Perhaps you, like me, feel a sense of dread for the rest of 2024 because it’s a presidential election year.
I’m worn out by name-calling and a lack of transparency and special interests that overrule common sense. Neither political party has done the work to present quality candidates who we can be proud of. And we barely understand the full ramifications of Jan. 6, 2021; I can’t bear to think of another national meltdown that puts lives and our processes at risk.
The challenge is to stay informed without succumbing to loud, angry voices.
I haven’t watched much cable news since 2001, when I overdosed on 24/7 coverage after 9/11. I listen to radio and podcasts but gather most of my news by reading reliable sources in print and online. I try to avoid toxic gathering places, such as unmonitored social media feeds.
Yet I do want to talk about politics, civics and the future of our government with people, even when we don’t vote the same way. I long ago gave up on presuming that I could change anyone’s mind, but I am interested in rational conversations about what motivates voting choices.
How can we have those conversations in what seems to be an increasingly polarized environment? I visited with Mark Hlavacik, a communications studies professor at the University of North Texas who specializes in the ethics and strategies of public argument, for some advice.
It’s important first to understand what kind of discussion you want to have about politics, he said. Will it be a conversation, debate or even protest? It’s important to be aware that the person you’re speaking with may want a different kind of discussion. That determines the boundaries for the dialogue.
“You don’t have to participate in a dialogue you don’t want to have,” Hlavacik counseled.
When it comes to the rules of civil conversations, adults already know what they should do. “If saying it was going to get your name on the board in first grade, it’s probably going to be a problem now, too,” he said. And, of course, speaking in person — as opposed to typing diatribes on a screen — lends itself to more civility.
“If you can talk face to face as opposed to online,” he said. “There’s something about anonymity. There’s something about not being able to the person directly and in the moment that makes it easier to say things that one might regret later.”
What really matters when approaching a political discussion, especially with people of different backgrounds, values or beliefs, Hlavacik said, is to establish your frame of mind and to consider what it means to “win” a conversation.
“A coffee shop conversation in Frisco is not going to decide an election, but it might decide the relationship with the person you’re talking to. And the person you’re talking to is probably more important to your life than Joe Biden or Donald Trump,” he said. “Perspective is important to keep in all this. You’re talking to a real person that matters.”
To facilitate this kind of conversation, he suggested, express specific curiosity. Ask why they think what they think, what they’ve based their decisions on. Most folks are flattered by questions, he continued, they usually communicate accurately and thoughtfully when talking about their beliefs.
Going into conversations with people who have different backgrounds, values and beliefs could even result in someone changing their mind, Hlavacik said. Part of living and being engaged with the world means that we will gather new information and have new experiences, all of which can inform a change of opinion. “It is mature and thoughtful to occasionally change your mind. It is necessary and good.”
If nothing else, having conversations with people who vote differently might build stronger community and might even facilitate self-improvement and growth. “That’s good,” Hlavacik said. “That’s not a weakness to experience that kind of growth.”
My visit with Hlavacik reminds me of a 15-year relationship with Shannon, a former colleague who became a close friend. Our politics didn’t align back in 2009, but we didn’t shy from tough topics. We agreed on some basic tenets of love and comion, which helped us to make an effort to listen to one another.
We’ve both evolved since we first met, each experiencing the kinds of crises in parenting and life that make you question your faith and your purpose. We are more likely today to vote for the same candidates but we are both more open to listening to others and meeting people where they are instead of insisting that they stand where we want them to be.
As we move into primary season in Texas and hurtle toward the big election on Nov. 5, I’m focusing on what I can control — listening more than I speak and seeking small conversations that might build bigger connections.
We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at [email protected]