Figure 7.1 Are Institutions Bringing People Together or Pushing Them Apart?
Source: PRRI/The Atlantic 2019 Pluralism Survey. Reprinted with permission from PRRI.
I get it: change is hard. I can hear your rebuttals or criticisms: Why should I have to be the bigger person? It shouldn’t be my responsibility to change when I’m not the one who’s being hateful and ignorant. You’re too idealistic. These things won’t work!
Hopefully as you have read this book, you have come to see you don’t have to just take my word for it: these strategies can work in the real world. Social science research demonstrates that they do. It’s just that we aren’t doing them because it’s far easier and more satisfying to go for the proverbial rhetorical kill or to avoid talking about important issues altogether. It is important to remember, however, that change is possible.
For example, look at the numerous ways the tide has turned for LGBT people and rights over the last few decades. While we are nowhere near the end of advocacy for LGBT people and rights, reflecting on how and why attitudes have changed on these sets of issues can inform efforts to engage hearts and minds in a meaningful way on other issues in the future. But one thing is certain: minds can change. In 1988, the General Social Survey asked respondents whether they thought gay people should have the right to marry. Support was at 12% at the time. In May 2019, that number stood at 63%.1 The Gallup organization has asked the question, “Do you think gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?” since 1977. At that time, the public was split 43% to 43%. In May 2019, 73% of respondents believed consensual relations should be legal and only 23% believed they should not be.2 So what gives?
In a 2015 post about the uncharacteristically fast changes in support for LGBT rights, Nate Silver wrote, “Probably one-half to two-thirds of the rise in support for gay marriage has been a result of people changing their minds on the issue.”3 Just to reiterate, people held views against a policy; something (or some things) happened; and then their views were different. The goal is not to replicate the exact messages and scenarios that led to change in the realm of LGBT rights; rather, the abrupt public opinion change can remind us that it can happen and there is science behind some of the reasons why. We know much of what those intervening events were and knowing what it was that happened in the past provides us with strategies that can apply to other political realms in the future.
First, visibility and closeness: a 2015 Pew Research Poll found that 88% of Americans reported knowing someone gay or lesbian, far more than the 61% who gave the same answer in 1993.4 The survey also showed that almost 75% of people who said they knew a lot of gay and lesbian people supported marriage equality and of that 75%, 48% strongly supported it. Two-thirds of people who have gay or lesbian family members supported marriage equality, 38% of whom reported strongly supporting it. On the other hand, those with few or no gay or lesbian friends were less supportive (32% support, 58% opposition) as were those who did not have a family member or close friend who is gay or lesbian (44% support, 46% opposition). More recently, Gallup found that as of 2017, more than 10% of LGBT adults were married to their same-gender spouse and Americans were becoming increasingly likely to know someone who has a same-sex spouse. They posited that the increased visibility of these marriages was likely playing a role in attitudinal change.5 The more we have a diverse group around us, the more we see what we have in common and the less we oppose fundamental rights of those we used to see as members of outgroups.
Second, the message and tone of the conversations has shifted, with advocates increasingly using personal stories and people rather than abstract principles in their efforts. As we know, the more likely people are to think an issue is relevant to them, the more likely they are to listen, to process information, and if all goes well, to integrate new information into their belief systems. For example, when trying to increase support for marriage equality in Massachusetts, outreach focused on families and couples to persuade lawmakers. Outreach coordinators knew the potential power of strategic personalization and issue framing but support increased to levels that even advocates did not anticipate. Marc Solomon, National Campaign Director for Freedom to Marry, wrote:
We knew that the one thing that could break through the fear was allowing lawmakers to get to know [same-sex] married couples and their families. When they did, they would understand viscerally that these families were not much different from their own and that they should treat gay families as they’d want their own family to be treated.6
Finally, the diversity among those speaking out in favor of LGBT people was an important aspect to attitude change among many different social groups. People who are viewed as identity group leaders can have a powerful effect in changing hearts and minds. One great example is President Barack Obama’s decision to endorse same-sex marriage on May 9, 2012 when he said, “I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” While hailed as victory by the LGBT community, it was definitely a risk for the president in an election year; many feared it would affect enthusiasm and turnout, particularly among the Black public.7 While many Black leaders—particularly Black religious leaders8—did not follow Obama’s lead on LGBT rights, many did. Shortly thereafter—May 23 to be exact—former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and Republican) Colin Powell spoke out in favor of marriage equality, followed by many other influential Black leaders like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, then-Newark Mayor Cory Booker, then-Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (at the time, the nation’s only Black governor), most of the Congressional Black Caucus, and entertainers 50 Cent, Jay-Z, and Will Smith.9 On May 19, just 10 days after Obama’s announcement, the board of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) voted in favor of a resolution in support for same-sex marriage by a margin of 62–2.
