Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

4 principles to guide us past our Covid crisis divisions

Listen to other viewpoints

We must be willing to consider others' viewpoints if we're going to get through the pandemic together, write Levison and Fersh.

10'000 Hours/Getty Images
Levison directs Minnesota's Office of Collaboration and Dispute Resolution, a government mediator. Fersh founded and remains senior advisor of Convergence, a nonpartisan group that incubates cross-partisan deliberations on pressing national policy questions.

Several polls show that the public may be more aligned on managing the novel coronavirus than what is playing out in public debate. For sure, surges in Covid-19 infections in some states have exacerbated the partisan bickering over response measures. The country is experiencing fierce partisan debates on how much to open up the economy, the value of masks and who is responsible for and at fault for what.

Often in the past, the silver lining of a crisis is that it brings people together. So why isn't this crisis, especially now when our country seems so divided, uniting us as we might hope? And what can we do about it?

At this moment, many among us fear that our choice is uncomfortably stark: Either we all stay home and avert larger-scale loss of life but lose our livelihoods, or we all go to work and restore the economy but increase the number of lives lost. Conflicts like these lead us to think in "either/or" terms and often result in heated disagreement or gridlock. There is a better way to deal with the current debates and the myriad economic, health and other impacts from the pandemic that we will be addressing for years to come.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

It is appropriate for the public and experts to have differing ideas about how to solve urgent and complex issues. The trouble arises when we stop believing we have shared goals and values — and when we lack the trusting relationships to bridge the divides. Conflict itself isn't a problem; the key for our democracy is how we deal with it.

We can all agree we need to honor the important goals of keeping people healthy and fostering a strong economy. The devil is in the details. As we all grapple with Covid-19, here are four guiding principles based on our experience leading multiple consensus building projects involving people with different backgrounds and points of view.

Focus on shared goals and values. Although individuals and groups hold different positions, they are generally motivated by the same big picture goals (such as health and a strong economy) and core values (such as fairness, responsibility, freedom and compassion). The issue is not about different goals and values; it's about finding the right balance among them to address the current challenge.

Put yourself in the shoes of others. To identify mutually acceptable solutions, understand the needs and interests of the other side. Ask open-ended questions and listen to others' viewpoints rather than immediately preparing a rebuttal. Consider the most reasonable arguments of the other side and don't overreact to messengers who are overly strident and not representative of the whole group.

Devise integrative solutions. Listen well to understand the other side's needs and then collaborate to develop creative solutions that include the most important needs of everyone involved. These solutions may require some give and take, but the goal here is not to find split-the-difference answers but rather "win-win" solutions that don't compromise fundamental principles. These solutions will not only be more acceptable to all parties but will often be stronger and more comprehensive.

Give others the benefit of the doubt. Very few people get up in the morning wondering, "How can I make the world a worse place today?" Most people, most of the time, care about how to make the world better. To solve a problem with others, it is essential to look for and connect with the goodness in them.

Based on extensive experience bridging divides on complex and polarizing issues, we know the principles we recommend work. They are deeply needed now at the federal, state and local levels. For those who want assistance in deploying them, there are people throughout the country trained in mediation and related skills who can help.

With so much at stake today, we need to see the value of engaging differing viewpoints to solve challenging issues, recognize that we share values with most people with whom we disagree, and foster relationships in spite of differences.

This may be the only way to generate wise and durable solutions to our most pressing problems.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less