Trump

April is fairly conservative and doesn't support Donald Trump. April's sister, another conservative, loves Trump. April is worried that the difficulty of finding common political ground will harm their relationship. 

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• Follow us on Instagram

Transcript

 When We Disagree is a show about arguments, how we have them, why we have them, and their impact on our relationships and ourselves.  I graduated from the University of Georgia, and I'm a diehard Georgia football fan. It's kind of absurd how invested I am in this team of college kids and what they do on the field.

I can name as starting 11 on both sides of the ball and most of the second stream backups from memory. I've read about high school players that UGA is recruiting, and I've barked at more people. Actually barked at them. Total strangers. More often than I'd care to share and as a UGA supporter I have to hate the University of Florida and anybody who likes Florida football.

I have to it's in the Constitution I don't make the rules So, of course,  I hate it when Florida wins and I love it when they lose But my hate has to go much further than that if a Florida fan cured cancer I'd have to be at least a little mad about it  This condition of hating the other side, no matter what they do, is what researchers call affective polarization.

And it's increasingly a problem in our political worlds, not just in sports rivalries like UGA versus Florida. Americans are, of course, divided in their policy opinions and our political priorities, but they're often not as divided on these as they think. But in terms of affective polarization, which measures our emotional response to our side and the other side, not how we feel about crime or tax policy, that is increasing wildly. 

Affective polarization is very high, and it's often the worst amongst those who consume the most political information.  Affective polarization is like a disgust for the other side, and it's often driven by misperceptions and distortions about who the other side is, What they really believe, where they live, how much money they make, and beyond. 

Politics is often compared to sports, and in this case, partisanship can look a lot like sports fandom.  I'm Michael Lee, Professor of Communication and Director of the Civility Initiative, At the college of Charleston. Our guest today on when we disagree is April Chatham Carpenter, professor of applied communication and chair of the department of applied communication at the university of Arkansas at Little Rock.

She is also very active in the braver angels national organization dedicated to building bridges and depolarization. April. Yeah,  

so my story relates actually to a family member. Um, and I don't think she would mind that I'm sharing the story. Um, it's my, my sister and this was really happened. Um, as a result of. 

her choice to support, um, Donald Trump for the presidency in 2016 and 2020, uh, 2020. Um, and, um, although I don't think she's supportive of him currently, um, I, continued seeing her post things on social media that would make me about every month. And I think Facebook in particular, I would just block her.

She's my sister. She's my friend. I don't want to like completely shut her out of my life, but I realized that I, I didn't know why she voted for Trump. And although I was conservative, um, as well, I wasn't, um, a Trump conservative. And so, um, I, I mean, we grew up with the same kind of upbringing and background, uh, similar kind of moral values.

still have those in common moral and religious values and I just couldn't figure out how she would be able to support the things that she was supporting and also it was during the pandemic there were issues related to masking and vaccinations and she was an anti masker, I was a very much of a masker, um, and I got vaccinated three times and I don't think she ever got vaccinated and so we had some differences, um, related.

you know, to that as well. And so there was a point in which I, I thought, you know, I can continue  just blocking her, um, her Facebook feed because it would just make me mad because she would repost  things that I just really felt like were not helpful and maybe were not based in the same set of, um, facts that I was, uh, aware of and reading. 

And so I finally decided that, you know, in fairness to her, I needed to find out why it was that she chose to vote for Trump and I approached the conversation, trying to approach it with open hands, which is what I try to do when I am in a expecting there to be a disagreement or an argument. And I had determined that I wasn't going to try to argue her down or change her mind because that was not going to probably work well.

This is my sister, my friend. I wanted to her to be able, I wanted to understand her. That was my real goal. So I, it was a phone conversation. It was not in person. And I, I remember. talking to her and just saying, I, I just don't see how you can with your moral values that you do have vote for someone who communicates in this way. 

And she, uh, said, so I just really want to know your perception and what, um, why you chose to vote for him and why you supported him. And  she went through multiple things about his policies that I began to hear, and I don't remember the specifics now, but I began to hear So specific things that she said and I'm like, oh, oh, oh, that makes sense to me.

And then she would say things like, you know, I just have to hold my nose whenever he talks about people because I can't stand the way he talks about people either, or the way he makes fun of Specific things because he says that's not why I voted for him. I'm voting for him because of his policies and she pointed to specific things That actually happened in his first his his  2016 to 20 presidential uh time and said that she was I really believe that he was the best for our nation and for conservative values in particular, um, and so I, I just began to understand her and although I would continue still blocking her on Facebook, I at least felt like that I, uh, it was the first time that I really had talked to someone that was close to me that had voted for Trump and so I, it was hard for me to, to initially even have a Want to have that conversation, but then I felt like I truly understood her and then there was a follow up conversation We were actually at the beach in um in florida And I made some comment about governor de santos at the time um, and I um the her  my my brother in law Um said well, we really love  De santos and I and I just And I wasn't having open hands at that point.

I just, I can't understand why you would even like him. And I went through this litany  of things as to why I didn't like him. Um, and I'm coming from a higher ed environment. Um, anyway, I realized afterwards that I was not practicing any of the things in that particular conversation that I had practiced in the previous one, when, which I had asked my sister and tried to really understand.