It wasn’t just issue leaders that voiced their support either; public opinion polls conducted before and after Obama’s announcement showed his influence over Black attitudes toward same-sex marriage. For example, support for same-sex marriage among Black voters in Ohio went from 16% to 42% and opposition went from 63% to 35%.10 Polls taken in North Carolina showed an increase from 44% support of same-sex marriage prior to the president’s announcement to 55% just after the announcement.11 Maryland saw a dramatic shift in opinion as well. In explaining the overall shift in support for a same-sex marriage law in the state, David Weigel points to a dramatic change in support among Black voters:
The movement over the last two months can be explained almost entirely by a major shift in opinion about same-sex marriage among black voters. Previously 56 percent said they would vote against the new law with only 39 percent planning to uphold it. Those numbers have now almost completely flipped, with 55 percent of African Americans planning to vote for the law and only 36 percent now opposed.12
And for those concerned that his vocal support of same-sex marriage would backfire and dampen enthusiasm and support? In the 2012 election, Black turnout surpassed white turnout for the first time in American history, contributing to Obama’s reelection victory.13
Having diversity of voices and cross-cutting cleavages can lead to real change. As we have discussed, social, cultural, and political vitriol and alienation aren’t healthy for a functioning democracy. They’re also not good for our interpersonal relationships. We don’t just live in an interpersonal world, however; cultural and social institutions can make things more difficult and skew how we view the scope and severity of our disagreements.
Another important element is how we perceive sociopolitical institutions and the role they play in drawing us together or pulling us apart. A February 2019 survey from PRRI asks a variety of questions to tease out the source of division in our country and the ways we interact with each other (Figure 7.1). When asked about how institutions are dividing or uniting us, Americans believed that “community organizations and nonprofits (54%), colleges and universities (43%), public schools (41%), and the military (41%) were doing more to bring people together than pull them apart. They were split on workplaces (40% bringing together, 43% neither). However, majorities of those polled believed that political parties (78%) and the media (64%) were doing more to push people apart than bring people together.14
Figure 7.1 Are Institutions Bringing People Together or Pushing Them Apart?
Source: PRRI/The Atlantic 2019 Pluralism Survey. Reprinted with permission from PRRI.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there were strong divisions in attitudes toward the role of these institutions by partisan identification. Republicans were more pessimistic about public schools, the media, and colleges and universities; Democrats were more pessimistic about the military and religious institutions in bringing people together. And while majorities of all political identities reported that they thought the media were pushing people apart, there were differences in degree: 85% of Republicans believed that the media were pushing people apart compared to 60% of independents and 54% of Democrats. Regardless, majorities of these groups believed political parties and the media were far more likely to push people apart than bring them together. All groups also tended to agree that community organizations and nonprofits and workplaces could bring people together. What do they tend to have in common? Shared goals, shared identities, and opportunities for day-to-day interactions with groups of people not of our choosing. With increasing opportunities for social sorting, religious organizations and educational institutions may not promote conversations that cut across identity groups. It is this homogeneous, “like me” seeking behavior that leads to skewed views of how much we disagree with each other.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of disagreement on public policy and politics. The PRRI report details how much we diverge from each other on politically divisive issues like immigration, the minimum wage, and gun control. A summary of agreement and disagreement is in Figure 7.2. Sixty-three percent of Americans supported raising the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $15.00 per hour but that support was strongly divided by partisan identity: 88% of Democrats and 64% of independents supported that policy change compared to only 37% of Republicans who agreed (and 61% who opposed it). About two-thirds of Americans (66%) supported stricter gun control laws, including 87% of Democrats and 65% of independents but only 42% of Republicans, with the majority of Republicans (57%) opposed to stricter gun control laws.
