Guest or Interviewee (30:29)
Yeah, we will defeat them forever, kind of. Yeah, I see that. I see that a lot. Like, basically saying, like, we just need to wait for these, you know, older conservatives to. To die, basically. And I was like, you hear that a lot. I'm like, you don't realize that, like, you know, there's rising racial minority support for Trump. You don't realize that. You know, it's like, what do you. You really overestimate your idea of, like, defeating the other side, right? Like, people do that on, on both sides, and it's. Yeah, that's. That's. That's a big part of the problem. And the more people speak in those ways, the more it riles up the other side, etc. Etc. You know, I wrote a piece about reading Jeffrey Blaney's the Causes of War. It's a classic book about, yeah, the causes of war, obviously. But he talked about how one of the factors is people. Wars often happen because people overstated or had an exaggerated sense of their ability to win a war. Right. So that, that made them act in more warlike ways. And so. And I think that's a fundamental human tendency too, to overestimate your chances of, of winning something. Right. It's like we, we have a distorted view of the, of the, of the landscape of the battlefield of, of conflict. And we overestimate, like, you know, our, our chances of, of winning in the same way we often overestimate our chances of success at things. I mean, I think a lot of that is related to our distorted perceptions of each other because, you know, when we have, when we can understand, you know, the, the more rational elements of why, you know, the other side believes what they do, then it, it's only natural that we act in ways that amplify the tensions, amplify the temperature. You know, for example, immigration. I mean, Bernie Sanders was, you know, against. He was for strict immigration controls most of his career. He said, you know, lacks border policies, was a Koch brothers policy because, you know, he saw loose immigration policies as helping big businesses and hurting American workers. And that's just to say, no matter what you think on that, I think liberals would be more generous to Bernie Sanders views on that than they would if a Republican expressed the same view. So this is just to say the more that we can embrace the more rational and, you know, understandable views on the other side, the more we'll bring down the temperature. And I think that's a big part of it is to, is to try to see those, those rational views as much as we can. You know, and for, for abortion, for example. Caitlin Flanagan wrote a really good article, I think it was, for the Atlantic, where she described, you know, the best thing activists on either side can do is to actually, you know, deal with the better arguments of the other side and, and think about those, those things and, and not portray them as in the worst possible ways. So, yeah, the talk of vanquishing and defeating the other side, I think those things come about when you really view the other side's fundamental views as really dangerous. And I think a big part of that is having distorted views. That's not to say we can't have understandable concerns about the dangers of harms posed by the other side, but it's also true that we, you know, our. Animosity the, the toxic divides are what help create some of those concerns in, you know, they help generate some of those concerns. So by dealing with the underlying root causes, as I see it, which is the over, over pessimistic and distorted framings of the other side's kind of core political beliefs, I think we bring down the temperature and that that also helps us see how, understand that we're not going to defeat a lot of these, you know, we're not going to defeat the other side easily because it does come down to these core understandable differences in opinion on some core beliefs. And I think there's a few things in that area too, because it's like, you know, A, I don't even think you necessarily need to have a compromise mindset to work on some of these things because you could work hard as much as you're able, you know, work very hard for things while speaking and behaving in less polarizing ways. And then B, yeah, we do, you do need compromise. And I think there is often there's, there's more room for compromise than people understand. Right. Like, one thing that comes to mind is the, you know, that the bill in, in Florida which recently, you know, the one that liberal people called don't say gay bill like they had a ruling that it only applied in certain context and both sides of that debate viewed it as a win. Right. Which was struck people as surprising. But I think it goes to show that sometimes the things we're arguing over are not as all encompassing as we think they are. For example, you could probably find a lot more common ground on immigration than a lot of people believe. And a lot of people overstate what they think their adversaries actually want. The way these things tend to build up is these extremely sky is falling, catastrophizing views. And again, that's not to say that there can't be valid concerns. Right. But, you know, people who are interested in building a less toxic future, a more healthy future for America, if you're willing, if you want to do that, you need to be willing to examine are my fears potentially overstated? Right. Like, and, and am I if I'm worried about those things, it would behoove me to not overstate my fears because overstating fears can be a factor in amplifying tensions. Right. So it's just to say, it's not to say we can't be concerned about things, but I think it's important to speak in careful ways that don't accidentally, you know, amplify tensions Right. That's what I see because I see a lot of people speak in very overly certain ways about like what specifically Trump will do, what he'll accomplish, you know, what the worst case framings are on either side. And a lot of those are just kind of like ultra certain statements and not really like expressed as like a concern. Right. It's like, here's what will happen, here's what the worst things are that will happen, or here's what will happen if Trump or Biden is elected. So I think people interested