I wasn't coming from a place of understanding. I was coming from a place of fighting. And so, um, after dinner that night, I went back. to our, our place where we were staying because we were all together. And I determined that I would just sit and try to do the same thing that I did with the telephone conversation with my sister, but this time with my brother in law.

And my sister wasn't that active in this particular part of the conversation, but, um, and just said, I, I realized that I came across as being really dogmatic and I wasn't willing to listen to you at all about your perceptions and so I need to hear what you like about him.  And we had a good conversation in which he then began to tell me a variety of things that he, that DeSantis had done for Florida and they own some property in Florida.

And so, and how it was helpful to them. Um, and I began to.  Be like, Oh, well, I hadn't heard about those things, that thing, that thing, that thing that you mentioned because the media was only portraying DeSantis or the media that I was listening to was only portraying DeSantis as this kind of person. And I hadn't heard about these other kinds of things, nor had I thought about them or been willing to even look into other kinds of perceptions of him.

Um, and then he then asked. Well, tell me more about your concerns. I know you kind of erupted at dinner, but what are your concerns? We were just able to have this, this, this truly cordial conversation in which we both were trying to understand the other.  If I hadn't been willing to do that, I could have just written them off as being, Oh yeah, they're, those are my far right.

you know, brother in law and sister in both those circumstances. And so, um, that, that's the story that I wanted to tell today. And I was reminded of this story actually in a conversation that I just  witnessed  with, um,  my sister in laws and my daughter, um, that just happened this weekend in which there was not this kind of listening happening.

Um, and both sides were being pretty dogmatic and walked away. from the conversation, not willing to have further conversation unless the other person agreed with them. And so it was just a real contrast, um, to what happened this weekend. And it made me think again about  does this work if we can really slow things down  and try to understand.

Because I teach this stuff in my classes. And if it doesn't work, then why teach it?  

You research, you teach and you preach what you called active listening and approaching these conversations, disagreeable conversations with open hands,  talk a little bit about what that means to you. outside of the context of these specific interactions.

But in general, if somebody was to want to model the practice of open hands, what does that look like? 

Yeah, I have to do this, um, pretty much on a daily basis in my work, where I may be finding myself starting to kind of get irritated at what somebody is going to be saying, or I'm anticipating having a conversation with a student or a colleague,  in which they are, I think, are going to be  pushing me on something, okay?

So maybe pushing me about a policy or a grade or, or, you know, something that I've done. And so I, I actually learned this from one of my colleagues and, and what he said that he does is he literally opens his hands underneath the table if he's in a physical face to face meeting because the opening of the hands is, is a reminder of him in the physical space that I am trying to  keep  curiosity.

At the forefront and an attempt to understand where the other person is coming from before I immediately make a judgment on what they're saying. And so I physically will open my hands under the table, or I recently had a conversation  that I was anticipating. was going to be a difficult conversation at work.

It wasn't a political conversation. And I thought, I'm, I'm, I'm found myself getting nervous about it, anxious. And I'm like, okay, if I can just come into this conversation as really trying to understand and to learn from this person, I will be so much better. And, and what I've begun to realize is that it relates to our brain chemistry.

Right? I mean, I, I'm not a brain scientist or a psychologist in terms of that, but I do teach about in my conflict classes that. that we tend to, um, when input comes in to us, we can very easily go into what some people would call our lizard brain, um, which is the brainstem, the amygdala, which we can get an amygdala hijack, which as soon as that, that information comes in, we immediately have an emotional reaction and not a rational reaction.

And so when When somebody posts something on, on social media, when my sister would post something on social media, and I would immediately want to respond to that. And, you know, just, just kind of fight. I'm I'm having an amygdala hijack. I'm not having an open hand, open hands. I'm not slowing down the conversation.

I'm not being mindful. of my conversation. It's actually what happened at the dinner table or after the dinner table recently with my two sister in laws and my daughter in which they were both just going after each other, they were having their lizard brain had taken over and they were just not able to listen to each other at all.

And You know, if, and it would have had to have taken both parties being willing to step back, probably not at that moment, and say, I really want to understand you.  Not all the time are we willing to do that. And I had a conversation with my daughter afterwards and said, so would you ever be willing to have that coverage?

Nope. Nope. And she says, the only reason why I'm even connected with those people is because they are family. Otherwise I would have written them off. And I see so much of that in our society now is that we just write off the people that are  irritating us,  you know, and so I'm not saying that we shouldn't. 

Oh, I mean that we should always expend the emotional energy that it takes because it's hard  to embrace a conversation with someone who we believe is so wrong in what they believe, um, and to really try to embrace curiosity and understanding. So that's a long answer to your question about what I mean by open hands. 

I'm having two reactions that I'll share, and get your reactions to those. One,  absolutely, we need greater understanding to build bridges across our political, social, religious, etc. Differences, because We can't de platform everybody, we can't cancel everybody, and it is a total fiction that you can live by yourself in a world without any disagreement whatsoever.

