Talking with Trump Supporters — Don’t
For years now, progressives have seen one article after another in various publications, about how to talk to conservatives. Throughout the Bush and Obama years, such essays kept tumbling off the presses, numbering at least in the hundreds, if not thousands. They keep coming at us still, brimming with confidence. So here is one more article — one that will be different.
I’m going to suggest a radically new approach — giving up on the whole idea. I’ll say why. And for those of you brave enough to try giving up on it, I’ll describe some alternate ways you can use your energy.
Why would I do this? Well, all the reasons why we should have these conversations, and all the possible ways to have them, have been covered hundreds or thousands of times already. It’s time to give a bit of representation to another point of view — one that I haven’t seen expressed anywhere yet.
First I’ll put this issue in context. This is a problem with trying to converse with people who see things very differently, in a remarkably polarized society. Seeing the big picture can enlighten us. It’s a way to clarify true meaning. All of our activities happen in a context. If we close our eyes to the context, we are shutting out important pieces of the puzzle.
Why are there so many articles on this topic? Why not? In the U.S., we have a certain amount of freedom to try for success. We love to be successful. We love successful people. We have upward mobility, at least in theory, to excel at what’s important to us, to live the American dream. Many of us don’t like to think about giving up or failing.
Even during the financial crisis of 2008, Americans still spent $11 billion on the burgeoning self-improvement industry.
What People Are Still Willing To Pay For
We want to believe that we can reach out and touch the stars. Self-help gurus tell us that we can “create our own reality.” Some authors even tell us that we can become star athletes or concert pianists, despite lacking talent and not having practiced any related activities in decades. Why limit ourselves? Just because something may be challenging doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Right?
Well, sadly for us perennial adolescents of boundless dreams, the real world and our human biology do impose a few limitations.
But limitlessness seems particularly irresistible when we have a burning desire to do an activity — when we’re like horses chomping at the bit to run for it. Caring about other people is one thing progressives value in a big way and want to do. As George Lakoff’s models of moral systems make clear, progressives tend to have a Nurturant Parent model of morality. We expect caring in our leaders. We also care about each other and about our nation.
So what happens when a progressive reads one of these many books or articles by researchers who interviewed Trump supporters about their problems, in the rural South or in the Rust Belt? For example, we might read Arlie Hochschild’s book Strangers in Their Own Land.
What is our response? Some of us overflow with empathy for these folks. Or at least we want to feel that way. Not only that, but we are motivated to act. We’re ready to jump into a conversation with Cousin Bo, or Uncle Harry, or Aunt Gladys, about their feelings, values, and desires for public policy.
News consumers also are clicking on the seemingly interminable numbers of articles interviewing Trump supporters, where the reporter re-discovers for the thousandth time that, no matter how much Trump’s policies harm these individuals, they still support him. I often wonder what would happen if a large percentage of the public came to our senses and vowed never to click on an article describing interviews of Trump supporters again.
Now, one way conversations, such as those that the researchers had, may be possible — where you empathize with the Trump supporter but keep quiet about your own views. If you want more than that though, it may be impossible to do it and be satisfied with the outcome, particularly with certain kinds of Trump supporters. Even if you want only to listen to and empathize with the Trump supporter and nothing more, the world isn’t necessarily a better place when we spend our time and effort in listening to stubbornly self-centered individuals.
Many of us have already tried the advice in the self-help articles that always come out, just before Thanksgiving or Christmas. We’ve looked forward to the pleasant family dinner promised by the author, despite differences in the political views of family members. We studied how to listen, or what kinds of statements to make, or how to avoid being upset, or how to win the political argument — or whatever the self-help author promised we could do. Maybe we even had hopes of being able to convince Uncle Harry to vote in his best interests, in a way that would improve the nation — not harm it.