Figure 7.2 Partisan Agreement and Division on Key Issues
Source: PRRI/The Atlantic 2019 Pluralism Survey. Reprinted with permission from PRRI.
There is so much disagreement that we often focus on how we disagree and neglect the points of agreement. For example, a majority (62%) of Americans agreed that the immigration system should allow immigrants who are currently in the country illegally to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements. That included a plurality (49%) of Republicans along with 72% of Democrats and 61% of independents. Americans were also unified in support for healthcare coverage protections for people with preexisting conditions: 93% of Democrats, 91% of Republicans, and 85% of independents (89% of Americans overall) favored protection for people with preexisting medical conditions.
Criminal justice is another point of convergence. Seventy-eight percent of Americans supported a law in their state requiring drug treatment instead of jail time for people convicted of illegal drug use for the first or second offense, including 88% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 73% of Republicans. Seventy-five percent of Americans supported eliminating mandatory minimum prison sentences so that judges can make sentencing decisions on a case-by-case basis, including 79% of Democrats, 74% of Republicans, and 71% of independents. Seventy-one percent of all Americans favored allowing a person who has been convicted of a felony to vote after he or she has completed his or her sentence, including 85% of Democrats, 66% of independents, and 63% of Republicans.
Ok, wow, so there are places where we agree. Sometimes very much so. So why does it feel like we hate each other so much? We have to have some real talk about the obstacles in our way and in my view, there are at least three: (1) political discussions becoming a screaming match about “winning”, (2) an aversion or avoidance to talking about anything remotely political at all costs, and (3) privilege and power dynamics that can stifle attempts to speak up and speak out. Let’s address each in turn.
Will Rogers once said, “People’s minds are changed through observation and not through argument.”15 Isn’t that the hardest thing in the world to do? Too often, the aim of our political conversations has turned to “winning.” Getting in the last caustic word, crafting the perfect zinger to really make our political opponent feel ridiculous and small. Feeling sanctimonious in our superior intellect and more valid worldview. Wouldn’t it be great if people would just shut up, listen to everything we have to say, and then believe what we believe?
I know I’m exaggerating for effect but to be honest, in some ways I suppose it would be great but that just isn’t how persuasion works. If that’s your idea of how a political conversation should go, you are almost always going to be disappointed. I wish I had better news for you but alas, I don’t: you can’t control the way that others see the world or how they choose to interact with it. What you can control, however, is how you present yourself and your thoughts when you interact with others and how you react to what they say. By taking a breath, thinking about the way we interact with others, and employing a few new strategies and tactics, we can slowly turn the proverbial ship away from the iceberg. We just need to acknowledge the problem and be part of the solution.
One of the most important aspects of this book to remember is the best outcome of political conversations: it’s not to “win” (whatever that means). Often, it’s not even to persuade. People are entrenched in their opinions and have a vested interest in continuing to believe what they do so one conversation—no matter how expertly crafted—may not be enough to shift attitudes. That’s fine because again, that’s not how persuasion works. Persuasion is a process, one that takes time. When you launch an all-out assault on someone during a conversation, complete with insults and less-than-ideal tactics, you’re essentially guaranteed to fail regardless of your metric. When you change the way you approach political conversations, when you listen and engage with some of the ideas in this book, you at least have the possibility to start the process of persuasion. You are more likable, more credible, and what you say is more likely to be heard—if not right away, then definitely over time.
