Why People Show Up Angry—and How to Calm the Room

When does government transparency actually build trust—and when does it backfire? Todd Glover is the executive director of the Municipal Association of South Carolina. A former city manager, Glover joins When We Disagree to share what a $25,000 logo fight taught him about communication, public outrage, and the art of making numbers meaningful. From packed gymnasiums to calm councils, Glover reflects on how misunderstanding fuels fear, why information must come early, and why faith in the reasoning abilities of everyday citizens keeps democracy alive at the local level.

Tell us your argument stories!

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

Transcript

Michael Lee : [00:00:00] When we disagree is a show about arguments, how we have them, why we have them, and their impact on our relationships and ourselves. We like to think we form opinions based on evidence and then feel emotions about those conclusions, but it often works backwards. We feel something first and then we reason our way to justify that feeling.

This process is called motivated reasoning, and it explains why smart people can reach opposite conclusions from the same information and why facts rarely end emotional arguments, unlike confirmation bias where we seek supporting evidence. Motivated reasoning involves actively constructing arguments to reach predetermined conclusions.

A lawyer building a case isn't necessarily seeking truth. They're seeking to win. Our brains often work the same way, playing attorney for positions we are emotionally invested in. The smarter someone is the better they become at [00:01:00] motivated reasoning, using their intelligence to construct elaborate justifications.

Think about that friend who always dates problematic people. They don't just overlook red flags, they construct elaborate explanations for why those red flags are actually green. Their jealousy shows they care. Their inability to hold a job demonstrates some free spiritedness or creativity. This isn't stupidity, it's intelligence.

Working in the service of emotional needs in family conflicts, motivated reasoning can create alternate realities. Research by the psychologist Peter Ditto shows we scrutinize threatening information more carefully than we welcome news. Given fake medical test results, people who were told they had an enzyme linked to health problems, spent longer examining the information and were more likely to point out flaws in the methodology those told they were healthy, accepted the results immediately.

We become brilliant critics when motivated. Recognizing, motivated reasoning can transform our disagreements, though. [00:02:00] When positions seem impossibly entrenched, we can ask what emotional need does this belief serve? Instead of attacking someone's conclusions, we can explore what would have to be true for them in order to change their mind.

Understanding that we all engage in motivated reasoning can create some space for humility. Maybe our own ironclad logic isn't as objective as we would like to think. 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 Todd Glover.

Todd is the Executive Director of the Municipal Association of South Carolina after a multi-decade career in local government. Todd, tell us an argument story. 

Todd Glover : Well, it's great to be with you this morning, Michael. Thank you for the invitation. Early in my career, as I mentioned in the, in the intro, I was worked in local government for about 25 years.

Early in my career, I was working for, a suburban county in [00:03:00] Georgia and in those days we had a budget of about 150 million, which then was still a lot of money, but then it was a heck of a lot of money. And we had our required public hearings, three public hearings, and not one single citizen out of a county of 125,000 people showed up.

Not one person. We were also simultaneously working on a rebranding for our county. New logo cost us about $25,000. And the night that that was being approved, it was standing room only. I honestly thought that none of us were gonna make it out of there alive. People were angry. We had to bring in sheriff's deputies.

I mean, just if you can picture this politically charged room and. It, it was one of the worst meetings I've ever been through in my 25 years of public service. And there was one [00:04:00] protagonist who was kind of a thorn in our side all along. He was kind of leading the charge on this, and I went up to him after the meeting and I said, I was trying to be a little smart actually, and I was young in my career, you know how that is.

Michael Lee : I get it. 

Todd Glover : And I asked him, I said. We passed $140 million budget. You didn't say a word. We tried to do $25,000 rebranding study. Right? And you're ready to run us outta here on a rail. Why is that? I'll never forget his response. He said, I don't understand. 140 million. I understand. 25,000. 

Michael Lee : I, okay, explain that to me.

I don't really get it. 

Todd Glover : Well, it was, it's something that's framed the rest of my career and when I talked to MPA students going into the field, Uhhuh, even when I even as a city manager when I did things, I always went back to that disagreement that we had [00:05:00] 140 million to just an average person is such an abstract number that it's hard for them.

Come out and, and discuss it, or you just throw it. It is like when you hear the federal government and we have a $3 trillion Sure. You know deficit or things like that, but to him, $25,000, he knew what that $25,000 was real to him. It was a new car or 

Michael Lee : mm-hmm. 

Todd Glover : You know, renovations to its house or.

