Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Even in victory, Republicans should listen to their opponents

Even in victory, Republicans should listen to their opponents

An illustration of someone listening and someone speaking.

Getty Images / Leolintang

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, many people have discussed Democrats’ mistakes—from being “out of touch” and insulting, to focusing too much on Trump, to Biden’s “arrogance” in running again. It’s good for political parties to ask tough questions about how their approach may be driving people away and how they can better serve people.

As Republicans continue to celebrate their victory, will they be brave enough to ask themselves similar questions?


No matter the election results, what hasn’t changed is we’re deeply divided—almost down the middle, in terms of voters. If Republicans fail to reflect on those questions, in a few years they risk finding themselves back where they were in 2020: out of power and mired in resentment. If that happens, will they blame “the establishment” and other external forces for their losses? Or will they consider how their rhetoric and approaches may have alienated Americans and led to setbacks?

Much of the recent toxicity centers around Trump. Many Americans see him as a uniquely irresponsible and dangerous figure—and that perception obviously won’t go away with his return to power. Republicans should think deeply about these concerns—and avoid the urge to denigrate and mock them.

To be clear, this isn’t to argue that one must have or agree with those concerns about Trump. It’s to argue for the importance of understanding and respecting American citizens’ concerns. That is just a good thing to do, regardless of one’s political beliefs or partisanship. When we fail to do those things, we’ll find that we deepen divisions and amplify contempt.

For example, consider the election distrust fostered by Trump and other Republicans after Trump’s 2020 loss. Many embraced the narrative that the election was “stolen” by Democrats, despite a lack of substantial evidence. Trump’s victory in 2024 undermines those claims.

As Mark Antonio Wright sarcastically put it in National Review: “If Democrats stole it in 2020, why didn’t they steal it this time?” Regardless of your views of Trump or the 2020 election, hopefully you can see that Trump’s recent win highlights the illogical nature of the more dark and paranoid narratives about powerful anti-Trump forces working behind-the-scenes to rig our elections.

Pessimistic thinking happens across the political spectrum, and our emotional divides make such negativity more likely. Regardless of how they view this topic or objections that “Democrats have done it, too,” Republicans should be able to see why so many Americans were deeply concerned by such behaviors. Promoting a narrative where one’s opponents are stealing elections amplifies fears and can fuel violence; at a large enough scale, it can threaten a country’s stability. That’s why concerns that “democracy is being threatened” resonated for many Americans.

Of course, not all responses to such concerns are equally good or helpful. Some efforts to “save democracy” can easily be criticized as partisan and polarizing —like the attempt to remove Trump from the ballot. The partisan nature of some of those efforts can make it easy for Republicans to view all concerns about Trump’s actions as unreasonable—as either having political motivations or being overblown.

That is just how conflict works: our hostility will lead us to filter for and find evidence of why our opponents’ concerns shouldn’t matter — why they’re laughable and worthy of mockery. And in a huge country like ours, finding examples of behaviors that strike us as unreasonable and outlandish will always be easy.

But when political parties focus on mocking opponents’ concerns and fail to take Americans’ grievances seriously, there is a price to pay—just ask the Democrats who are soul searching after their recent losses.

If Republicans want to lower political toxicity, or even ensure long-term success, they must avoid gloating and indulging in “we won, so deal with it” attitudes. Instead, they should take this opportunity to acknowledge the valid concerns of those who view Trump’s behavior and rhetoric as dangerous. Understanding those views doesn’t require agreeing with them—it simply requires empathy and respect.

They should also examine their views about Democrats as a group to determine if they are overly pessimistic. For example, claiming that Democratic stances on immigration are motivated by a desire to win elections is as reductive and insulting as the claim that Republican stances on immigration are driven by racism. All of us must resist the temptation to reach for worst-case assumptions and to “mind-read” our opponents’ hidden intentions: these tendencies only deepen mistrust and hostility.

Winning an election will never guarantee permanent victory —and speaking as if it can will only amplify tensions. Trying to understand and speak to our opponents’ concerns is not weakness; it is how we build a healthier, stronger country and avoid worst-case outcomes. It also happens to be how we can better advocate for our goals.

Pearce Godwin is politically conservative and the founder of the Listen First Project. In a piece advising Republicans to work to reduce toxicity for their own sake, he writes: “As we vigorously contest visions, values, and policies, never surrendering our convictions, we can uphold a basic respect for the humanity of our opponents and all fellow Americans.”

If more leaders and activists—Democrats and Republicans—can rise to that challenge, we may find a way to bridge the toxic divides that threaten our nation. If we can’t, we risk remaining trapped in a dangerous cycle of hostility and contempt. The choice is ours to make.

Zachary Elwood works with Builders, a nonpartisan organization aimed at overcoming toxic polarization. He’s the author of “Defusing American Anger.”

Read More

Two Yellow Speech Bubbles Overlapping Common Ground on Blue Background Front View.

A reflection on parenting, empathy, and communication in a divided world.

Getty Images, MirageC

Agreement Is Not Understanding

During a recent conversation, my 16-year-old son told me I did not understand him.

Parents know these moments well. What begins as a disagreement about something practical can quickly become something larger. A conversation about rules, expectations, timing, priorities, or responsibility suddenly transforms into a referendum on whether your child feels seen, heard, and respected.

Keep ReadingShow less
Religious leaders hold a press conference at the Episcopal Church Center.

Religious leaders hold a press conference at the Episcopal Church Center to outline plans for implementing the recommendations of President Johnson's riot commission. From the left are Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum, president of Inter-Religious Foundation for Community Organizations; Rev. Albert Cleage Jr., pastor of Detroit's Central Congregational Church; Rev., John Hines, co-chairman of Operation connection, and Rabbi Abraham Heschel, of New York's Jewish Theological Seminary.

Photo by Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Not Forgotten: The Need To Continue The Work of Black-Jewish Legacy

An aggressor shouting “Free Palestine” choked a 32-year-old Jewish man near Adas Torah synagogue recently in the Pico-Robertson neighborhood in LA.

This episode, following on the heels of thousands more, is a stark reminder that the surge of antisemitism in the U.S. continues unabated.

Keep ReadingShow less
In a Politically Divided America, Where Does Relocation Fit In?

Row of U-Haul moving trucks parked in rental lot on a clear day in Concord, California, on Dec. 11, 2025.

(Smith Collection - Gado / Getty Images)

In a Politically Divided America, Where Does Relocation Fit In?

In a recent essay, I argue that America’s political division is so severe that the United States should consider a peaceful split into two sovereign nations joined in a cooperative “American Union” with shared currency, defense, and freedom of movement. Many commenters focused immediately on the issue of relocation, questioning whether citizens living “behind enemy lines” would feel even more trapped than they do today.

“What happens to blue people in red America, and red people in blue America? People can’t just pick up and move,” they ask.

Keep ReadingShow less
A woman sitting down and speaking with a group of people.

As misinformation and political polarization deepen in America, the Pro-Truth Pledge offers a nonpartisan, science-backed framework for rebuilding trust, civic honesty, and productive public discourse.

Getty Images, Luis Alvarez

Can We Disagree Honestly Again? The Pro‑Truth Answer

Walk into any family dinner, town hall, or social media feed in 2026, and the diagnosis is the same: we are not just disagreeing anymore. We are operating from different sets of facts.

Oxford Dictionary named "post-truth" its word of the year a decade ago, and the air has only gotten thinner since. AI-generated deepfakes circulate faster than corrections. Cable news rewards heat over light. And ordinary citizens — well-intentioned, busy, exhausted — share things their tribe wants to hear without checking whether those things are real.

Keep ReadingShow less