There’s some evidence to suggest that we don’t hate other partisans, we hate partisanship and the disagreement it often brings. In a 2019 New York Times opinion piece, political scientists Samara Klar, Yanna Krupnikov, and John Barry Ryan argue that the real issue might not be disdain for those with whom we disagree but rather with politics itself. They write, “Americans are open to people with all sorts of political and partisan opinions, our research shows—as long as they keep those opinions to themselves.”16 In their studies, they asked a question similar to those other recent studies have: whether people would be happy or unhappy if they had a child who married a person from the opposing political party, Democrat or Republican. Most of these kinds of studies have depressing results. For example, the 2019 PRRI report referenced earlier asked this similar question, finding that 35% of Republicans would feel “somewhat or very unhappy” if their child married a Democrat and 45% of Democrats would feel the same if their child married a Republican. That logically follows everything we know in many ways. People wouldn’t want to regularly interact with the enemy. However, the studies conducted by Klar, Krupnikov, and Ryan differ from these surveys because of their added element of how often this new in-law would talk about politics at all. They write,
When people learned that their future in-law would rarely discuss politics, fewer than 30 percent said that they would be unhappy with an in-law from the opposing party. On the other hand, when we specified that the hypothetical in-law would never shut up about politics17—he or she would interrupt social gatherings and holidays with the latest Trump dirt from MSNBC or Hannity tirade from Fox—more than 40 percent of people would be unhappy with the marriage.18
In a related article published in the academic journal Public Opinion Quarterly, they also find that many people in their studies did not want their child to marry someone of their own party if that person were going to frequently discuss politics. They conclude that while there is certainly some partisan polarization in American culture, the real culprit is not that people hate partisans, they hate partisan politics. It isn’t necessarily that people don’t like talking about politics, it’s that they don’t like talking about partisan politics.19 And as we have discussed, a big part of the problem is that “talking about politics” has become synonymous with “talking about partisan politics.” It has become difficult to debate the merits of public policy because political discussion and partisan discussion are so strongly correlated.
Maybe it’s not always that we dislike the people who disagree with us but maybe it’s that we dislike disagreement itself. Fair enough. But even that is a significant problem! How can a deliberative democracy function if we can’t stomach deliberation itself? Are we not to discuss important policy issues or tackle the myriad collective problems facing our country and the world because people don’t like politics? Are we to rely on elected officials, who are increasingly partisan themselves, many of whom won by earning the votes of a small fraction of voting-eligible Americans?
No. Many people don’t have the privilege to remain quiet: lives are at stake. Real people’s health and safety are being challenged. Instead, something about how we approach political discussion has to change. This book has detailed the political, psychological, ideological, informational, technological, and geographical reasons why many people in this country have, at best, become uncomfortable with disagreement; at worst, they have become unable and unwilling to deal with disagreement at all. We cannot eliminate disagreement or curb the causes of disagreement. What we can do is focus on ways to get better at handling disagreement.
I should acknowledge that I am not the norm when it comes to political discussions, for a few important reasons. I enjoy talking about politics. It’s a hobby of mine to read, to write, and to speak about American politics and politicians; it’s quite literally my job since I hold a PhD in political science. I am also a cisgender white man, which I know sometimes affords me a position of credibility and authority in discussions that some people are not automatically granted. I want to spend a moment talking about power because I don’t want to gloss over the fact that interaction rarely occurs between social equals or in situations where everyone has equity in their ability to be taken seriously in the course of a conversation.
We are most likely to talk to those who are regularly in our lives: parents, siblings, children, and coworkers. Most political conversations are going to involve some kind of social difference (e.g., ethnorace, gender, socioeconomic status, age, level of formal education, sexuality) and often some kind of power dynamics in terms of family, social circles, or employment, depending on where the conversation takes place. These dynamics can be difficult to maneuver, sometimes to the point of deciding to give up trying. Even if you’re not in a current place of power or if you’re not taken seriously at the moment, you can still do some good by employing as many of the strategies in this book as is feasible. It would take a separate book to properly address power dynamics in interpersonal political discussion. However, most of what is in this book remains valid in terms of the underlying recommendations regardless of uneven power dynamics. And of course, if you’re the person with more power, take extra care to listen to the other person and keep that dynamic in check as best as you can.