We tried to rise up to this challenge to have these conversations successfully. And the vast majority of us have been disappointed. Maybe our cousin belittled us and we felt hurt or angry. Maybe we insulted them back or left in a huff. We don’t like to fail. We’re sure that something we want to do as much as this, can really be done. We’re sure that someone else must be highly successful at it. We want to know how.
I’ve talked with a few progressive people who claimed to have succeeded in having one-to-one conversations with Right Wingers about political issues. In some cases, it turned out that the person was referring to one single conversation that happened years ago. They proudly held on to that apparent success story, repeating it over and over, acting as the expert whenever others brought up this topic. Success is so rare in this area, that people claiming success attract admiration. We want to hear that it can work.
In spite of all the difficulties we experience, many of us are sure that the next set of communication techniques we hear or read about will actually work. Well, guess what. It probably won’t. And that can be just fine. It can open a doorway to answers, and to different ways to go about reaching our goals.
We can open the door and see one of our American cultural blind spots: Failure. Many of us pressure ourselves to be successful constantly. If we can’t do that, maybe we lie to ourselves, telling ourselves we are successful in venues where we are not. That blind spot keeps us from looking at failure — or observing what tasks may be impossible to do and why.
Maybe there’s a good reason why we can’t do what we want to do, in the way that we want to do it. If we can discover that reason, maybe we can try something different, and make progress in a whole new way.
These conversations that we try to have with Aunt Gladys may be frustrating. Maybe they’re a waste of time. Or maybe they take too much out of us, in effort, stress and time, to be worth it. If that’s the case, why not admit it? But if such conversations are well worth our effort, of course, no one is stopping us from having them.
For most of us, these conversations are probably not the ideal way to a better society at all. Having them may be like trying to treating a symptom in part of the body politic, while leaving the root causes untouched.
Sometimes our goals are easier to reach when we expand them. We may think that a larger goal is harder to reach than a smaller one. But sometimes the opposite is true. Give some thought to this. You’ll be surprised at how many areas of life follow this rule. Sometimes a small goal is too narrow. Sometimes it doesn’t give us enough room to maneuver around obstacles, to get what we really want.
Let’s ask: What do I really want, in the larger sense? If my overall goal is to have a better relationship with Cousin Bo or others in the family, then maybe I can go fishing with family members or do some other activity that we all find interesting or beneficial.
If my overall larger goal is to make the nation a better place, maybe I don’t need to start with Uncle Harry. Why not start with joining a political activist organization — working with a group that has common values and goals? No need to bar the door, if Uncle Harry wants to come along, but if he does, I can respect his right to make his own choice in the matter.
Maybe my time, energy, empathy, and effort will be better used by my aiming it in a different direction. If, as a person who subscribes to Nurturant Parent morality, I need to empathize with other people, then I don’t necessarily need to start with Aunt Gladys — or maybe I do, but not on the subject of politics.
Why not aim my empathy in a direction that may be more constructive? For example, it can go toward vulnerable people who are having their air or water polluted because of the current rollback of environmental protections. Why not empathize with others within my activist group? It’s hard to work for change persistently. Many people can get discouraged and may need a listening ear or other forms of emotional support.
But, you say, Uncle Harry, Aunt Gladys and Cousin Bo are familiar. Maybe you’ll have to stretch yourself to connect with new people whom you don’t know. But maybe you’ll be glad you embraced your progressive family of choice. No need to give up the first family. You can have both.
For a manual on how to be nurturing to people who look like they are moving forward, rather than backward, I recommend this book:
A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix.
I invite you to reconsider your choices. If you’re in a situation where you can beat your head against the wall for years, trying to get through to Cousin Bo, and probably failing to do so — why not consider a Plan B? Why not work together with people who share your values and goals, and make some progress over time. Which would you rather do?
If you’re like me, it’s quite possible that it will work better for you to limit conversations with Trump supporting friends or relatives to utterances like “Please pass the salt” and “Seen any good movies lately?” Or maybe you discuss topics at length — just not politics.
