Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

How to have a conversation about vaccines at your Thanksgiving table

Opinion

Thanksgiving turkey with family in the background
lisegagne/Getty Images
Hyten is co-executive director of Essential Partners, which equips people to live and work better together by building trust and understanding across differences.

In workplaces and living rooms across the country, people are having hard conversations about the Covid-19 vaccine. And with Thanksgiving around the corner, we'll soon be navigating these vaccination questions for family get-togethers and holiday gatherings. Talking about vaccination can arouse deep-seated anxieties related to safety, health and autonomy.

High-stakes conversations like these can unravel quickly. Wrong words or bad assumptions can thrust a relationship into repetitive cycles of defensiveness, mistrust and antagonism. If you've ever seen Thanksgiving dinner devolve into a shouting argument about politics, you know what this looks like — and you know how painful it can be, not only for the people involved but for a whole community.

The conversations we have in private are also microcosms of our public discourse, where some people bemoan "anti-vaxxers" who "don't believe in science" while unvaccinated people who are anxious about the government or the medical system might feel that their concerns aren't being heard at all. This dynamic serves no one. It generates even more mistrust and makes us no safer or healthier.

How do we do better? We can begin by drawing out the individual experiences that lie beneath a person's values and perspectives. The intricacy and subtlety of a person's own story can interrupt these toxic cycles — without asking anyone to compromise their core beliefs.

Let me offer two pairs of examples to help illuminate this idea.

I have a friend who got pregnant during Covid-19. Weighing the risks and benefits with her doctor, she chose not to get vaccinated. She and her partner had struggled with fertility for so long, they were terrified to complicate the pregnancy. Another friend, with the same basic background and the same information, got vaccinated the second she was eligible after getting pregnant. She was terrified of complicating an already high-risk pregnancy with Covid-19.

These two friends began, more or less, in the same place. They arrived at different decisions through a series of values-based choices. They made the best decisions they could at each step, trying to protect themselves and their pregnancies.

I have another friend who has a compromised immune system. After the vaccine was approved, she drove for 10 hours from Colorado to Kansas to get vaccinated — it was the closest available appointment. Yet another friend, with a congenital kidney disorder, has yet to get vaccinated. The doctor said that they truly could not predict the side effects of the vaccine, or its effectiveness, for people with the disease. Balancing the risks, they decided that it is safer to follow other precautions, like masking. Now my friend is worried that, at some point, they'll be mandated by their employer or by the government to get it anyway.

These and many, many other individual stories explode the public debate over vaccinations, which oversimplifies the decisions people face and villainizes those who disagree with you. Few people would enter honestly into a conversation where they expect to be demeaned. Those conversations are pre-determined to fail — they fail to persuade, they fail to make us all safer, they fail to sustain our relationships and communities.

As long as we're engaging in toxic, polarized, zero-sum debates about COVID-19 vaccinations, we're going to struggle to build effective policies and public trust, both of which are needed for public health.

We can begin to change the national conversation by having better conversations about vaccination in our private lives. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. If you want to engage in a deeper, more meaningful dialogue about vaccines, especially with someone who might disagree with you, here are three questions to ask yourself before you start the conversation:

  1. What is my goal for this conversation? Before you dive in, make sure you have a goal that the other person would sign up for. Instead of trying to change a person's opinion, try to learn more about the values or personal experiences behind their choice. Or enter with the goal of helping them feel heard and seen, especially if they're in the minority in your community. You may find that the conversation leaves you both changed in ways you couldn't predict.
  2. Where do I feel conflicted and where does my thinking defy expectations? Most people hold nuanced views about the issues that matter most to them, but rarely get to share those perspectives in all their complexity. Start by thinking about the areas where your own view is less clear or certain than people might assume. Decide what you're willing to share. Maybe you have mixed feelings about bodily autonomy and mandates, or you don't completely trust pharmaceutical companies, or you worry about spreading Covid unknowingly. Opening up about your own reflections, feelings and values will make it possible for other people to do the same.
  3. How can I ask a question that invites a personal story rather than an opinion? Questions can open people up or close them off. Try to ask questions that invite a personal story or experience, or to share what's at the heart of the matter in regards to their perspective. Ask questions like: "What do you wish people understood about your decision?" or "What in your decision most resonates with a value about how you want to live your life?"