Relatedly, we each have a different “political argument profile” in that we have different ideas of how political conversations can and should go. One reader might be perfectly comfortable speaking confidently about politics without a second thought; another might speak calmly in political conversations unless they are dealing with someone who disagrees with them or someone with whom they may not want to be speaking but the situation calls for it. Yet another person might often feel as if they are being “mansplained” to when they bring up politics because of the profile of the person with whom they’re speaking. In general, most people don’t expect everyone to just coalesce to what they are saying and instantly agree. They don’t just want people to shut up and listen; there is an expectation of divergence on some level but the levels in which we are finding ourselves are uncomfortable. It is easier to just avoid conversations entirely because at the end of the day, the expectation of rational minds coming together doesn’t seem realistic.
We come to talk about politics for different reasons, with different motivations, and with different ultimate outcomes in mind. In contemporary politics, many people are speaking out about issues of importance because, frankly, they feel there is a fierce urgency to do so. What drives many people in my social circles, for example, is that they feel a responsibility to speak up about issues that are not going in their favored policy direction. As of early 2019, five states have essentially banned access to abortion. The current administration has advocated for banning transgender people from serving openly in the military and has even called for restricting access to healthcare for all transgender Americans. The treatment of migrants and asylum-seekers, particularly at the border of the United States and Mexico, has incensed many people, fueled by multiple deaths of children because of the conditions on the ground. Terror or distress about other people’s suffering or hardship has been and will continue to be a powerful motivator. For many people, they would prefer to remain more detached and silent but the status of the current political environment makes them feel obligated to speak out.
There are two broad scenarios where politics enters into our day-to-day conversations: planned and unplanned. The planned ones tend to be easier. There are regular or at least episodic conversations we have with people that we know about in advance. We can anticipate that a holiday is coming up where we might have to spend some time with family with whom we disagree. Christmas is at the same time every year. Being able to think through some strategies before the fact is an important opportunity to employ some of the strategies and tactics identified in this book. Anticipate the emotions you might encounter if politics become the topic of conversation and more importantly, focus on ways you might mitigate or neutralize them. Bring your knowledge and information from trusted sources that you might be able to pepper into conversations. Focus on the identities shared by those around the Thanksgiving table. Yes, it does require some time and energy upfront but it can pay off in the end given how well these concepts have worked in practice.
The other scenario can induce more anxiety in the hearts of people everywhere: the spontaneous political comment or conversation when you least expect it. Someone at your kid’s soccer game says something controversial during small talk in the bleachers. A coworker cracks a joke about something or someone political at the water cooler. These circumstances do not require a person to back down and moderate their views; instead, these spontaneous situations require more poise and fortitude because we are forced to be reactive and to operate on the fly. The key is to let the other person know what they have said won’t go unaddressed but first, take a breath and use the power of eye contact. Quickly assess the person and the situation. Is this a person with whom you can have a calm, rational conversation? Is it worth the time and effort? What are the power dynamics at play? What’s the best possible outcome and how do you get there? By now, you know what to do. Just in case, let’s review.
Back in chapter 2, I discussed the Elaboration Likelihood Model, a psychological model capturing the elements of attitude change and the divergent paths to long-lasting change or more fleeting, temporary change. Of primary importance is the very first step to persuasion: the motivation to process information. If you can’t find a way to induce a person to think what you are saying is important, valid, or relevant to them, the likelihood of meaningful attitude change— change that is predictive of future behavior—is very small. To set yourself up for the strongest possibility of leading someone down the long road of persuasion, you have to think carefully about the best message, tone, and environment for them to process the information you think they need to make a better, clearer, more informed decision on a political topic important to you.
As I’m sure I don’t need to tell you, there are almost innumerable opportunities to get things wrong. It’s so easy to take political conversations personally and rightfully so given the stakes and importance of so many political and policy issues facing our country. Nowhere in this book have I ever encouraged people to become less passionate or less invested in significant issues of the day. Our country needs more of that drive and energy; we just need to express it in ways that maximize the chances that we engage people in a way that speaks to them. Too often the level of attachment we feel to something leads us astray, to name-calling and score-settling. Cultivating best practices in political discussion will serve everyone well. That way, we might have a shot at change.