I’m not saying there won’t be a single Trump supporter you can talk to about politics. But the situation I’ve described is likely to be true of most of them. In those cases, you are unlikely to get your desired outcome or to feel like it was worth the stress.
Why would I say something like this? Here a a few of the reasons why such conversations might drain more out of you than they add to your life.
Trump supporters are likely to hold the Strict Father model of morality described by George Lakoff. They’re likely to be less interested than you are, in caring about each others’ feelings and views.
It might seem appealing to you, to treat each other as equals and cooperate for mutual understanding. That’s the Nurturant Parent view of morality. Most Trump supporters probably hold the Strict Father view. They’re more interested in following the correct rules and the correct leader, and in getting you to follow too.
Here’s a second reason why communication across political divides often fails to yield worthwhile results. Just as in any other activity you do with other people, when you communicate, you don’t have to have identical goals. But if you have conflicting or incompatible goals, that can get painful.
For example, suppose you want to co-teach a Zumba dance class, but your co-instructor wants to co-coach a soccer team. It will be chaos. Similarly, suppose your conversational goal is mutual understanding. Suppose the other person’s goal is to prove they are right, and to convert you into following the “right” leader and the “right”rules, how will that work? It won’t.
That type of conversation is what I refer to as a Missionary Conversation. It’s a less clear variation on a Sales Pitch type of conversation. It reminds me of missionaries knocking on the door, Bibles in hand. Now, if you are open to being converted to their religion, maybe that’s a great conversation for you. But if you yourself have other intentions for the conversation, you are probably going to feel frustrated by the fact that the only reason these people are here in your living room, is to convert you to their religion.
Many conversations are Missionary Conversations — not just religious ones. They can be confusing, because normally we don’t state our motivations for conversation up front. We may not even be aware of our motivations. So there can be some guesswork. The key is: How does the person act? Even if they say, and believe, they just want to gain mutual understanding, if they act as if they are trying to convert you to their view, then they probably are.
A person has their right to choose their political tribe, their beliefs, their preferred news media, and their conversational style. People may be as strongly identified with their political tribe as with their religion.
We may think they made poor choices. But, as in other areas of life, the person is unlikely to make a major shifts unless they themselves are ready, for their own reasons. In fact, when someone tries to persuade someone else to make a major change that the person is not ready to make, a common tendency is for the person to dig in their heels. If they identify strongly enough with their groups or habits or leaders, they will experience disagreement with these as an attack on their identity. Then they’ll respond by fighting for the survival of what they believe is their identity.
One last reason for the conversational divide in politics, is that many Trump supporters have been persuaded by propaganda, through repetition, to see in their minds a caricature picture of progressives. To them, you may seem like the most extreme version of a Left Winger — perhaps a Communist. Or perhaps they think you’re Satan. Oh no, wait, that would be George Soros, according to Far Right Wing “news.”
As a presumed Soros’ follower though, you could still seem evil to them. In the eyes of many Far Right Wing “news” consumers, you are paid so handsomely by Soros for anti-Trump protesting, that your Trump supporting relatives may be surprised you haven’t quit your regular job.
In their eyes, you may be evil, stupid, weak and incompetent. If that’s the view of progressives that news media have pushed into your relative’s brain for years, how are you going to make your points? How are you going to get them to listen to you? You’re probably not. Accept it.
You probably won’t have much impact, in comparison to the trusted pundit or talk radio host or minister who is repeating a message to your relative thousands of times. If you doubt this, then ask your relative what radio or TV station they listen to, or what political news they read. Then spend some time consuming that “news.” See if it doesn’t affect your state of mind somehow — even if you personally don’t believe what is said.
You can also look at what Jon Stewart says about his time on Comedy Central when part of his job was to watch Far Right Wing news —and how that affected his mind.
Trying to understand a Trump supporter without immersing yourself in their “news” environment is like trying to understand how a fish experiences the world, without ever immersing any part of your body in water.
