Season 3 Finale: Can Civility Survive Modern Politics? Meet a Lawmaker Who Said Yes

Former Minnesota State Representative Sandra Feist, who led the state's Civility Caucus and practices as an immigration attorney, shares two contrasting stories of political conflict. She details how an out-of-context tweet by a Republican colleague was successfully defused through direct, personal communication and shared policy expertise, eventually leading to a meaningful piece of bipartisan legislation. In contrast, she examines a separate floor altercation that spiraled into tribal posturing, partisan t-shirts, and a pointless digital media fight that left hard feelings on both sides of the aisle. Through these examples, Representative Feist pulls back the curtain on how interpersonal relationships can either forge cross-party solutions or amplify modern political theater.

Tell us your argument stories! 

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

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

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. Conventional wisdom says we do favors for people we like, but what if I told you that asking someone you dislike for a small favor could actually make them like you more?

This is called the Ben Franklin effect, a piece of psychological judo named after Franklin's strategic move to convert a legislative rival into an ally. Franklin described borrowing a rare book from a rival who had snubbed him. The rival complied, and afterward, the relationship became friendly. Franklin understood a core psychological truth: our actions shape our attitudes.

When we help someone, our minds resolve the cognitive dissonance by assuming we must like them. Otherwise, why would we put in such an effort? We see this everywhere, from mentors becoming more invested in the students they help to the deep bonds formed through struggle in the workplace. Investment creates [00:01:00] affection, not the other way around.

In romantic relationships, asking for small favors early on, like advice on a decision or help with a minor task, can create emotional investment that justifies further attraction. In the heat of conflict, this gives us a powerful tool for de-escalation. Instead of trying to win over a hostile neighbor or a critical colleague with your own kindness or your better arguments, try asking for their advice or their esc- expertise.

By allowing them to invest in you, you create an opportunity for genuine connection built on mutual aid. Help isn't just something you need. It's a gift you give others by allowing them space to be helpful. Sometimes the best way to make a friend is to simply let them do you a favor. I'm Michael Lee, Professor of Communication and Director of the Civility Initiative at the College of Charleston.

Today's guest on When We Disagree is Sandra Feist. Sandra has represented parts of the northern Twin Cities area in the Minnesota House of Representatives since twenty twenty-one, where she also co-leads the [00:02:00] Civility Caucus. In her private life, she's an immigration attorney. Sandra, tell us an argument story.

Sandra Feist : Okay. So I've got basically two arguments that are similar that went in very different directions based on how things played out, and I thought that would be a good story that kind of summarizes how I approach conflict and why I approach conflict that way. So the first story is that one of my Republican colleagues who I had gotten to know in Civility Caucus, we had volunteered together for a food shelf tweeted a clip of me from a committee hearing that we had recently, and it was an out-of-context tweet, and it really mischaracterized what I was trying to say.

And so I immediately went up to him and explained what I had been trying to say and asked him if he would like to connect with one of the experts who informed my perspectives on that particular topic, and he said that would be fabulous. And he did connect with that expert and was very gracious [00:03:00] and that led to more and deeper conversations on that particular topic.

And in the most recent legislative session, it led to us working together on a very meaningful bill and that passed with bipartisan support. So that's example A of conflict. And then another colleague, a Republican colleague, tweeted something stupid about one of my Democratic colleagues and they had never talked to my knowledge.

And my, my Democratic colleague went up to the Republican colleague on the House floor and they had a altercation, a verbal altercation, and that led to, I believe the Republicans got shirts saying they stood with their colleague, and then we on my side of the aisle were encouraged to tweet things saying we stood with our colleague, and it became this really ugly, pointless fight in my mind, and it led to some very hard feelings and an elevated conflict in a way that did no one any [00:04:00] good, in my opinion.

And so those are the two examples. I tried really hard. As a legislator, there's a lot of conflict ... that I could go to. Some of it's super secret, but those were the two conflicts that I thought would be a good place to start. 

Michael Lee : I would say that some people in your position who are elected officials might approach politics in the in the sense that the whole point of politics is conflict.

How do you feel about that? 

Sandra Feist : Yeah. It's interesting in our retreat that we have, we do this exercise where we divide ourselves up into groups based on how we perceive ourselves. So are we a truth teller? Which I would say is the category you're talking about. Are we a bridge builder? Which I would say is where I fall.

Policy wonk, which is also where I fall, and then also a front person, doing the press conferences, communicating with the public. And so we divide ourselves up into those groups, and the point of the exercise is that we are supposed to understand how we work together as a team, and understand that it's easy to say everyone should be like me, [00:05:00] everyone should be a truth teller, everyone should be a bridge builder.