While it is increasingly easy to access information in general, it is also easier to access information that strengthens existing beliefs, making open-minded discussion more difficult. While we have access to information, we don’t necessarily choose to access it with equal probabilities. There are also many ways that information is curated for us, sometimes without our knowledge. In an era of fake news and a heightened skepticism of information, particularly as reported by the media, thoughtful use of data and information is imperative to any political conversation. It starts with an honest assessment of where your conversation partner currently stands on the issues at hand and where they are reasonably likely to go. Considering the ego-involvement and level of engagement a person has with an issue is important as well. For a variety of reasons, people typically do not change their minds quickly. The key is to find the happy place between what someone else will find credible and valid and what you really want to argue. Go too far and they won’t listen to you and will actively discount whatever information you present; don’t go far enough and you will miss an opportunity to move the needle in your desired direction. Backing up claims using scientific data from trusted sources will help your case. Remembering that persuasion is not an event but rather a process, a deeper understanding of information processing and a reasonable appraisal of what a person will process will help.
We are not always purely rational thinkers: emotions are an important part of interpersonal political discussions. We often make decisions quickly and emotionally, only relying on reason later to justify our initial decision. Understanding the nature of emotion and how to counteract it can be a helpful tool in your political discussion toolbelt. For example, anger is a particularly unhealthy emotion in terms of calm and collected conversations and it’s one that we often encounter. While there’s always not a quick and easy remedy, simply letting an angry person talk and making it clear you are actively listening can lead them to a spot where they are able to listen. Feelings of disgust toward perceived outgroups, for example, can lead people to want to ignore new information with increasing frequency. Downgrading disgust to something like boredom or attempting to humanize the target of disgust can help to ameliorate the negative effects of that particular emotion. Some common emotions we think of as negative aren’t all that negative after all. For example, anxiety and fear as they relate to political discussions can have negative effects but they also correlate with a desire for more information. When you encounter an anxious or fearful person, be prepared to provide them with information to lessen their uncertainty and to increase their comfort level. Anticipating the emotions that might arise from a political discussion and having coping strategies to deflect or to neutralize that emotion has tremendous potential in interpersonal discussions.
We are all at risk of demonizing those we perceive as different or the “other.” The less frequently we come into contact with perceived outgroups, the more likely we are to feel disconnected from them and to behave in antagonistic ways toward them. Generally speaking, our strategy needs to be focused on increasing the visibility of our contact with people who are different than we are. Breaking out of our identity silos requires intentionality and effort; in ways big and small, we need to actively resist the geographical, partisan, and informational sorting that has become pervasive in American culture.
There are ways to incorporate these strategies into interpersonal conversations as well. The targeted use of personalization can induce people to take a personal interest in an issue. Position-taking and appealing to empathy can be incredibly powerful. Asking people to put themselves in the position of others or to actively reflect on a time when they felt discriminated against helps to emphasize the commonalities between our social groups and ones to which we don’t belong. While it certainly doesn’t work in every situation and for every person, getting someone into an empathetic headspace and asking them to create meaningful ties between their emotions and personal experiences with an outgroup can be a formidable means to achieving increased comfort and trust.
Finally and relatedly, because we all hold multiple identities at the same time (e.g., parent, employee, member of a religious faith, member of an ethnoracial group, etc.), emphasizing key shared identities with another person can increase credibility and trust. Hearing that “someone like you” in a meaningful way thinks and feels a certain way often helps others to be more attentive to a conversation and more likely to change their minds and behavior as well. While there may not be and likely will not be instantaneous change, finding ways to increase interpersonal closeness and trust can help to counteract the effects of social sorting and lead to connections that may, in turn, lead to positive effects down the communication road.
