former political consultant for Bill Clinton, has said that, when Jimmy Carter won the presidency in 1976, “about seventy-five percent of the country lived in voting precincts—neighborhoods—that reflected the general vote, and that was about a one-point election. What you saw in 2012 and 2004 and 2000 was almost a reverse of that,” with an overwhelming percentage now living in landslide districts, which he said has an enormous impact on our ability to find common ground. (That's from a 2013 Commonwealth Club conversation, which I just realized was with the same Steve Schmidt who's now a Lincoln Project person! Wow, that's a change: https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2013-03-19/game-change-chris-lehane-and-steve-schmidt)
Anyway, yes, this whole thing about "unless you agree with me I can't have a relationship with you" is one of the cruxes of the issue, though it's easier for me because my family is all fairly progressive-- for friends whose parents and/or siblings are anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQI it's so much harder because it can be something that negates your very personhood. But I guess that's one of the difficult parts of the conversation to be had, eventually. How their viewpoints affect people they love personally.
A friend of mine here published a paper on difficult conversations. Her main finding was that the conversations were more productive when people's main goal was in maintaining the relationship rather than winning the argument. Which is right in line with what I'm reading as part of your goals with your own project?
These are all such good points, both of you. So glad we are having this conversation!
It's striking me as I read how much I've actually shifted *away* from this thing that I've always tried to value, which you (Antonia) stated as "maintaining the relationship rather than winning the argument. " I haven't done this at all intentionally; it's sort of a function of trying to help or heal or do anything at all in this increasingly separated society you're both describing. Living this way creates more living this way, I guess, even when we're aware of living this way, and we don't like it, it starts to be the air we breathe at some point.
So I'm trying to figure out how to take this forward. Maybe it does make sense to outwardly do as my original FIQ would prefer, and "never talk politics." Meaning neither bring up nor engage with Opinions about specific candidates or broadly-delineated issues. But stay awake to when my FIQ bring up interests or worries, or respond to mine, and use those opportunities to ask them questions and not give them answers...This is very imperfect and theoretical and probably missing a ton...
Well, I think it’s valid to acknowledge how taxing it can be and the need to give yourself some breathers. And I dunno, but maybe there’s some efficacy in showing emotions like sorrow in lieu of anger sometimes? I found myself in that space with a neighbor at one point, involuntarily crying because while I was trying not to disagree but just listen, her viewpoint made me so sad. When that happened it opened a tiny space for me to express something I cared about.
First off, that's a really great interview and I'm really glad that I've gotten to read it now. Secondly, while I can't point to the origin (my best bet would be the Bowling Alone theory of decline in civic group connections and/or Kruse/Zelizer's theory of 1974 as this dividing line in polarization but I'm just grabbing straws), I totally agree that this is where we're at and it's a mess. And then, we try to change the minds of folks with whom they disagree, we assume they can start at the end point-- like "ok, let me try to get you on board for the Green New Deal or convince you that defund the police is good not bad." While it's great to be urgent and honest about critical issues we care about, what it says implicitly is "the only way you matter to me is if you end up agreeing with me on this issue" rather than building a relationship deep and complex enough that you have a sense of somebody's motivations and fears and that, out of that relationship, you help that person bring a fuller and more loving version of themselves into their politics.
That is beautifully said. I think Bowling Alone's points brought out a lot of this, though I agree it started earlier. One of the things I wrote about in my book (not trying to promote it here, just want to be transparent about my sourcing) is that a big factor is the *physical* silo-ing through highway building and subsidizing suburbs, themes that come up in Bowling Alone, too, especially when he talks about people flocking to mega-churches because they no longer have physical communities where they can gather for other reasons. Chris Lehane, a former political consultant for Bill Clinton, has said that, when Jimmy Carter won the presidency in 1976, “about seventy-five percent of the country lived in voting precincts—neighborhoods—that reflected the general vote, and that was about a one-point election. What you saw in 2012 and 2004 and 2000 was almost a reverse of that,” with an overwhelming percentage now living in landslide districts, which he said has an enormous impact on our ability to find common ground. (That's from a 2013 Commonwealth Club conversation, which I just realized was with the same Steve Schmidt who's now a Lincoln Project person! Wow, that's a change: https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2013-03-19/game-change-chris-lehane-and-steve-schmidt)
Anyway, yes, this whole thing about "unless you agree with me I can't have a relationship with you" is one of the cruxes of the issue, though it's easier for me because my family is all fairly progressive-- for friends whose parents and/or siblings are anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQI it's so much harder because it can be something that negates your very personhood. But I guess that's one of the difficult parts of the conversation to be had, eventually. How their viewpoints affect people they love personally.
A friend of mine here published a paper on difficult conversations. Her main finding was that the conversations were more productive when people's main goal was in maintaining the relationship rather than winning the argument. Which is right in line with what I'm reading as part of your goals with your own project?
These are all such good points, both of you. So glad we are having this conversation!
It's striking me as I read how much I've actually shifted *away* from this thing that I've always tried to value, which you (Antonia) stated as "maintaining the relationship rather than winning the argument. " I haven't done this at all intentionally; it's sort of a function of trying to help or heal or do anything at all in this increasingly separated society you're both describing. Living this way creates more living this way, I guess, even when we're aware of living this way, and we don't like it, it starts to be the air we breathe at some point.
So I'm trying to figure out how to take this forward. Maybe it does make sense to outwardly do as my original FIQ would prefer, and "never talk politics." Meaning neither bring up nor engage with Opinions about specific candidates or broadly-delineated issues. But stay awake to when my FIQ bring up interests or worries, or respond to mine, and use those opportunities to ask them questions and not give them answers...This is very imperfect and theoretical and probably missing a ton...
Well, I think it’s valid to acknowledge how taxing it can be and the need to give yourself some breathers. And I dunno, but maybe there’s some efficacy in showing emotions like sorrow in lieu of anger sometimes? I found myself in that space with a neighbor at one point, involuntarily crying because while I was trying not to disagree but just listen, her viewpoint made me so sad. When that happened it opened a tiny space for me to express something I cared about.