But actually, we need all of those components in order to develop an effective legislative and political strategy. And so it helped me, because I think that instinctively I'm like, "Why can't everyone just get along and talk to one, one another as human beings? Like, why do we have to be so angry all the time in our rhetoric?"

But actually there's a pla- time and place for that but it's just not always. 

Michael Lee : E- explain the difference between truth teller and bridge builder there. My immediate response is to say why can't you be both?" 

Sandra Feist : That's a good question. I think that when we... what I equate truth teller to be is bomb thrower.

So it's the person who gets up on the House floor and really calls out hypocrisy when they see it, who calls out, behavior that, they consider to be, like, discriminatory or hateful, who really goes after people. We ha- we have a House floor rule that we can't go after people's motives and personalities, but you can still be very direct [00:06:00] in saying "I'm seeing hypocrisy here, and this is not acceptable.

This should not be acceptable to the people of Minnesota," really making it big- Right ... big hyperbolic type of rhetoric. Yeah. And so that's what I consider truth teller. 

Michael Lee : Truth teller is synonymous with aggression, hyperbole? 

Sandra Feist : Hyperbole. I would say hyperbole more than aggression, 'cause it can be.

Sometimes when I think of one of my colleagues, who I would put in a number of these categories, she's probably my favorite colleague she's got this way of communicating that is quiet, and she uses dramatic pauses in a way that I just don't know how she's so good at drawing us all in.

But she is being a truth teller. She is being direct. She is calling people out. With brutal accuracy. But it's not loud, and it's not necessarily aggressive. It's like inviting people in to see things our way. 

Michael Lee : I'm wondering how you feel about a kind of cynical view of politicians. This famous story about South [00:07:00] Carolina Senator Lee Atwater, that had he been born in a blue area, he would have been a Democrat.

In other words, he didn't particularly care so much, so the story goes, about the policy issues or the party issues. He just liked to juice. He just liked to compete. He just liked to win. In the four categories that you have isolated here, truth-teller, bridge-builder, wonk, and front person, I don't see anything for competitor, the games person, the person who just wants to win.

Sandra Feist : I think that truth-teller and front person are probably those people. The people who just love the, love getting up in front of a camera and debating, who love getting up on the floor and giving a speech. 

Michael Lee : Gotcha.

Sandra Feist : I think, those people they're in it for the right reasons, but they're also in it for that reason.

I think those of us who are bridge-builders, who are policy wonks, I think have different things that drove us into public office. And I'm not making a value judgment. Like I said we need all of these component pieces in order to be [00:08:00] successful as a team. Yeah. But it's different types of people coming for different reasons.

Michael Lee : You opened the show by telling two compelling stories. One wa- both are written in response to social media posts, if I recall. Yeah. One in which you sought somebody out for clarification, and it led to a kind of meaningful connection and collaboration after an ill-timed tweet or an out-of-context tweet.

One that escalated into a full concretized, tribalized us versus them partisan warfare. You are the co-lead of the Civility Caucus. Talk a little bit about the work of the Civility Caucus, what civility means in the context of the caucus, and what drew you to it. 

Sandra Feist : Yeah. We are collaborating with the Office of Collaboration and Dispute Resolution.

Minnesota's very fortunate to have this office. It's just two amazing experts in conflict resolution, and they work with the Civility Caucus, which is comprised of two Democrats, two Republicans, one in each, the House, one in the [00:09:00] Senate. And we work to create space for people to have dialogue, to build relationships, to talk about things other than politics.

In Minnesota, at one point, lobbyists apparently had a lot of parties during the legislative session, and it was an opportunity for people to get together across party lines and, have a drink together have a chat together. And then we passed a law that said that was unethical and we didn't want it because it was lobbyists having an influence on politics during the legislative session that was, like, inappropriate and just the optics of it were really bad.

But as a result of that, we eliminated a lot of the spaces where we had an opportunity to socialize across the aisle. And so Civility Caucus is an effort to create that space. So we have, lunches. We do-- We did karaoke this last legislative session, and it was awesome. And we just try to get together and...

i've had some really great conversations. The goal, to be clear, is not [00:10:00] for us to all come together and realize we're all moderates. The goal is not to somehow create a legislature where everyone comes to the center and compromises the things that matter to them deeply. The goal is just to create an ability to function better as a legislature because we know one another and have some relationship.

Michael Lee : When I do presentations on civility, part of the argument I make, and I'm curious how this lands with you in a legislative and political context, part of the argument I make is that exposure to different points of view can create moderation, but not moderate politics. In other words, it can moderate how you see yourself in the sense of your own righteousness or humility.