Anyone who knows me knows that I love Tina Fey and her comedy very much. (It’s also possible that I identify maybe a little too closely with the character Liz Lemon from her NBC show 30 Rock.) I thoroughly enjoyed reading Fey’s witty and hilarious book Bossypants, published in 2011, especially for some of the behind-the-scenes gossip about Saturday Night Live. One of the things I remember about reading it was almost something of an aside—her description of the rules of improvisation. (To be precise, the section is titled “The Rules of Improvisation That Will Change Your Life and Reduce Belly Fat*,” with the asterisk adding a note that improv will not reduce belly fat.) Her rules apply far beyond improvisational acting and are a succinct summary of what I’ve been articulating about political conversations.
The first rule is agree and say yes. She gives the example that if you’re doing improv and someone puts up their fingers in the shape of a pretend gun and your response is, “That’s not a gun; those are your fingers!,” it completely kills the scene. Agree with the premise of the situation, within reason and not blindly, but find a way to keep an open mind. Fey writes,
Now, obviously in real life you’re not always going to agree with everything everyone says. But the Rule of Agreement reminds you to “respect what your partner has created” and to at least start from an open-minded place. Start with a Yes and see where that takes you. . . . As an improviser, I always find it jarring when I meet someone in real life whose first answer is no. “No, we can’t do that.” “No, that’s not in the budget.” “No, I will not hold your hand for a dollar.” What kind of way is that to live?20
In terms of political engagement, this is not a suggestion to be a doormat and to passively agree to placate the other person. It’s the idea to allow an open mind to be your default position and to cultivate common ground whenever possible. That does not have to entail moderating your views or watering down your opinions. When you’re making the choice to speak with another person about something potentially contentious like politics or religion, if you want to get to a deeper level of conversation, you’re going to have to agree to some basic premises and a social understanding.
Many different domains—from negotiation to yoga, hypnosis to psychotherapy—rely on this yes idea. For example, in a therapeutic setting, therapists often begin with any statement the other participant cannot deny as being true. For example, opening statements might be, “We’re sitting in this room together,” or “I know you’ve come to work through this problem today.” In more difficult situations, it can be even more general, something like, “The sun is shining and I see you’ve dressed comfortably for our work together.” Finding common ground, even if it seems trivial or unimportant, activates the “yes room” in our brains, the part that enjoys and feels good about being agreeable.
Fey’s second rule is directly related to the first: yes, and. Do not only maintain that open disposition but add something to the discussion. Be an active participant. Contribute something worthwhile. Or as Maxine Hong Kingston wrote in her novel Tripmaster Monkey: His Fake Book, “The way to make a life: Say yes more often than no. Participate.”21 Once we find something that people find mutually valid and concrete, we can branch out to other issues and domains that might be more of a reach. Fey’s third rule might seem obvious but it’s not: make statements. When you’re attempting to make your contribution, don’t simply ask questions and point out obstacles. In her words, “Whatever the problem, be part of the solution”.22
The final point is there are no mistakes, only opportunities. It isn’t suggesting that conversations can’t go wrong but as in improvisation, the most important thing is to make the best of the situation you’re in. Fey writes,
If I start a scene as what I think is very clearly a cop riding a bicycle, but you think I am a hamster in a hamster wheel, guess what? Now I’m a hamster in a hamster wheel. I’m not going to stop everything to explain that it was really supposed to be a bike. . . . In improv there are no mistakes, only beautiful happy accidents. And many of the world’s greatest discoveries have been by accident. I mean, look at the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup, or Botox.23
Indeed.
In a speech to Medgar Evers College in 1980, author and activist Audre Lorde said, “We sometimes find it difficult to deal constructively with the genuine differences between us and to recognize that unity does not require that we be identical to each other.”24 She was exactly right: we don’t have to think identically to one another but we do need to learn how to listen and to process genuine differences without devolving into the basest depths of offensiveness in our discourse.
Lots of people say they are yearning for a less acrimonious and sorted American culture, one that embraces connection and respects difference. I’m one of those people and since you’re reading this book, I assume you are too. Here’s the long and short of it: we need to put up or shut up and do the hard work to model the right behavior, even when others around us don’t follow suit. It can be infuriating and unsatisfying. But it’s literally the only way forward.