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

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

Jalen Brunson #11 of the New York Knicks celebrates with the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy during the New York Knicks Championship ticker tape parade and victory rally celebrating winning the 2026 NBA Finals on June 18, 2026 in New York City.

(Photo by Angelina Katsanis/Getty Images)

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

I didn’t grow up anywhere near Madison Square Garden. My childhood unfolded in the Midwest, far from New York’s tangled boroughs and yellow cabs. My father brought the city with him, tucked in the vowels of his accent and the teams he rooted for. He was a Jersey boy at first. Then, a reluctant Midwesterner. Geography, though, never truly loosened its grip. In our house, sports allegiance wasn’t a choice. It was inherited—an expectation passed like a family recipe. Or a story retold until it blurs into fact.

For my father, and then for me, the Knicks were never just a team. They were a test of endurance. Before I could distinguish a pick-and-roll from a triangle offense, I understood Knicks loyalty: you waited. You hoped in public, persisted when heartbreak was routine. Knicks fandom was boot camp for disappointment. The main skill was getting up after being knocked down.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

People gather over a giant Declaration of Independence

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

As America approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence, I am more in the mood to protest than to celebrate. Does that make me unpatriotic? The answer depends on how we understand “patriotism.” For a nation that is founded in revolution, let’s affirm a deeper and more profound love of country, a civic patriotism celebrative of our larger ideals including pluralism, dissent, and a commitment to social change.

Two Types of Patriotism

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together
Political polarization
Polarization and the politics of love

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together

As we face ever-growing partisan polarization in American society, the need for large-scale action becomes increasingly urgent. As James Coan and I have written about in the Fulcrum during my time at More Like US, there are approaches grounded in a significant body of social psychological research that can help address this rapidly growing problem, namely different variations of social contact theory, especially vicarious contact. Until recently, much of the research and thus much of the basis for our articles has been focused on applying social contact theory to other problems facing society: prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with autism, and immigrant schoolchildren, among other examples.

It was therefore exciting when last fall I saw the publication of an article in Political Science Research and Methods titled "Content That's as Good as Contact?: Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Promise of Depolarization at Scale." The study, conducted in 2022 in conjunction with YouGov, finally attempted to measure the effectiveness of indirect contact as a path to depolarization, primarily through the vicarious experience of productive political conversation. Encompassing over 2,000 participants gathered from a nationally representative sample recruited by YouGov’s online panel, the study looked to test affective polarization, measured attitudinally, and interest and investment in depolarization, measured behaviorally. To this end, the study tested multiple media interventions, namely a 50-minute Braver Angels documentary featuring a “Red-Blue” depolarization workshop; a 50-minute placebo nature documentary about wildebeest migration; a 5-minute version of the Braver Angels documentary; a second 5-minute version that emphasized partisan misperception correction; and a pure control group, with no treatment.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

United States Marine Corps Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II STOVL stealth multirole fighters belonging to the VMFA-121 "Green Knights" taxiing at the MCAS Iwakuni in Yamaguchi, Japan, on March 23, 2017.

(viper-zero / Getty Images)

How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

In earlier essays, I argued that America’s political division has grown so deep that a peaceful “American Union” of two sovereign nations — one broadly red, one broadly blue — is worth considering. I also argued that relocation fears are overstated, that cooperation could increase economic prosperity, and that separation could help heal the lingering wounds of the Civil War.

But how would this all actually work? What happens to the national debt? Who gets the military bases, federal lands, and nuclear weapons? Will Social Security be protected? Could two nations share the dollar, defend themselves together, and resolve their disagreements?

Keep ReadingShow less