Did I get up this morning and drink a big, tall glass of excellence and perfection? And could- perhaps can moderate how I see you, whereas if I weren't exposed to you, perhaps I might see you as evil or ignorant or brainwashed, and then perhaps the more I'm exposed to you, I can see you as [00:11:00] a person who disagrees with me as opposed to my mortal enemy.

What do you think about that distinction in terms of different types of moderation? 

Sandra Feist : Oh, that's a deep question. I was just thinking about the concept of out-group homogeneity- ... and how we assume that everyone on the other side is all the same, and they all are thinking the same things for the same reasons, and that makes them bad.

And when you get to know somebody, you, like you said, you realize they're a person who disagrees with you. There's a Republican colleague of mine who I get along with really well. We agree on almost nothing, but we're-- we get along well. She was telling me about all of her time with her grandchildren during the interim, and we just we both appreciate the opportunity to be in public service.

And she recently referred a high school kid to me who was interviewing people for their their government relations class or whatever it was. And she thought of me 'cause they wanted to interview a Republican and a Democrat. Like she and I disagree profoundly, but I feel like I [00:12:00] could have a conversation with her about the things we disagree on.

And in fact I'll tell you a story. Last legislative session I had a very weird experience with a bill where it it moved forward in a vote due to some confusion on the part of Republicans, and it was legitimate confusion. It was just a weird-- the Minnesota House right now has a tied House, which is the second time that's ever happened in Minnesota history, and so we have Republican and Democrat co-chairs of every committee, and it's just wild.

Weird things happen. So my bill passed further than the Republicans meant it to, and they had some additional questions and concerns. And so this particular colleague of mine called me to-- She asked if I could meet with her that evening, and she explained to me what had happened.

And I was like I-- the nice part of me wants to just do what you want me to do, which is bring my bill back and send it to another committee, and that would take it back from the House floor, which is one step away from passage in the House." And so then I w- I [00:13:00] told her, I was very comfortable in this conversation, I said, "The part of me that's nice just wants to say yes, because I don't wanna trick anyone into passing my bill into law.

But the part of me that is an advocate for my bill that I care deeply about needs to think about this." And I thought about it for a whole day, and I got commitments from the Republican in chair of the next committee that they wanted me to go to that he would, Hear my bill. And so I told my colleague that I would do what she wanted me to do.

I would bring my bill back from the House floor, and we would pass it to another committee. And that's a convoluted story, but the point is because she and I had a relationship I- she was able to tell me this, and I was able to receive it as true and not just messing with me. And I told her, I was like, "I'm trusting you not to kill my bill."

And we hugged on it, and she did not- Oh ... kill my bill. Everybody acted in good faith. And, politics is dirty, and people will do all sorts of things to kill your bill in very deceptive ways. But I will tell you I've never had a time when I [00:14:00] acted in trust that trust has been betrayed.

I've had plenty of times where I didn't trust people, and they absolutely screwed me. But I've never had a moment where I'm like, "I'm gonna trust you that you're acting in good faith and that you're not lying to me." That's in politics, it's kinda crazy, but that's I've never been betrayed.

Michael Lee : I bet it's a- On either side of the aisle ... it's a good story. It's a really good story. I think so many people think that bad faith actors are everywhere, and so it's always helpful to have some pushback on that. I wanna come back to the moderation question briefly as represented by your story.

If, spool this out with me, if I'm a diehard Republican, you're a diehard Democrat, we begin to humanize each other and allow the temperature in our competition to come down, then that enables the possibility of collaboration. Does that not naturally bring us to an ability to co-produce legislation that would meet in the middle between our various positions?

And so doesn't it naturally produce [00:15:00] a more moderate politics? 

Sandra Feist : I'm sure it does in many cases, but, in negotiations, there's this amazing book called Getting to Yes and the point is that- What I want and what you want are not necessarily diametrically opposed, and the only solution could be somewhere in the middle.

Sometimes what you want... for example, I had a bill. I'm gonna try to be really vague in this- ... 'cause I don't want to give anyone away. But I had a bill that I took on that people had been trying to pass for many years, and the reason it couldn't pass is because a certain legislator hated the advocates.

They had been very disrespectful to this person, and they had been, like, I think inappropriately disrespectful to this person who was a legislator. And, the issues that they had and the concerns they had and the way they were approaching the bill was, like, wrong. I believe they were wrong.

But the reason that they wanted to kill this bill at all costs was because of the way they had been personally treated. And when I came [00:16:00] in I approached that person, and at first they were very skeptical that I cared about what they thought. But we had hours and hours of meetings, and in the end I was able to incorporate a lot of what this person wanted.