On the other hand,  if I hear something or say, or somebody says something that I think is particularly monstrous, it's very difficult to do that.  And then secondly, where is the role for fighting? Is there a role for, for counter argument? And for persuasion in this open hands point of view. And when does that start?

Yeah. Um, you know, in braver angels, we talk a lot about that. When you enter into these conversations, you should not enter in with the goal of persuasion. Your goal is always to understand. Now, does that mean though, that I cannot express my opinion and they would say, no, in fact, um, I just, taught a conflict management workshop in which they talk about the strategy called the LAP strategy.

It's actually named after one of the founders of the organization, but it's listening, agreeing, or acknowledge is the L and the A. So that's the listening part. And then the two P's at the end, the first P is pivot, which is where you basically are asking the other person after they have felt heard, are you?

You know, I have a little different perspective, or I've done some reading on this, or my life experiences are different than yours. I would love to share that with you. And you're basically asking for permission to share your perspective. And not in all situations like that, especially if we're in our lizard brain, are we going to be able to do this, right?

It takes this slowing down mindfulness, deep breathing, you know, whatever it is that it takes to, to get there, um, time sometimes away from the situation. But um, if you're in that situation and both parties are kind of somewhat open to this, then you do the pivot and then you do a perspective. And that perspective statement is really, um, it's framed with I messages.

So I feel this, I think this, I have had this life experience. Um, and. You're hoping that the other person, they may not though, will also  reciprocate what you've just done for them, which is active listening, open hands, acknowledge what you've just said, agree if there's anything at all, acknowledge where you're feeling strongly, so that you can have this kind of open conversation with each other, but not everybody agreeing.

can do that, or has the skills to do that. But  there are times, so that, that, that would be if I'm in a conversation and my goal is really to, not advocacy, but my goal is really for understanding. There is, um, and people talk about this in terms of civility and strong civility. There certainly is a place for civil disobedience, for strong civility, for protest. 

But if we're always advocating and always protesting, then we are not going to be able to build relationships. So I think about Daryl Davis is an example of this, um, that, you know, the well known story, John Perkins is another example. Um, but Daryl in particular started befriending, befriending a black man, befriending,  people going to KKK meetings.

Um, they were a lot of hesitancy with him going to those, but he had to make the choice of seeing those people as human beings, as seeing, some people call it seeing the divine and the other, right? I mean, seeing the, the person not as, so as other, but it's, I, they, they are worthy of my, my, of my, at least, respect of them as a human being.

Maybe I don't respect their opinion. Um, so, so yes, there is time, there are places and, and opportunities to express our opinion, but expressing our opinion in ways that in the communication literature we would call being assertive, not aggressive.  Um, assertive being I messages, I think this, I need this,  but not you are a bad person because you believe this and I cannot ever relate to you. 

As we close, I'm curious about your sense of the possibility of persuasion across our many divides. And so many of these mechanisms to me,  At first blush look like ways to continue relationships while disagreeing. In other words, we can stay in the room together and hear one another out, but maybe we don't move our positions one inch, but we also haven't torched the relationship simultaneously and that's a social good,  but also if you're an advocate for a particular issue, insert any issue here, you want to see some movement.

You want to convince people and win hearts and minds. So in this divided world, what hope do you have to actually move the needle to change minds? 

Yeah. So there's research, psychological research that actually talks about the facts do not change minds. I mean, we know this also from Aristotelian  rhetoric, right?

That there's logos, that's the facts where there's ethos, that's the credibility of the person. And then there's, there's pathos, the, the actual emotions. And there is some research to show that we need all three, right, to be able to persuade, but in, in our divided culture, for me, the persuasion happens when the emotions can be aroused of empathy towards the other.

Um, and so. We need to hear the stories of the other. I remember hearing a debate that Braver Angels put on related to the abortion controversy. And as I began to listen to these women all across the abortion spectrum of where they believe pro life to pro choice, all across sharing their stories. I began to have a desire to learn more and to understand more where they were coming from.

Just the facts of what an abortion is like or why a woman should have the right to choose with fact that those are emotions, yes, but the storyline.  are so important. That's why I think things like story core, um, that, that, that are done where people can share their stories are so powerful. Um, for me anymore, if somebody is, is upset about a situation, if I can just ask them, tell me what in your background has led you to be. 

to believe this, then that helps me understand where they're coming from.  If I could have stopped and had my daughter and the two aunts  answer that question  with each other,  would they have come to actually agree? No, probably not. But would they have been able to, if they were in a setting in which policy was being developed, actually be able to have more empathy and move towards the other so that we can somehow come out of this chaos zone of our differences and actually lead to some kind of convergence on policy?

I do think it's possible.  

In the end, you'd like to Humanize difference  and normalize the possibility for connection.  

Absolutely. And I think we do that from hearing stories and understanding that we might have shared common values in the process of those stories.  

April Chatham Carpenter, thanks so much for being on When We Disagree. 

I'm grateful for the invitation, so thank you.  

When We Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee. Recording and sound engineering by Jesse Kunz and Lance Laidlaw. Reach out to us at whenwedisagree at gmail. com.