Finding Our Lost Common Ground
And why it’s our crucial responsibility to go seek it
Our freedoms and our rights are something we don’t just believe in. We are born with them. Freedom of speech and religion. The right to bear arms, to due process and counsel, to trial by jury, and peaceful assembly. Freedom from unlawful search and seizure as well as cruel and unusual punishments.
Radical conservatives and even MAGA will tell you that they believe in all these things. Radical liberals will say the same. But actions paint a different story. Conservative leadership and many supporters seem fine with denying due process and counsel when it comes to people who speak another language, even those that are U.S. citizens. And die-hard woke liberals see no issue in canceling someone for voicing an opinion they don’t agree with. So, we all believe in these freedoms but why do you see them and treat them so differently?
The Non-Binary Political Field
Let me interject something that might be going through your mind right now. Am I actually attacking liberals as if they can be equated somehow with the wrong of the conservatives? And on a liberal Substack account? No, I’m not.
For one, I’m not a liberal and neither is this Substack. I’m a moderate and I write as a journalist that values the hard truths. And the truth is no side is wholly right if you want to believe we can even be defined by sides.
There are more than two sides on this field and whole lot of variations on truth. Political positions are actually on a spectrum, like so much about being human. That is why I often add “radical” or “die-hard” when speaking of stereotyped liberals or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans, or the left or right. It is hard to talk about all iterations at once, but the cost is that the picture of our country appears very binary. I wish it could be different.
Secondly, making an observation, as uncomfortable as it might be, is not an attack. It’s an attempt to be honest and step down from any artificially created superiority. Because if we can’t look at ourselves honestly--at our faults, our extremes, our blind spots—any hope of finding middle ground with others is reduced to near zero. And we desperately need to find common, middle ground in this country.
Yes, it is more comfortable to just hang out with our team at the far end of the field, where we can expound upon the common outrages and reasonings that makes us feel righteous and affirms our view of the world as proper and true. And it’s good to have this kind of home base but it is not helpful to just stay there. Certainly not at this moment in history. In fact, regularly venturing out into the middle of the field and encouraging both ends to do the same is the only way we’ll pull this country back from its cliff edge of authoritarianism as well as having any chance of healing once we are back on more solid democratic ground.
Starting From Different Points of Reference
It won’t be easy to get people to meet in the middle, even with all we do actually agree on. For instance, we can all agree that we should treat each other with decency and respect. However, conservatives may believe that decency is rooted in the word of God, that the Bible prescribes what upholding decency actually entails.
On the left, decency is more likely to focus on mutable and broadly defined concepts involving empathy, equality, inclusion, and charity. The Bible espouses these concepts as well, of course, but religious leaders may narrow their definition, prioritizing particular aspects and interpretations. So, when they tell their flocks that Christians should push back against abortion, gender fluidity, or queer marriage, compassion and charity can be set aside in deference to righteousness. And they can quote bible verses to support that.
Non-Christians are not going to see the Bible as substantive reasoning for prioritizing righteousness over empathy but that doesn’t change a Christian’s certainty in it. This illustrates why you can’t change someone’s mind by simply telling them what you see as truth. It’s like telling someone who hates peas that they’re tasty when all they’ve had is mushy canned peas and you’ve only had fresh. You’re starting with two very different points of reference. Until they’ve personally had fresh peas, they will never be convinced that peas are worth eating but they also won’t try fresh peas because of their established understanding of peas. Unless they get shoved in their face.
You know, like thinking tariffs are a good thing until you’re a farmer paying a $10k tax on your season’s supply of fertilizer. Or supporting deportation until the day they take your wife.
But until Trump’s horrible policies hit them personally, how do we meet in the middle and find common ground when it’s likely that we are starting from very different points of reference?
Seeing the World Through the Eyes of Your Opposition
One of the easiest ways is to find common ground is to consider how they see you. Yes, it starts with YOU changing your understanding of your opposition. I said this last week, but I think it bears repeating. You cannot change another person. You have no direct control over that. You can, however, change yourself, so work with what you have control over.
Now, have you not wondered how do staunch conservatives truly see liberals? It’s kind of wild to contemplate.
Many conservatives, especially Christian nationalists believe liberals are morally relativistic, thinking that they prioritize results over principles as a way to justify morally questionable actions. One such example would be liberals supporting a woman’s right to the murderous act of abortion while opposing the death penalty because of concerns over racial and socioeconomic biases and the possibility of executing innocent people. To the religious right, choosing the right to an abortion is supporting an ethically questionable freedom over an immoral certainty while contradicting themselves by defending the lives of criminals.
Some conservatives also believe liberals force change too readily and don’t respect or consider traditional values. They contend that this can lead to social instability and immorality. This is because conservatives look to preserve order and regard established boundaries as something you don’t mess with except in rare circumstances, revealing a very different world view from their liberal counterparts.
Primal World Beliefs
According to an article by Jer Clifton published in the June 2023 edition of Scientific American titled “Divided Mindset”, the conservative viewpoint comes down to hierarchy and lines separating differences, especially differences of perceived value. The author’s conclusions came from a study Clifton and a colleague conducted at the University of Pennsylvania, citing that conservatives “tend to believe more strongly than liberals in a hierarchical world, which is essentially the view that the universe is a place where the lines between categories or concepts matter.”
The study was focused on primal world beliefs. This refers to simple beliefs about the world as a whole, such as the belief that the world is dangerous or, alternately, that it is predominantly safe. Or, as noted, that the world is organized through a hierarchy from better to worse or valuable to worthless.
