Hyten is co-executive director of Essential Partners.
Abortion is one of the most polarized topics in American politics, yet we know that most Americans hold nuanced, complex, sometimes contradictory perspectives on abortion. A recent Pew study found that many supporters of abortion access are open to some restrictions, while many opponents say it should be available in some circumstances.
It is a peculiar irony that the complexity of those views also creates the circumstances for our national polarization. In their everyday lives, people have had vanishingly few opportunities to talk about abortion. It is often taboo or else people find it too difficult to articulate their views —and they choose silence.
This reticence has allowed the most extreme voices to dominate this discussion in the media, in our politics and in our communities. As a result, few if any political leaders express the views of the people they represent. Polarization is anathema to a functioning democracy.
Since the Supreme Court handed down a decision that effectively reversed Roe v. Wade, one polarized national conversation has turned into 50 distinct deliberations unique to the history, context and communities within each state.
As you navigate conversations about this topic in the coming months — whether in direct response to the Supreme Court draft decision or not — it is essential to honor both the complexity and the urgency around this conversation. It is also vital to the future of our nation that we empower the voices of everyday people, so they are able to clearly articulate and advocate for their views.
The organization that I lead, Essential Partners, was founded 30 years ago out of the need for better public discussions about divisive topics like abortion. In 1994, following the murder of two women’s clinic workers by an anti-abortion activist, our founders spent more than five years leading confidential dialogues between pro-life and pro-choice leaders in greater Boston.
"The most important thing I learned from the dialogue,” said Nicki Nichols Gamble, who was then the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of MA, “is that there is no more fundamental or profound responsibility for a leader than to understand the differences of opinions around you."
It is now more urgent than ever that our leaders understand the differences of opinions around them. But that can't happen as long as we are trapped in a public debate that is dominated by extreme voices. Now is the moment to break out of that old, dysfunctional, polarized pattern.
Drawing from our work on these conversations over the past three decades, I want to share three recommendations to help you have a healthier, more open, more nuanced conversation with someone who may have a different perspective.
Reflect on your own views
Make sure you understand yourself and what you want to share. Before a conversation about abortion, take a few moments to reflect on your own values. Think about a personal experience that shaped your view. Think about a person in your life who influenced your perspective. Consider taking notes if it helps you focus or remember what’s most important to you.
Make your purpose clear
Hard conversations often implode because people enter them with different purposes. One person is curious; the other person is trying to win. So before you dive in, make sure everyone has the same goal. It can be as simple as saying, “I’m not here to try to change your mind, shame you or scold you. I want to understand you and be understood. How does that sound?” You’ll be amazed at what can happen with a shared purpose.
Embrace the personal
Abortion is already personal. Embrace that fact in these hard conversations. When you talk about your views, speak only for yourself — not on behalf of all women, or all Christians or all liberals. Talk about me, my, and I, rather than you, we, and everyone. Talk about an experience that shaped your values rather than an argument in favor of your view (or against another view). Make yourself known in the way you wish to be known.
Private conversations have a profound influence on the public discussions of issues like abortion. When Americans fail to talk about important political questions, we cede the conversation to hard-line, divisive stances. We erase the diversity of thought that allows our democracy to thrive.
In the wake of this ruling, we have a choice. Whether we fall further into political polarization and dysfunction will depend on the conversations we are willing to have today.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivers a keynote speech at the 62nd Munich Security Conference on Saturday, Feb. 14, 2026, in Munich, Germany.
Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room
Finally free from the demands of being chief archivist of the United States, secretary of state, national security adviser and unofficial viceroy of Venezuela, Marco Rubio made his way to the Munich Security Conference last weekend to deliver a major address.
I shouldn’t make fun. Rubio, unlike so many major figures in this administration, is a bona fide serious person. Indeed, that’s why President Trump keeps piling responsibilities on him. Rubio knows what he’s talking about and cares about policy. He is hardly a free agent; Trump is still president after all. But in an administration full of people willing to act like social media trolls, Rubio stands out for being serious. And I welcome that.
But just because Rubio made a serious argument, that doesn’t mean it was wholly persuasive. Part of his goal was to repair some of the damage done by his boss, who not long ago threatened to blow up the North Atlantic alliance by snatching Greenland away from Denmark. Rubio’s conciliatory language was welcome, but it hardly set things right.
Whether it was his intent or not, Rubio had more success in offering a contrast with Vice President JD Vance, who used the Munich conference last year as a platform to insult allies and provide fan service to his followers on X. Rubio’s speech was the one Vance should have given, if the goal was to offer a serious argument about Trump’s “vision” for the Western alliance. I put “vision” in scare quotes because it’s unclear to me that Trump actually has one, but the broader MAGA crowd is desperate to construct a coherent theory of their case.
So what’s that case? That Western Civilization is a real thing, America is not only part of it but also its leader, and it will do the hard things required to fix it.
In Rubio’s story, America and Europe embraced policies in the 1990s that amounted to the “managed decline” of the West. European governments were free riders on America’s military might and allowed their defense capabilities to atrophy as they funded bloated welfare states and inefficient regulatory regimes. Free trade, mass migration and an infatuation with “the rules-based global order” eroded national sovereignty, undermined the “cohesion of our societies” and fueled the “de-industrialization” of our economies. The remedy for these things? Reversing course on those policies and embracing the hard reality that strength and power drive events on the global stage.
“The fundamental question we must answer at the outset is what exactly are we defending,” Rubio said, “because armies do not fight for abstractions. Armies fight for a people; armies fight for a nation. Armies fight for a way of life.”
I agree with some of this — to a point. And, honestly, given how refreshing it is to hear a grown-up argument from this administration, it feels churlish to quibble.
But, for starters, the simple fact is that Western Civilization is an abstraction, and so are nations and peoples. And that’s fine. Abstractions — like love, patriotism, moral principles, justice — are really important. Our “way of life” is largely defined and understood through abstractions: freedom, the American dream, democracy, etc. What is the “Great” in Make America Great Again, if not an abstraction?
This is important because the administration’s defenders ridicule or dismiss any principled objection critics raise as fastidious gitchy-goo eggheadery. Trump tramples the rule of law, pardons cronies, tries to steal an election and violates free market principles willy-nilly. And if you complain, it’s because you’re a goody-goody fool.
As White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said not long ago, “we live in a world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time.” Rubio said it better, but it’s the same idea.
There are other problems with Rubio’s story. At the start of the 1990s, the EU’s economy was 9% bigger than ours. In 2025 we were nearly twice as rich as Europe. If Europe was “ripping us off,” they have a funny way of showing it. America hasn’t “deindustrialized.” The manufacturing sector has grown during all of this decline, though not as much as the service sector, where we are a behemoth. We have shed manufacturing jobs, but that has more to do with automation than immigration. Moreover, the trends Rubio describes are not unique to America. Manufacturing tends to shrink as countries get richer.
That’s an important point because Rubio, like his boss, blames all of our economic problems on bad politicians and pretends that good politicians can fix them through sheer force of will.
I think Rubio is wrong, but I salute him for making his case seriously.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.