A lot of it was, like, making implicit things explicit. I didn't do anything at all that made my bill less good, but I did things that mattered to this person that made them feel better. In the end we didn't... And in the end we did not come to a full agreement where they were like, "I'm totally happy with this bill," but they stopped trying to do everything in their human power to kill this bill at all costs.

It was still really hard to pass it, but because of that person and I we get along really well. We spent hours of our lives together on Zoom in the pandemic hash- ha- hashing out this bill. And a lot of politics also is not partisan. A lot of the issues, they're not about moderate, they're not about left versus right.

In this particular issue, it was just like, how do we approach... It was like a court [00:17:00] rules, judiciary, public safety. But it wasn't left versus right. I would not characterize the res- resolution as in the middle. It was something else, and they got what they needed, was to be respected and heard, and I got my bill passed.

Michael Lee : You've told several really refreshing stories about relationship building and perspective taking. Let's talk about the flip side. What kinds of pushback do you get about civility, both within the Minnesota House of Representatives or beyond it? 

Sandra Feist : Yeah. People think that being civil means tacitly- Somehow saying that person's perspective that you disagree with has some merit.

They think that if you are going to build a relationship with somebody around one issue that you might agree on, that somehow that is endorsing their perspectives on other issues that you disagree on. And I think that a lot of people worry that when we are civil, when we show that we can work together, that somehow that normalizes bad behavior as they see [00:18:00] it.

And there is a lot of discomfort with civility, in particular with people who feel like being a politician is in part saying dumb things on the internet Which is a lot of politicians these days, and I, I obviously I hang out mostly with Democrats, and so I see that more on my side, but I'm sure there are Republicans who feel the same way, who are like, "Don't talk to Sandra.

She loves tampons and trans people." But yeah it's a very touchy issue because, it's... Y- I think that I need to acknowledge, and I always try to, that I am like a white, straight lawyer lady, and it is easier for me to be in a relationship with certain people than it is for some of my colleagues who are members of the queer caucus, of the...

We have a POSI caucus, people of color and indigenous caucus. I understand that for them to step in certain spaces and build certain relationships, that it is a different thing to ask that of them. And yet I think it's the only way forward for our democracy. I think you-- I don't think there are movements that were successful because [00:19:00] we insulted people into agreeing with us or isolated them admonished them, and surrounded them only by people who thinked- thought like them.

I don't think that works. I think we need them to be surrounded by people who have different perspectives than them. 

Michael Lee : You mentioned a few counterarguments, objections you get to calls for civility. It's weak politics. It's a natural endorsement of the other side. It's letting the other side win, whatever else.

Do those objections come from one side or the other, or do you find yourself facing those objections from all sides? 

Sandra Feist : I don't really know what Republicans think about civility. In, in their hearts and in their private conversations. I can tell you the civility caucus is two Republicans, two Democrats, and the four of us all believe in it.

I think that yeah I guess I can't tell you. I can tell you that on my side of the aisle- ... there is discomfort from some people about what civility implies about the other side and [00:20:00] whether it's good tactics. At the end of the day I'm very progressive, but I came here to do work and I'm not here to be a partisan warrior.

I'm here to get things done. 

Michael Lee : As we close, I'm curious to get you to reflect at a high level about where your faith in the civility project comes from. 

Sandra Feist : That is such a good question. I went to the first Civility Caucus meeting when I got elected. It was by Zoom. I was put in a breakout session with Dean Erdahl.

He's a Republican who writes historical fiction, and I write romance novels, and so we bonded. And I was like, "That's cool." I also noticed that immediately on social media I was, like, trying to emulate other people, but then people would push back on me, and I'd be like, "Oh, that's a good point," and I'd end up in dialogue with people I disagreed with.

And it just... It made me see myself more clearly in how I wanna be in the world, how I wanna interact with people who disagree with me. I [00:21:00] think that communicating with constituents who disagree with me has been really enlightening and interesting and challenging. So yeah. And then when I was asked to take over as the DFL lead, D- Democratic-Farmer-Labor is Democrats in Minnesota.

When I was asked to take over, I was like I don't waste my time. My time is very scarce. I have two full-time jobs and two kids. But I was like, "This is worth my time." And I think that I've just become more and more passionate about it as I've seen more and more incivility, and on the flip side, I've seen more and more what we can actually accomplish when we do work together.

Minnesota's a purple state. It just seems like the people of Minnesota want us to work together, and so I try to embody that. 

Michael Lee : Sandra Feist, thank you so much for being on When We Disagree. 

Sandra Feist : Yeah. Thank you so much. This is my jam, so thank you for having me. 

Michael Lee : When We Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee, recording and sound [00:22:00] engineering by Jesse Kunz and Lance Laidlaw.

Reach out to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com.