This hierarchical belief is thought to be a very difficult view to change as that mindset sees everything in terms of comparisons, a measure of what is better or worse in a category with little or no room for exceptions and gray areas. So, with this world view, an immigrant is different than a legal resident and this variance will have a defined difference in value. Which has more value depends on whether you are the citizen or the immigrant, of course.
Liberals, on the other hand, tend to find differences meaningless, superficial, or even silly.
In reference to views of LGBTQ+ issues, Clifton proposes that “conservatives may feel that the line separating men and women is natural and innate—a big, bold line—whereas liberals may see that distinction as more superficial and culturally based. Welfare payments and policies, too, might be seen through a hierarchical lens, with some assuming that lines between rich and poor often reflect meaningful differences in people’s work ethic, talent, morality or value to society.”
Because conservatives largely see the world in terms of hierarchy, and the signs around them as well as their political leaders and media tell them the world is getting worse, the rational thing for them is to fight change in order to preserve an ethical and proven social order.
Liberals, on the other hand see the world as unjust but believe in the potential for it to be better so, for them, making things more equitable defines the only logical approach. So, you could say conservatives want to preserve things, even if they are not all that good, and liberals want to change things even when they’re not all that bad.
This further illustrates the difficulty in trying to have a conversation about the same subject and finding that common ground. Politicians and the conservative media have certainly discovered this and push their ideas based on immovable lines while the liberals have highlighted the disaster liberals see as a lack of change. They do this because it feeds our primal beliefs which gets them views and more advertising dollars. They have no motivation to do otherwise.
So besides trying to understand how our opposition sees their world, we need to stop listening so unquestionably to those who tell us how to see ours.
Points on a Path to Common Ground
This still doesn’t fully answer the basic question: How do we find the common ground from which we can start to repair the divisiveness that this authoritarian administration is wielding to instill chaos and cement their hold?
We do this by talking to people who think differently than us, that believe things we don’t believe in and may support the people who are causing tremendous pain and fear in our country.
I know. This may be the hardest thing one can ask of you, but this is a time for hard things. And starting conversations, not abandoning your conservative friends, family, and neighbors, maybe be one of those things for you. I’ll try to help by narrowing down the way to approach your opposition.
Have empathy
If you’re a liberal, trying to understand the conservative viewpoint will get you halfway there. Understanding does not mean agreeing, it just means that you can imagine, to some small extent, how they see their world.
The other half of this is considering what are, to them, very real fears, reasonable desires, justifiable anger, and other such emotions. Emotions are always valid. It’s what people do with them that can cause problems. So, try to separate the emotions from the actions and be willing to try and see why they feel the way they do.
What you say is not as important as how you say it
You can’t approach a conversation where you want to be heard from a place of superiority. If someone came to you acting like they had all the answers, would you listen to them? People respond better to humility, openness, and sincerity.
Treat people like their opinions and feelings matter because they do. Again, you don’t have to agree with them but how they think should not be dismissed. In fact, there is nothing more important that you can get out of a conversation with the opposition. Know thy enemy, right? Although, in this case, we’re doing that to turn “enemies” back into people we like to talk to.
Don’t use belittling or combative language and tactics. Respond with warmth and questions more than doubt and statements. And don’t use inflammatory or caricaturizing language, as true as it might ring, such as talking about the fascist regime or Trump’s sycophants.
Do not tell others how they think, who they are, what they do, or what they want, even if phrased as an opinion. These almost always sound accusatory and make people defensive. This includes labeling someone as a conservative, republican, right-winger, religious or anything else. Only use labels they have offered to describe themselves, if you must use them in the conversation at all.
Pay attention to your posture and facial expressions.
Your words will matter little if your stance, the timber of your voice, the cadence of your words, or your facial expressions seem combative or tense. Be relaxed. Lean back. Keep hands loose in your lap or at your sides. Even if they can’t see you because you’re on a call or messaging, having a relaxed posture will help you diffuse your own emotions so you can remember to listen, be open, and be empathetic.
Build trust
If you’re doing the above, you’re building trust but it’s important to keep this goal as a focus. Part of the problem with trying to convince someone they’ve been lied to is that they aren’t trusting the source of what is deemed to be the truth. You need to become someone they trust before they will consider your points relevant and credible.
Don’t try to change their minds right away
Remember, until you build trust, your purpose is to be understanding, not correct them. So as much as you might want to, avoid countering any points you believe are wrong until you have common ground established.
Don’t allow your buttons to get pushed
If your emotions are getting negatively twitched as you talk, even after you’ve found common ground or conceded to some of their points, perhaps they are pushing your buttons. Successful button pushing takes two people though—the person choosing to push buttons and the person choosing to react.
If you observe that the other person is getting aggressive or personal, you can kindly point out that the conversation isn’t as productive as it was or could be. Then ask questions about how they think so they are not just focused on you or the kind of people you represent to them. If you are kind, warm, and attentive, it is almost impossible for people to stay wound up and angry.
Actively look for common ground
Common ground isn’t having to agree wholesale so listen to all the little comments and asides as well as the main points. Any little thing works, from agreeing on the best pizza joint to agreeing every person’s vote should count.
Look for opportunities to say, “You’re right.” That phrase goes a long way in gaining trust as it shows you agree as well as showing you aren’t just trying to prove them wrong.
Once you’ve tried to speak to people with opposing views with these points in mind, you may actually find it’s a relief to not have to keep proving how right you are or exhaust yourself wailing against the brick wall of an immovable mind. Conversations seeking common ground are much less stressful and not so disheartening simply because the purpose is not to win, but to learn.