in, in lowering divides, you know, need to, as Thomas Zaits off said, he, he wrote a, you know, he, he's written about the, the dangers of speaking into overly certain, extremely pessimistic ways because there can be a self fulfilling prophecy to that. Right. It's like there's a, there is a, a danger, there, some risks and I think we need to be aware of those too. And, and people will say, yeah, there's also a risk of not worrying enough. Right. But yeah, that's true too. You need to think about what your worst case fears are, but also be aware of how there can be risks to speaking and overly pessimistic in certain ways too, and how they amplify conflict and animosity and such. But yeah, none of these things are easy, obviously. But that's how I view it as like threading the needle of like trying to work against things you're concerned about while trying to also lessen polarization, speak in less polarizing ways, which is obviously difficult for people who care about these things. It is worth trying to see what your adversaries are seeing and what they're actually concerned about. Even if you think that those concerns are hugely overstated or even silly. It's like a lot of people do believe those things. I think you have to grapple with that fact, you know, and even if you think, you know, they're overstated, even if you think people are using those fears for, you know, overstating those fears and manipulating those phrases, it's like people do really believe those things and I think you have to grapple with that and also try to see the, some of the rational underpinnings. And then, you know, you can see I've written pieces, it's in my books too, about the distorted, polarized views about Trump, our perceptions about Trump, for example, and seeing how, you know, you, you can, you can get into the mind frame of seeing how there was a, there was a lot of irresponsible coverage of the Trump Russia things And how that feeds into a narrative of Trump and Republicans always being attacked unfairly. Right. So, you know, it's like you can. People on both sides, you can view the other side as worse or more contributing to the problem. But I think that, I think, do. I think a lot of people use their views of the other side, their fears and animosity toward the other side as a way to avoid working on the problem where it's like, to me, one can see the other side as worse and more contributing to the divide, the toxicity of the divides, while feeling it's very important to work on reducing those divides because conflict is, is very complex and, and you know it, that should tell us that we should take some humility about the nature of the divides and, and really not. Not let our animosity towards the other side get in the way of us working on the problem. But I think a lot of people just let their animosity and fear make them, say, throw up their hands and say, well, it's their fault, like, I'm not going to work on it. Whereas I see it as, you know, this is a very important problem. And eight groups are asymmetrical in a conflict. You know, it's hard. They can be hard to compare. You know, for example, there's educational polarization, is the fact that liberals really control a lot of the institutions in society, academia, mainstream media, entertainment media. So just to say that the conflicts can be quite complex and we can be prone to seeing the conflict how we want to see it and using that as an excuse to not help. Whereas I think we should embrace some humility and ask what can we do on our side to solve these things? Right? Which no matter who we think works in these things, I think political leaders, pundits, political activists can speak in these ways that acknowledge some of the more rational and understandable objections and concerns on the other side, while saying, and yet here's what I believe, here are the things, here's where we differ, here's why I think what you're doing is wrong. But I, I think what happens is so few people are willing to even speak to those more rational objections that it just becomes a, a game of like, well, I'm going to completely ignore all your concerns and never speak about them, because that's perceived as weak. But I think we need to embrace in our daily lives as everyday citizens to people who have a lot more influence. I think we need to embrace seeing what the other side sees and speaking to their concerns more. But, yeah, that's, that's. Hard for all sorts of reasons. Everybody listening to your program, anybody out there is going to have their political views. We have our political views of who's doing harm, who's doing the most harm. But if we can try to engage with our adversaries as much as possible in depolarizing ways, I think that's, to me, that is one of the main ways we can all help with this problem. And I think it mainly, you know, that that kind of approach mainly helps with the more politically influential right, like the political leaders, the, you know, the pundits, the political activists. But I do think trying to get them to see the value of, you know, working towards their, their political goals in depolarizing, de escalating ways, which, you know, in practical terms means trying to understand what, what's bothering your political opponents and setting them at ease. Right? But that's the last thing that most of us feel like doing. Like we actually feel like actually taking our opponents concerns seriously, you know, because we view their concerns as so goofy or even dangerous, we don't have an incentive to speak to their concerns. But I do think part of the path out of this is getting more political leaders and activists and pundits to see the value in speaking in those more persuasive ways and taking their opponents concerns seriously as much as they're able to. I think that's a practical thing that all of us could do even in our daily lives as everyday citizens. But that's kind of the approach I would take because, you know, clearly we're not going to like, rid ourselves of major divides and major divergent narratives. Right? We're not going to do that, maybe ever. But we're definitely not to do it overnight. But yeah, that's kind of like would be my instinct for how to wrap it up.