Here is an essay by an insider, on the kind of propaganda environment experienced by many Trump supporters who are Midwestern fundamentalist Christians, and on why trying to influence them is usually a lost cause.
Working together with Aunt Gladys or Cousin Bo on a project of mutual interest could have benefits. But giving endless sympathy to Trump supporters, while being quiet about our own values and goals, is not a solution to our country’s problems. This is particularly so in the case where the Trump supporter is a narcissist. People like that can drink up everyone else’s attention, draining others’ energy, and giving others nothing to show for it, unless they are doing a research project for which they are being paid.
George Lakoff has great ideas for understanding or talking about Trump’s tweets, or for talking to Trump supporters if you absolutely need to e.g. if your job is in media — or if you just can’t resist, or are one of the few progressives who really enjoy talking to them. You can follow him on Twitter for his latest updates. Here is a video of a good interview of him, and also a transcript of the interview.
However, for most of us who are not in media or in a political job, and don’t have to talk to Trump supporters, we would probably be better off spending our energy and effort working toward constructive goals with others who share our goals. Over time, some former Trump supporters will join these movements too, when they are ready. When groups do constructive activities, momentum can build.
It may be hard to give up the fantasy that we can be successful at changing Trump supporters’ minds, given our culture’s focus on success, and our progressive Nurturant Parent morality. We love to communicate, cooperate and show empathy. That’s great in many situations. But it’s not necessarily great in this one. Maybe we should start Twelve Step Groups. If I did this, I would sit in a circle with my group and say “My name is Julie, and I am a troll feeder.”
It isn’t only on line that feeding trolls will make them worse, by rewarding them for acting angry and insulting you, instead of communicating respectfully. It’s true in the real world too.
Feeding on line or off line trolls, is like allowing someone to shove you down into a hole. You will then need to spend your time, energy, and effort digging yourself out of there. This is true even if the troll doesn’t realize they’re a troll, even if they think they really want to communicate with you, to understand you, and to understand the facts.
Here is an excellent book, for those of you who like to win people over or work together with them for common goals, but who want to focus your energy constructively. It discusses at length how to focus on independents, or on people who aren’t yet voting or politically active, or on others who might share your values. It’s called The Little Book of Revolution. It focuses on winning people over who might share your values, rather than trying to understand people who don’t.
A friend of mine, Eric Blair, @protecttruth_ on Twitter, says he has had some success in discussions with Trump supporters by making fun of them for being conned by Rupert Murdoch and other super wealthy people into voting for con artists like Trump. He says Trump supporter respect strength, so sometimes if you ridicule them for being conned by Murdoch, Hannity, Limbaugh or other Right Wing radio hosts or Breitbart, some of them start to wonder if maybe they really are being conned.
He doesn’t argue individual points with them though. That is likely to get you lost in an avalanche of bs — trying to rebut tons of different lies, repeated thousands of times per year by Right Wing media. There are terms for what propagandists or believers of their lies do in such cases — sea lioning, gish gallop, and the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle.
@protecttruth_ says he projects strength when talking to Trump supporters, because this is the approach they respect. He says females often get a better response by simply laughing at the person. Even using this approach though, one usually can’t change people’s minds quickly, if at all.
For an in-depth approach that does work, but is far beyond the level which most people would be willing — or able — to go to in helping extremists to let go of their extremism, take a look at the book Breaking Hate: Confronting the New Culture of Extremism by Christian Picciolini.
Here is an organization that also has some suggestions for those of you who can’t resist having one to one conversations with Trump supporters.
If you are a reader who has found a way to have conversations with Trump supporters that you feel good about, then feel free to let us all know your secrets in the Comments section below. This essay isn’t for you. It’s only for the other 99% of us. If you think you know how to do this, congratulations, and let us all know what you’ve discovered.
Alternately, if you are a reader who is relieved to let go of expecting yourself to accomplish an impossible change of heart in your Trump supporter relatives or friends, feel free to let us know all about that too.