Perhaps even his salary. I don't know what he right, you know, made in a year. To him that $25,000 seemed like a waste and the totality of 140 million, it was so abstract that it didn't strike home with him at all. 

Michael Lee : I could see this going one of two ways, which is you, you could use this for the light [00:06:00] arts of public engagement.

If you really wanted people to understand the issues that affected them and speak in numbers that are more approachable and less lunar. Or you could use this as a dark arts and camouflage your dealings in much larger numbers that are in the billions and trillions in the hopes that you alienate people with large figures that are completely inaccessible to them.

So let's get right down to it. Todd, how have you used this important piece of information? 

Todd Glover : I've always, it always used it to, I think for good. Trying to make sure that while I had a grasp of what I was talking about, not everyone in the public did and. Just because we have initiatives going on and we can get into this kind of bubble and we think, well, well, nobody's out here opposing it, so we must be doing okay.

Right. Never stop to think, are people actually understanding what we're doing enough to oppose us? And so I've always had to try to have that [00:07:00] mindset. I've never agreed with that guy ever. He was a thorn in my side at every meeting. And, and I would hate to tell him now, he may not even be alive now.

He was an older gentleman. This was two decades ago. I hate to even tell him that. I, I, I learned a life lesson from him. That's right. Antagonist. But it, it is something that stuck with me, and I think it's important as a public official that, that you make sure that you know your audience and that you adequately explain what you're doing, the work that you're doing.

That you never take for granted that just because someone is not speaking out against what you're doing is that they may, you may not have explained it well enough for them to know that they're opposed to it. 

Michael Lee : I think this gets down to a real fundamental question about governance and governing and even even democracy really, which is perhaps if you're in the seat of government, there is contrary impulses, which [00:08:00] is one.

If you're doing something that's unpopular or potentially unpopular, to invite people into local government to invite them to air their grievances and to be antagonists to you. Is, is potentially risky to your job, to your very much to your livelihood, to your immediate mental health if you're getting screamed at in a crowded room with with de deputy sheriffs everywhere.

And then the other impulse, of course, is to be an ethical governor. And actually be a practicing small d Democrat and invite people into the political process by explaining what you're doing and getting their feedback and, and shaping policies that impact their lives in a way that has their input. It sounds like you, you have a much more ethical approach to this, but speaking outside of your purview and your experience and you're, what drives you?

What incentives do people who work in local government have to use the $24,000 figure instead of the $140 million figure? In other words, what incentive do they have to [00:09:00] really invite people into the process to help them understand the policies that impact their lives? 

Todd Glover : Well, I think it's, it's several factors and, and one of the, the biggest factors is I think when people fully understand an issue.

You can have a much better calmer discussion over it. A lot of times when people either misunderstand, don't know fear enters the, the equation and it's typically very heated conversations. When I'm stroke counsels on how to conduct meetings, I always tell 'em to put as much information out there as they can ahead of time.

Give everything that you're giving to a council member or a mayor, give it to people ahead of time so they walk in that door. They know that, you know, as much as could be expected, almost as much as anyone in the room is gonna be voting on it. I think that the [00:10:00] input that you can get from people at that point is much more productive than people learning about things on the fly or not understanding things.

Then you don't have productive meetings at all because, you know, to, to assume that you have all the answers is is not a good path to go down. And when you have a public hearing, is it, are you going through the steps of a public hearing because you're required to do it? Or are you actually interested in hearing what people have to say their, their actual feedback so that you might can adapt?

Your initiative to implement some of the, some of the good ideas that came from the discussion. If people don't have a clear understanding of it, I, I think you're just missing a step. 

Michael Lee : I'll admit that I, there's something else is coming up, which is, which is also sort of central to the whole democracy project, which is that citizens have the capacity for full [00:11:00] understanding of really complicated issues and then can calmly air their voices, right?

All of democracy is kind of a gamble on the reasoning ability of strangers, right? Of people you'll never meet. And then to what extent you think that those people are capable of real understanding, of rationality, of deep thought, of careful contemplation, of reading, of sustained attention. All of the things are assumptions.

When you say, look, we instruct our folks to give out lots and lots and lots of information. There's an assumption there that they'll go through it. That they'll go through it carefully, that they'll understand. What they're reading, their comprehension and retention levels will be really high. And then therefore, as you say, when they fully understand things, it leads to calm discussions.

When they misunderstand, it leads to fear and heat. Explain that distinction. Explain your faith in this comprehension and understanding abilities of of the citizens. And the argument that full understanding leads to calm discussions. 

