How We Respond to Trump’s Verdict Matters

Last week we asked our social media community how they felt about Trump being convicted in his “hush money” trial. The responses, as you might imagine, ran the gamut:  

“I am relieved that he will be held accountable for his crimes.”

“It’s crazy how we’re weaponizing the justice system to punish political opponents now.”

“I don’t like him but at the same time it’s hard to believe that politics didn’t play a part in the verdict.”

“I did not expect a guilty verdict in this case personally… that being said, a fair jury of twelve of Trump’s peers found him guilty. That’s how rule of law is supposed to work.”

Our comments section is usually quite respectful, but some people did lash out: 

“You’re proof that Trump loves the poorly educated.”

“You are a brain-washed idiot.”

“Keep drinking the koolaid, sister.”

“You liberals will destroy everything in your misguided, hate driven quest to ‘get Trump’.”

And we get it: people’s emotions run as high as their perception of the stakes. But our shared commitment to constructive problem-solving and recognizing the dignity of all people compels us to point out that insults are unhelpful — and even self-defeating. Ad hominem attacks never persuade and can even make people more committed to their beliefs. At the very least, they make people want to lash out in kind. Contempt deepens the divide between us and feeds a toxic cycle. 

(Want to join the conversation? Check out our Instagram post or Facebook post.)

“Nervous for our country”

One community member expressed concern about what Trump’s verdict might lead to: “I’m nervous. Nervous for our country and how people on both sides are going to react.” 

Regarding the toxicity of our divides, someone wrote, “I wish we could all get off this nightmare of a ride. None of us want this.”

Through team-colored glasses

Toxic conflict can lead to inflexible thinking, with people being more “team-based” in how they interpret current events. For example, team-based thinking can lead to people quickly arriving at confident “guilty” or “innocent” takes on cases like this before learning important details. 

About this tendency, one of our followers wrote, “So many people’s identities are so tied to their affiliation. Whether that be to a team, party, cause, etc., our society has become so driven by competition on every level … We are so wrapped up in winning or being right that we lose sight of any nuance.”

Another community member focused on how our animosity leads us to cite information of dubious relevance to build our case. They wrote: 

“One problem I continue to see is the ‘what about’ arguments (Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, etc.) They were investigated. Charges were brought against Hunter Biden. Even if they weren’t, those cases have no bearing on Trump’s guilt or innocence. We really need to focus on the details of THIS case and stop diverting attention to non-applicable cases.”

Someone shared excerpts from a New York Magazine article by Elie Honig that criticized the case as unfair, including this excerpt alleging bias in the decision to bring charges: 

“The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”

Another community member said that it’s not helpful for people defending the verdict to speak as if juries are infallible: 

“Juries do make mistakes. We shouldn’t pretend they’re infallible. But we can argue against overly pessimistic narratives (e.g., ‘the whole system is rigged’ views, which we can find some people across the political spectrum reach for when cases don’t go the way they’d prefer).”

Being courageous enough to try to understand others’ views 

When it comes to the Trump verdict, as with many other issues, rational people can have very different narratives about what’s going on. Yet many people speak as if their perspective is the only “obvious” and “common sense” one, labeling those with different views as “ignorant,” “gullible,” or “brain-washed.”

Have you been angry at people who see Trump’s verdict differently? Here are some thoughts for you: 

If you’re angry at those who think the verdict was wrong: Speaking as if all criticism of the case is due only to ignorance or pro-Trump bias is demeaning and fuels division. There are rational reasons why people believe the case was unfair and biased. To be clear, we’re not espousing those views; we’re simply acknowledging there are defensible arguments — including some that anti-Trump people have also expressed. (To help understand those views, here are a couple pieces we recommend.) And rational people can of course disagree with those arguments. 

If you’re angry at those who think the verdict was correct: Even if you think the case was unfair or politically motivated, the fact remains that a jury of 12 people did convict Trump. It’s possible to imagine this case going another way; cases are complex and often unpredictable, even when they seem straightforward (one potential factor that highlights the complexity here: some thought Trump being involved in his own defense may have hurt his case). Suppose the shoe was on the other foot, and a Democratic leader was convicted of something many Democrats found unfair. You’d likely be upset if liberals said things like, “This proves the system is entirely corrupt,” or “This is part of a plot by Republicans.” Even in your anger, can you see how you’d view those kinds of aggressive, catastrophizing reactions as concerning if the situation were reversed? 

(If you’d like to see some non-partisan analysis of this verdict, you might like the “Jordan Is My Lawyer” Instagram account where Jordan Berman examines arguments on both sides of this case, among other issues.)

Disagreement is inevitable 

If there’s anything we can agree on, it’s that we’ll continue to disagree – on this and many other issues. To help create a more constructive and less divided society, we must strive to see the value of thinking critically about our own positions and arguing in persuasive, respectful ways — even when we’re angry and anxious. 

This is admittedly not easy — but it’s what we must do if we want to participate in building a less toxic future.

Read some more thoughts on Trump’s verdict from Braver Angels’ John Wood Jr.

Want to stay in the loop and join the conversation? Sign up for our newsletter.