It’s generally understood that topics such as money, politics, and religion are not to be brought up if one wants to have a calm conversation and be seen as a pleasant and well-mannered person. Today, politics looms large among the topics on everyone’s mind, yet only a courageous or foolish person would initiate such a conversation even with family and friends.
Why is this happening now? I think we are becoming a people who lack respect for others and ourselves. Our arguments lack grace and mercy with anyone who has an opinion different from ours.
We have come to a sad place where politics is beyond debate. We have lost perspective about what matters, and because of that, we have given up on meaningful conversations. No one is willing to listen because there are strong feelings and hardened opinions that are not open to seeing other points of view.
Those who want to engage in conversations about the current forbidden topic often do so because they think that they can convince the other person that their way of thinking is the right and only way to see the situation. They evangelize from a strongly righteous point of view.
There are consequences to speaking freely. When we hear arguments for free speech, the First Amendment is often cited. What we forget is that the First Amendment is about protecting citizens from government restrictions on speech. My question is how we address the loss of our right to express our opinion when it’s our neighbors, community members, or even strangers in public places who overhear a conversation with which they disagree and decide to take issue.
The right to speak freely is a gift to humanity and a bridge to community. I do not believe that we, the people, are willing to pay the costs of losing the freedom to speak.
Gwen Dungy 
Restoring Civility and Regaining Perspective: One Person’s Journey
I was at the hospital last week waiting for my turn in the MRI machine and reading the latest issue of the Atlantic when an older woman sitting across from me nudged her husband, pointed in my direction, and said rather loudly, “Look at that foolish woman. I bet she is reading trash about how MAGA Americans are plotting to overthrow the country.”
I quietly turned the magazine around, laughed, and responded, “You lose. I am reading about the impact of climate change on Kuala bears. After that, I plan to check out the article describing how lobbyists have changed America—and not for the better. You are welcome to borrow the magazine because it sounds as if you are having a worse day than I am—and reading about cute Kuala’s is definitely preferable to worrying about your MRI results.”
At this point in a made-for-TV movie, the woman would apologize, begin to question her world perspective, and engage in a lengthy dialogue with others in the waiting room. In reality, the woman dragged her husband into the hallway and ordered a nurse to find a chair for her to sit in while she waited for her appointment because the waiting room was polluted.
As soon as the woman left with her reluctant husband in tow, the people in the waiting room peppered me with questions: why had I responded with humor when I was being attacked? What would I have said if the women had been interested in talking? How could I chat with a person who seemed to have no respect for me or anyone who did not share her narrow world view? Here is how I answered those questions.
Freedom of speech has its limits, but typically the prudent choice is to listen. I cannot help people to analyze, evaluate, and (potentially) reconsider their positions if I do not know what is going on in their heads. At times, this means listening to some pretty outlandish, even offensive, points of view.
Humor is one of the most effective tools in my arsenal. Instead of launching a counter attack, which probably would have caused the woman to become even more defensive and lash out, I basically gave her an opportunity to look in a metaphorical mirror, think about what she said, and decide if she wanted to engage in a meaningful conversation.
When thoughtful Americans start to self-censor, the country is in serious trouble. My husband and I were on a Caribbean cruise a few years ago when the cruise director started to announce the number of passengers from each country. When he got to the United States, a group of people wearing MAGA hats jumped up and demanded that the director separate American passengers into two groups: MAGA American and NRAs (not real Americans). I think most of the Americans in the theater that evening were too stunned to react, but passengers from other countries saved the day by standing and chanting, “No to MAGA.” From that moment on, however, passengers did their best to avoid Americans in MAGA paraphernalia. My husband and I decided to do the opposite: we seized every reasonable opportunity to engage MAGA passengers in conversation. Did we change any minds? Doubtful! But we refused to self-sensor, which I believe was the MAGA mob’s goal. We also gave people an opportunity to reflect on what they were saying and, if I am being totally honest, to think twice about harassing either of us as we moved about the ship because we were a formidable team that refused to be bullied.
There are ways to engage in a dialogue with people whose beliefs differ from yours. Every conversation is challenging in a different way, but here are a few guidelines that I have found useful.
• Listen more than you talk—at least in the beginning.
• Learn everyone’s story. It will help you to understand why they have adopted a specific set of beliefs, determine the best way to approach them, or decide that it is time to walk away.
• Connect with people on a human level over shared experiences, the desire to create a better world for our children and grandchildren, or____________________ (whatever works).
• Remind everyone that we are Americans—not MAGA Americans, Asian-Americans, Black Americans, Latino/a Americans, Native Americans, Democrats, or Republicans. Real Americans respect one another, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rule of law. Counterfeit Americans do not.
• Educate and engage in a way that people can relate to. Not every individual responds to the same stimuli. Charts, graphs, reports, or statistics work for some. Stories, pictures, podcasts, or videos work for others. One size does not fit all!
• Build a Sense of Community. Venn diagrams are my go-to instrument for helping people understand the areas where voters on opposite sides of the political spectrum are in agreement. Curated reading lists arranged by topics appeal to a small segment of the population. An old-fashioned talking stick is useful when people begin talking over one another. (I realize how weird this sounds, but I have started carrying blank Venn diagram templates, a list of books and magazine articles on a variety of topics, and funny items that can serve as impromptu talking sticks in my purse.)
• Know when to walk away. Many actions or reactions signal that people are unwilling to engage in a serious exchange of ideas. It is a waste of time, for example, to talk with people who insist on evangelizing, people who believe that they have a right to their own facts as well as their own opinions, and people who see every conversation as a zero-sum game: to feel good about themselves, they must verbally destroy anyone who does not share their world view.
Maggie,
I wanted to “made for TV movie” response, but since that didn’t happen and is unlikely to occur as we move closer to the election, your suggestions are a tremendous reminder that one need not be silent because there are ways to engage with those who have different opinions.
I’m so glad that you took the time to share your passion and wisdom on this site. I’m happy that my few words stimulated you to share. GREAT Maggie! Thanks so much.