Todd Glover : Well, I'd like to say that it always does, but it, it doesn't, [00:12:00] it doesn't mean that when someone fully understands it, they're not still gonna be mad.

I've seen that, you know, a lot of times as well. Okay. I just think that it, I guess in that assumption, going back to my original example. We were prepared to discuss that very intricate 140 million, $150 million budget. 

Michael Lee : Yeah. 

Todd Glover : And we thought that that issue of the rebranding was such an easy, understandable item that we did not do our homework, we did not do the pre-work ahead of time to put that information out.

And, and it, all of that meeting could have been avoided. I feel like if people. Had known the facts ahead of time. I, I've been in meetings where when I was city manager in another city, there was a rumor on social media. I mean, here we go with social media, we're talking about accurate information, right.

And there was a rumor that got out. We were [00:13:00] trying to annex a, a community next to us and they asked if we would come to a public meeting. And the mayor and I show up, and I'm not kidding, there were 500 people in this church gymnasium. 

Michael Lee : Oh boy. 

Todd Glover : And I was so thankful it was the church because I was like, this might be our one race.

Might people may respect the church ground. And, and within the first five minutes when we explained, probably three quarters of the room got up and left. And again, I was reminded we did a poor job of getting the accurate information out there so that people had a full understanding of what it was.

So again, the reaction was fear. It was hostile. And I've just always learned that it doesn't mean that everybody's going to agree. It doesn't mean that they're gonna be happy. It doesn't mean they're not going. Rail and [00:14:00] get mad and be very angry with you. But in the majority of instances I've found that if they have all the information ahead of time, it cuts off a lot of a lot of the needless things that that happen that you don't.

It's just a waste of time. 

Michael Lee : The stories you're telling remind me of two old political adages, really simple ones. One is define yourself or be defined, and then the second one is if you're explaining, you're losing. 

Todd Glover : That's right. 

Michael Lee : Absolutely. Which is to say that you gotta get out in front of this information, otherwise people are gonna create a story about it.

Hence the three fourths of the people realizing on mass in real time. I think we might've been misinformed and this is not a big deal. And then just saying, well, we're gonna leave this church auditorium or gymnasium. 

Todd Glover : Well, I always say that you know, Winston Churchill said a truth. The a lie travels around the world before the truth puts on his pants.

Right? That's, and he lived what, 70 years before [00:15:00] Facebook. They consider the, the, the realm in which we work now where you, you know, I even find now reading through social media whether I actually know what I'm talking about or not, just because I see, you know, you may see a screenshot, somebody posts on there, some kind of me, some kind of story, and.

It, it's, it's almost a full-time job now for you to keep up with trying to fact check everything that you hear. I think that's also important when you consider that as a governmental agency. If you ever get the reputation of not putting out the accurate information, then you always have an uphill battle because everything from then on, people are not gonna trust.

Michael Lee : Todd sort of big picture stuff as we, as we close here after a multi-decade career in, in government, I'm curious about your, your faith [00:16:00] in the reasoning abilities of strangers. As we talked about it earlier, we live in a time of. Some increasing suspicion about the Democratic project of certain threats to the Democratic project, whether those are explicit threats or or implicit threats to the public's attention and information gathering and media literacy.

And is this a good source? Is this a bad source? Is this good information, bad information? You get the idea. And so describe and you, you at least exude a kind of faith in the reasoning ability of strangers, if I'm reading between the lines that I find heartening even inspiring. So amidst all these threats, both explicit and implicit attention and governmental.

Describe your faith in the reasoning abilities of strangers, of the random folks you meet in auditoriums and gymnasiums and churches in Georgia, South Carolina, and everywhere else. 

Todd Glover : Well, that's why I love local government. That's why I'm passionate about local government because it's the level closest to the people.

When you say strangers, I think that's [00:17:00] the issue. If they are a stranger to you as a local government, that's your problem. That's the problem you have to address. We are the level of government that I have to face you at the school drop off line. I see you at the grocery store, at church in the local restaurants.

Those, that's where you build the trust. That's where you are open to people and provide that information. And I think at the local level is where people are strangers, and that's where the most pure. Debate. The most pure information sharing, the most pure democracy occurs. And I'm very, very passionate about it.

That's, I've dedicated my career to it. 

Michael Lee : Todd Glover, thank you so much for being on When we disagree. 

Todd Glover : Thank you, sir. 

Michael Lee : When we disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee. Recording and sound engineering by Jesse k and Lance [00:18:00] Laidlaw. Reach out to us at When We disagree@gmail.com.