We Can Talk Across Our Political Divides, Really!

Americans talk glibly about “Red States” and “Blue States” and bemoan that “Reds” and “Blues” talk at each other but seldom with each other.  If we assume that political differences are that locked in, we consign ourselves to a never-ending despair about democracy.

In the hopeful documentary Purple we can see what happens when a key is turned to open the lock on political divides.  A group of citizens, under the gentle hand of a skilled facilitator, demonstrates the ability to truly hear and even learn from political perspectives different than their own.  They are residents of a politically diverse area where Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota intersect near the Mississippi River. The goal of their gathering was not to convince people to change their minds, though it may have done that for some, but to build a bridge across the divides threatening America.  

Their conversation was governed by several guidelines.  People were asked to “listen resiliently and carefully even when we hear something hard to hear.”  They agreed to “speak with respect, humility, and thoughtfulness,” including supporting others and asking questions rather than making assumptions. They acknowledged the need to “share airtime” rather than dominate discussion and to “honor confidentiality.”

Such ground rules and skilled facilitation are too often absent when people talk about their political differences, raising the question about whether these kinds of conversations can really happen on a larger scale, whether they can work to turn “red” vs. “blue” gatherings into purple ones.  Research offers more hope than we might imagine.

Deliberative democracy (e.g. juries) is one example where a disparate group gathers to engage in conversation where everyone has a voice and shares the desire is to reach a fact-based solution.  Such deliberation can exist in politics too. For example, in 2018 Ireland was grappling with divergent views on abortion and politicians were reluctant to take stands.  A deliberative body was assembled: two-thirds were randomly selected individuals and the rest were members of parliament.  Their guided discussions produced various options and parliament then put a national referendum up to voters.

Skilled conversation mediation matters. In a lab experiment by University of Chicago neuroscientist Yuan Chang Leong where people watched films, their brain scan patterns after discussion were more in alignment when a mediator facilitated a post-film conversation than when “blowhards” dominated the group. 

Also important is dissuading people from trying to dominate discussion.  When someone does that it can lead to what researchers at the University of California - Irvine and Arizona State University call “persuasion fatigue.”  Those intent on persuading and having little success grow increasingly frustrated at the “unreasonableness” of others and drop out of the conversation.  Yet they rarely blame their own communication techniques.  Researchers in fact found such participants have three times as many explanations for why others’ produced failed debates than why they might have.

Even when there are no skilled facilitators and no accepted group conversation guidelines, individuals can avoid the tendency to “silo” their thinking.  One technique: simply pair yourself with a person who you know is likely to have different perspectives.  In a study of reactions to Tweets, such as about which nation produced more varieties of cheese, English and French participants were more likely to agree when paired with someone who shared their national, cultural preferences.  For example, French participant pairs where more likely to disagree with the claim that Britain produces more varieties. Yet when talking with someone who brought a different cultural perspective, such as an English and French pair, people were more willing to search for information about statements and revise their beliefs.  Whether this effect would extend outside the lab to political discussions is unclear, but the willingness to test beliefs with those who may see things differently is important.

If people can’t find such a willing partner, they can change how they talk to themselves.  It’s well-documented that conservatives prefer getting news from sources like Fox News while liberals prefer CNN.  Researchers Joshua Kalla at Yale and David Brockman at the University of California-Berkeley paid 304 regular Fox News watchers to view up to 7 hours of CNN during September 2020, using news quizzes to ensure they were doing so. At the end of that period, they found that these viewers were somewhat less likely to agree with negative views about Joe Biden as a potential president and Democrats’ attitudes toward police, compared to a control group that watched only Fox News.  When the payment stopped, however, as Kalla reported, “viewers returned to watching Fox News.”  Though short-lived, the effect demonstrates that those willing to open themselves to sources of information they tend to ignore can help moderate extreme views.

Research doesn’t support a pollyanish attitude about the ease of moderating political polarization, but such results suggest that if we’re going to argue, we can have better arguments.  That’s the goal of the Better Arguments Project of the Aspen Institute and its partners and groups such as Resetting the Table, the producers of Purple. 

Photo Credit: Small Group Conversation - commons.wikimedia.org