Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The contempt strategy can change

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris debating

"The contempt strategy demands that you look down on the other side, make fun of them, call them names, question their motives, attack their character and mock their values," writes Shriver, who argues that It's time to try something different.

Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Shriver is the chairman of Special Olympics, founder and CEO of UNITE, and co-creator of the Dignity Index.

On Sept. 17, I went on Fox News to talk about a “dignity strategy” that I designed with my Dignity Index co-creator, Tom Rosshirt. We think it could make a difference for any candidate willing to take it up. What do you think?

It is a late-game strategy that could help either candidate win the White House, but it’s something neither has tried before because it’s the absolute opposite of the typical political playbook.


The standard playbook is the “contempt strategy,” and it’s based on the principle that “if you don’t agree with me, there’s something wrong with you.”

The contempt strategy demands that you look down on the other side, make fun of them, call them names, question their motives, attack their character and mock their values.

The point is, you demonize your opponents to energize your supporters. The campaigns use it because they say it works — but how can you say it works when both sides are using it, and neither side is trying the opposite?

The dignity strategy

The dignity strategy turns the old playbook on its head. This is not just a softer version of the contempt strategy — turning off the contempt, toning it down or targeting it more narrowly. It’s not even doing more positive ads.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The dignity strategy is purposefully treating the other side with dignity — making your case with facts and numbers, not insults or sneers. It’s showing respect for the other side — not respect for every view they have, but respect for their right to have their views, and respect for the struggle they face to find a better life for themselves and their families.

It means not just talking about the other side with understanding, but talking to the other side — addressing opponents directly in speeches, telling them you’re paying attention to them, that their views matter, that they are Americans and they deserve to be heard, not mocked, and that you will always treat them with respect.

“I know you disagree with me,” a candidate might say. “But let me at least tell you why I think the way I do.”

It’s easy to make an ethical case for this kind of treatment. But there is also a political and practical case as well.

First, Donna Hicks, the international conflict resolution specialist and author of the book “Dignity,” says that along with our survival instincts, the desire to be treated with dignity is the single most powerful force motivating our behavior.

She adds that “a desire for revenge is the instant response to a dignity violation.” In other words, when you treat people with contempt, you make enemies for your cause.

The second practical argument for dignity is that when you treat others with contempt, you’re turning off people whom you’re not even targeting — people whose votes you need! In 2018, the research group More in Common published a report called “Hidden Tribes,”which addressed polarization in the United States.

The report found that two-thirds of the country belongs to what it called the "Exhausted Majority” — people who are disillusioned and frustrated with the state of our politics.

Compared to the left and right wings of the two major parties, members of the Exhausted Majority are more flexible and more open to compromise. They are worn out by our politics and feel left out of the political debate.

It stands to reason that — in a close election — a significant number of people in the Exhausted Majority are not sure who they’re voting for, or if they’re going to vote at all.

Which candidate is going to win the voters who are sick of division?

It may depend on what the candidates say to the people not on their side. The voters who are looking for more dignity range beyond swing voters.

Early this year, we worked with More in Common to assemble a panel of 80 Americans who make up a representative sample of the country.

We call them the National Citizens Panel and, since March, we’ve been asking them to use our tool, the Dignity Index, to score on an eight-point scale the way candidates talk to and about their opponents. Do they use dignity, or do they use contempt?

In surveys of the panel that we’ve done since then, we’ve made a number of findings.

First, panelists were quickly able to call out the contempt in political speech and note its divisive effect, even when it came from their own side.

Second, panelists became better able to see their own contempt and the damage it does to their relationships.

Third, we’ve found that panelists from opposing political viewpoints can agree on the presence of dignity or contempt in a speech, regardless of who is speaking or what they’re saying.

Overall, the panel is teaching us that we can have a cross-partisan conversation about our divisions with a common vocabulary based on the shared value of dignity for every person.

And, with a little practice, we can see that contempt is not what it pretends to be — a passionate call for a noble ideal — but is actually a political tactic to pit us against each other so others can gain wealth and power.

Six years ago, I joined others in founding an organization called UNITE to help ease divisions in the country. “Unite?” some people asked me disdainfully. Unite around what?”

Unite around the idea that we should treat each other with dignity, not contempt.

It’s a more powerful idea than it seems — because, actually, it’s not our disagreements that cause our division. It’s treating each other with contempt when we disagree.

When contempt tears us apart, dignity can bring us together.

When people see contempt for what it is, it backfires. And the best way to make contempt backfire is to expose it, and the best way to expose contempt, is to offer people a chance to compare it to dignity.

This election may come down to who deploys a sound dignity strategy. There are many analyses on who will win, but everyone agrees that swing voters matter. And no one thinks swing voters are energized by contempt. They’re in the middle. They're in the exhausted majority. They're looking for something new.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Read More

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same
a red hat that reads make america great again

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

Recently, while listening to a podcast, I came across the term “reprise” in the context of music and theater. A reprise is a repeated element in a performance—a song or scene returning to reinforce themes or emotions introduced earlier. In a play or film, a familiar melody might reappear, reminding the audience of a previous moment and deepening its significance.

That idea got me thinking about how reprise might apply to the events shaping our lives today. It’s easy to believe that the times we are living through are entirely unprecedented—that the chaos and uncertainty we experience are unlike anything before. Yet, reflecting on the nature of a reprise, I began to reconsider. Perhaps history does not simply move forward in a straight line; rather, it cycles back, echoing familiar themes in new forms.

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Intergenerational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

An illustration depicting the U.S. Constitution and Government.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Following Jefferson: Promoting Intergenerational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

Towards the end of his life, Thomas Jefferson became fatalistic. The prince and poet of the American Revolution brooded—about the future of the country he birthed, to be sure; but also about his health, his finances, his farm, his family, and, perhaps most poignantly, his legacy. “[W]hen all our faculties have left…” he wrote to John Adams in 1822, “[when] every avenue of pleasing sensation is closed, and athumy, debility, and malaise [is] left in their places, when the friends of our youth are all gone, and a generation is risen around us whom we know not, is death an evil?”

The question was rhetorical, of course. But it revealed something about his character. Jefferson was aware that Adams and he—the “North and South poles of the Revolution”—were practically the only survivors of the Revolutionary era, and that a new generation was now in charge of America’s destiny.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining the Democracy Movement: Francis Johnson
- YouTube

Defining the Democracy Movement: Francis Johnson

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

The latest interview of this series took place with Francis Johnson, the founding partner of Communications Resources, a public affairs organization, and the former President of Take Back Our Republic. This non-partisan organization advocates for conservative solutions to campaign finance reform. A veteran of Republican politics, Francis has been at the forefront of structural reform efforts, including initiatives like ranked-choice voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
Sacred Succession: The Pope's Final Gift to Democracy
a person standing on a sidewalk with a hat on
Photo by Chris Weiher on Unsplash

Sacred Succession: The Pope's Final Gift to Democracy

When the bells of St. Peter's Basilica tolled on Easter Monday, announcing Pope Francis's death at 88, they rang for the world's 1.3 billion Catholics and all of humanity. During the moment of transition for the Catholic Church, we witnessed the conclave, a ritual of power transfer that predates modern democracy yet might offer surprising lessons for our contemporary political moment.

The death of a pope represents more than a religious milestone. It is a moment that transcends theological boundaries, offering insights into how institutions navigate succession, how power transfers in an age of global uncertainty, and how ancient traditions might illuminate modern challenges.

Keep ReadingShow less