Our Work Will Sometimes Bother You — Let’s Talk About That

In our politically charged landscape, many of us feel angry, fearful, and on edge. There are clearly a lot of emotional tripwires and landmines on all sorts of topics that can agitate people — and when we hit someone’s tripwires, they’ll pull away from us. Anger and fear present major obstacles to persuasion.

Guilt by association

Here’s one common way this plays out for us and other organizations that work on reducing political toxicity: Someone dismisses the goal of this work simply because they see someone on the “other side” supporting it.  For example, a staunch progressive may think, “I see Republicans supporting this work; this shows how faulty the goals must be.” (Or vice versa, which also often happens.) 

But that’s a logical fallacy known as “guilt by association.” Just because someone you see as an opponent believes something doesn’t mean that belief is wrong. 

Our words can accidentally be wedges

Another way we might accidentally drive people away is by using words associated with one “side” or the other. For example, someone writes an essay about reducing political toxicity and, in the process, uses the term “illegal immigrant.” That word choice may drive away some liberal people; they may end up thinking something like, “This cause is for conservative people; it’s not for me.” 

Or a conservative may see a piece about this work that mentions the term “social justice” and think, “Obviously this is a liberal endeavor; it’s not for me.”

(On this topic, Isaac Saul has a great TED Talk about how our language choices can accidentally amplify divides.)

“But what about…”

It sometimes happens that when we examine polarizing behaviors in one political group, people in that group angrily respond, “Why are you focusing on this and not the many bad things on the ‘other side’? You’re equating the two groups in unfair ways.”

But examining how people across the political spectrum can contribute to our divides is not saying, “Both groups are the same.” (Read more about this “both-sides” objection.)

Many ways to misunderstand this work

It’s also true that there are many ways to misunderstand what we do. For example, some people in this movement promote the term “moderate,” which can make some people think, “Oh, this is a cause for people with moderate, in-the-middle stances.”

But as we often say: No, this is a cause for everyone, regardless of their political views. The term “moderate” can have different definitions and one definition is someone who, regardless of their stances, tries to engage in respectful and productive ways.

Disagreement is inevitable — even about how to do this work

Even within organizations like ours, disagreements are common. People doing this work have disagreements about specific political and cultural issues (no surprise there) — but we also have disagreements about the best approaches for reducing political toxicity. 

This may be surprising to some people, but it shouldn’t be: We’re human beings and we’re going to disagree about all sorts of things — even for some issues we’re mostly aligned on. And the truth is that toxic polarization makes discord likely even within groups that are largely aligned.

To avoid such discord harming our overall goals, those of us in this movement should try to be generous with each other. We should try to not be overly judgmental if others don’t agree with us completely on granular aspects of this work — just as we’d like others to do the same for us. 

We hope you keep your eye on the big picture

There are just so many ways we can accidentally drive people away from any cause these days. To live in a highly polarized society is to be surrounded by emotional land mines. 

If and when you find yourself being upset about something we’ve said, we hope you keep in mind the big picture of this work. We hope when you’re bothered by something we’ve said or an approach we’ve taken, you can still see the wisdom of our goal: the goal of reducing political toxicity and contempt, and increasing productive and solutions-oriented collaboration. 

What can those in this movement do about this?

Those of us spreading the word about this work should see the importance of trying to pre-emptively address negative reactions.  

One way to do this: Acknowledge that disagreement on specific topics is inevitable and ask people to focus on the big picture. 

This leads us to another strategy: We can be honest and vulnerable about these disagreements. Such honesty will help people see that they can join this cause and support the “big idea” — even as they disagree with others in this movement on other things (stances on issues, optimal approaches, etc.). 

We can look for opportunities to show that we understand some people’s negative reactions. This is part of a being-vulnerable approach: showing skeptical people that we don’t judge them for their objections and suspicions, and we understand why they’re skeptical. After all, extreme polarization leads to much anger and distrust: it’s inevitable that many will have questions about this work. 

Here’s a practical example of how we might use these ideas in the real world. Let’s say you’re creating a depolarization-aimed resource for the general public. You could include a prominent disclaimer in the introduction that says something like the following: 

In these polarized times, it’s inevitable that some people will take issue with some of the ideas and thoughts in this resource. We ourselves sometimes disagree about which ideas and resources to focus on; disagreement is inevitable. We hope that, even if you disagree with some specific ideas and resources we’ve included, you’ll agree with the primary goals of reducing contemptuous, toxic ways of engaging and building a healthier political culture. 

When we directly and transparently address the fact that our work can sometimes be triggering, we’ll help people approach our work with a more open and accepting mindset. We’ll help them embrace the main idea of disagreeing in healthier ways — and reduce the chances of accidentally driving away valuable members in this movement.  

Want to stay in the loop about efforts to reduce toxic polarization? Sign up for our newsletter.