People are always changed by what they hear in a deeper, truer conversation with someone else in their community — even if their view or choice remains the same as it was at the start. There is no way to know the outcome of a genuine, open, curious conversation until you actually have one.

But one thing is certain. Without better conversations, without interrupting the toxic cycles of polarization, we will not be able to meet the challenges that face our communities today. Better conversations are crucial if we are to live and work in community, to thrive in community and to survive as a democracy. If nothing else, the Covid-19 pandemic has reminded us all that our futures are intertwined.


Read More

Protestors holding flags that read, "Trump 2020," and recording on their phones inside the U.S. Capitol.

A pro-Trump mob enters the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. Congress held a joint session today to ratify President-elect Joe Biden's 306-232 Electoral College win over President Donald Trump.

Win McNamee / Getty Images

MAGA’s Get Out of Jail Free Card

We have never lived through a better era to be a criminal, provided your political fealty is directed toward the right person. If you are an executive facing fraud charges or a perpetrator of violent offenses, the standard calculations of the penal code may no longer apply as long as you support Donald Trump. If you’re Team Trump, the machinery of the state will actively dismantle itself to protect you. If not, good luck to you.

The Trump regime’s message is now unmistakable: rules do not apply to MAGA. Consider the recent saga of the U.S. Army pilots who took two AH-64 Apache attack helicopters on an unauthorized detour to perform a low-altitude flyby of washed-up rocker and MAGA ally Kid Rock’s Nashville home. As a former military helicopter pilot and aircraft commander, let me be clear: this is exactly the kind of stunt we are taught never to do. If I had pulled something like that, there would have been legitimate grounds to take my wings away. Instead, when the Army suspended the crew pending a standard safety and regulatory review, as is the proper procedure, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth intervened personally, bypassing standard military discipline to announce on X: “Thank you @KidRock. @USArmy pilots suspension LIFTED. No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots.” Their rule breaking was catalogued as patriotic.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rioters breach Capitol security Jan. 6
Rioters breach Capitol security Jan. 6
Win McNamee/Getty Images

Trump’s 1776 Slush Fund Shows a New Level of Executive Abuse

Beyond the brazen venality and disdain for the other branches of government, Trump’s attempted sham IRS lawsuit settlement and $1.776 billion slush fund raise the prospect of a new and frightening danger. That is the use of funds from the government to support and incentivize the same people who attacked our government on January 6 to do it again, as new elections loom, only now as well-funded, better- armed, paramilitary-like mobs.

Fortunately, one district court has temporarily enjoined the establishment of the settlement slush fund, and another is demanding explanations from the administration. The Acting Attorney General says the President is abandoning the slush fund, but as of this writing, nothing is in place to confirm its formal abandonment or to ensure that something like it will not resurface. No matter what happens, the fact that a President and his enablers have created this danger would, in more ordinary times, be grounds for impeachment. It should be an alarm bell for continual vigilance.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democracy Awards Honor Bipartisan Excellence in Congressional Service
white concrete building under cloudy sky during daytime

Democracy Awards Honor Bipartisan Excellence in Congressional Service

Now in their ninth year, the Democracy Awards are the Congressional Management Foundation’s (CMF) flagship program recognizing excellence in non-legislative achievement on Capitol Hill. Founded in 1977, CMF is the premier bipartisan 501(c)(3) foundation dedicated to strengthening the First Branch by providing Members of Congress and their staff with hands-on, actionable support and essential resources that help them govern effectively, better serve constituents, and strengthen the institution. Across seven categories, these bipartisan awards honor Members of Congress and their staff for outstanding public service and contributions to strengthening the First Branch.

Each year, following an open self-nomination season, one Democratic office and one Republican office are recognized in each award category, along with four recipients of the Chief of Staff of the Year award. Applications for the 2026 season opened in late January, and throughout the spring, CMF conducted 47 interviews across 45 congressional offices from a pool of 154 applications. Winners were selected by an independent panel in May and will be honored at both a Winner’s luncheon in June and a formal ceremony in Washington, D.C. in July. Through this process, the Democracy Awards shine a light on the exceptional work taking place on Capitol Hill that too often goes unnoticed.

Keep ReadingShow less