Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Distraught at Trump’s win? Here are some ways to lower your anxiety.

Young Hispanic woman holding a U.S. flag and looking stressed
AaronAmat/Getty Images

Donald Trump’s election sparked a lot of emotions. Many are feeling excited, optimistic and vindicated. Others are struggling with fear, anxiety and anger.

These varied reactions are also found among those in the movement to reduce political toxicity. Some members of the Builders community sent us messages about their distress at Trump’s win:


“I have a great need to understand how [half] of all Americans could … vote for a deeply unethical man who has been so vile and derogatory.”

“This isn’t the time to talk about building bridges. This administration has called me the enemy within. That is not perception. He said it over and over.”

“I’m too angry right now at my fellow citizens to have any helpful ideas. … I live in a 100% red area and it’s been very difficult for many years now. I don’t know at this point if I will just give up.”

For those who want to reduce toxic polarization and are opposed to Trump, we want to share some perspectives that might help you see things in a different and perhaps more positive light.

We know these are contentious, emotional topics, and our dispassionate writing about them may bother you. Our goal is never to tell anyone, “Your concerns are unfounded,” but only to highlight less-examined perspectives that might add nuance. There are many passionate hot takes out there — we want to bring down the temperature.

(And a note for pro-Trump readers: We’re focused on fears of Trump because Trump won, but the general points here apply to all Americans.)

When we discuss our distorted views and the importance of understanding each other, you may get angry and think, “But they’re misguided, and I’m right! I don’t want to try to understand them!” In this case, highly negative views of Trump can lead to anger at half the country — which in turn can be an obstacle to reducing toxicity.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Anti-Trump people who want to understand Trump’s win must be willing to examine the objections many people have to Democrat-associated stances. This can include perceptions that there is a lot of toxicity and contempt on the left. (In our talks with Trump voters post-election, that observation was often heard).

It’s also true that Americans can see Trump and his goals very differently. Here are some resources to help understand that point:

(Again, this is not to say that all criticisms of Trump are unfounded; it’s to help us see how people can have vastly different perceptions of events, people and behaviors.)

Polarization also leads many of us to have highly pessimistic views of the future. But as Adam Grant wrote recently, “If you think you know how the next four years are going to play out, you’re wrong.”

Our overly pessimistic views of our opponents can be a factor in our pessimistic views of the future. The philosopher Kevin Dorst made the case that most Trump voters don’t wish to enact the most extreme policies that his critics fear he will. Because Trump does have to contend with what the public and other Republicans want, that helps make the case that Democrats’ most feared predictions will probably not come to pass. As Dorst puts it: “You shouldn’t trust your judgment about the political out-party.”

It’s also true that democracy is simply hard: not just systemically but also emotionally. The nature of democracy means that sometimes, stances we think are harmful win out. In Sustaining Democracy,” Robert Talisse writes about this “hard truth”:

“We are required to treat [our political opponents as equals], even though we may also despise their views and perhaps consider them to be advocates of injustice. What’s more, when they prevail politically, we must acknowledge that legitimate government is required to enact their will, despite the fact that we see their views as inconsistent with justice.”

Anti-Trump people should try to see that Trump’s win represents a manifestation of democracy for Trump voters: They see it as a chance to enact policies that many Americans desire. (A Trump voter discussed this view on A Braver Way.”)

Treating our political opponents as equals does not contradict our working against them.

Even if you see Trump as having amplified our divides, it may be helpful to remember that his 2016 election came after many years of increasing political hostility. For example, the political scientist Nolan McCarty wrote that “contrary to popular belief, the 2016 election was a natural outgrowth of 40 years of polarized politics, rather than a significant break with the past.”

Keeping in mind these longer-term dynamics can help us see the importance of working on root causes — instead of focusing solely on the current manifestations of our divides (which get most of our attention).

Again, our goal here is not to downplay or erase concerns and criticisms anti-Trump Americans have about a Trump administration. But we do hope these points help you better navigate this moment in time, both emotionally and socially.

For more articles like this, sign up for the Builders newsletter.

Elwood works with Builders, a nonpartisan organization aimed at overcoming toxic polarization, and is the author of “Defusing American Anger.”


Read More

Americans wrapped in a flag
Citizens are united and legislators don’t represent us
SeventyFour

Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Rev. F. Willis Johnson

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's weekly interviews engage 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 series 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 second interview of this series took place with Reverend F. Willis Johnson, an entrepreneur and an elder in the West Ohio Conference of the United Methodist Church in Columbus, Ohio. Reverend Johnson provided a religious and spiritual perspective on the needs of this moment, which is different from many organizations that often receive outsized attention.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats are from Mars, Republicans are from Venus

A simulation of two planets in space.

Getty Images, Jose A. Bernat Bacete

Democrats are from Mars, Republicans are from Venus

As I think about Tuesday’s address by President Donald Trump and the response of Senator Elissa Slotkin from Michigan—a former CIA analyst and a rising star in the Democratic Party—I am reminded of the book “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus” by John Gray published in 1992.

A sequel should be written today: “Democrats Are from Mars, Republicans Are from Venus”…..or vice versa since the planet they each are from doesn’t matter.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Julia Roig

USA flag on pole during daytime

Photo by Zetong Li on Unsplash

Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Julia Roig

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's weekly interviews engage 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 series 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.

I’m excited to start this series by highlighting an interview with Julia Roig, the Chief Network Weaver for the Horizons Project. Julia brings extensive experience working for democratic change around the world, and her work at the Horizons Project focuses on supporting and building the broader pro-democracy ecosystem.

Keep ReadingShow less
One party worked harder to build a bigger tent in 2024
Getty Images, tadamichi

One party worked harder to build a bigger tent in 2024

Democrats keep pointing fingers for reasons they lost last November. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new role leading the Department of Health and Human Services underscores an important factor deserving more attention: Democrats spent millions trying to bully Kennedy, Jill Stein, and other insurgents off the ballot rather than respect their supporters. They treated it as a strategic masterstroke, but their anti-democratic bet was a miscalculation.

In a change election resulting in the closest popular vote since 2000, hypocrisy was a fatal sin. Democrats would have benefited from embracing competition and building a bigger tent of their own, not fighting against voter choice. It was not enough to stand up for the rule of law and protection of voting rights. To build a majority in today’s America, one must embrace voter choice.

Keep ReadingShow less