Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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.

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

​A crowd gathers to take in the September 11th memorial lights in Brooklyn, NY.

A crowd gathers to take in the September 11th memorial lights in Brooklyn Bridge Park, New York City, NY.

Getty Images

Remembering 9/11 and My Pledge to Frank

A college friend called me and desperately urged me to turn on my television. I was at home in my study writing a chapter on civic faith for a new book. As I tuned in to the news, I watched a second plane ram into the north tower of the World Trade Center, where my best friend from college, Frank Reisman, worked for Cantor Fitzgerald. Hours later, another call: Frank was gone.

Twenty-five years have passed, and I remember that dreadful day as if it was yesterday. Are we a better nation? Stronger? More vibrant? Kinder?

Keep ReadingShow less
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

Building Trust, One Conversation at a Time

In 2020, my friend and colleague Dr. Terrence Robinson died suddenly and unexpectedly of COVID. For five years, we had built a youth apprenticeship program together in Cleveland, raised more than half a million dollars, and trained more than 200 young people. Terrence was Black. I am Jewish. The whole time, I wanted to talk with him about the things that sat quietly underneath our friendship: race, religion, history, privilege. I never did, because I was afraid of saying the wrong thing, and the negative ramifications of saying something ignorant in the workplace. Then he was gone, and the conversation I kept postponing was gone with him.

I think about that silence often, because it is the same silence I now see between two communities that once helped change this country together.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Composting Connected Two Women Across Six Decades

An 82-year-old and 24-year-old bonded over composting—and discovered shared roots, values, and a friendship that broke every generational stereotype.e

Cavan Images/Getty Images

How Composting Connected Two Women Across Six Decades

Every day, we cross paths with people whose lives seem completely different from our own. We exchange polite greetings with neighbors, chat briefly with acquaintances, and pass strangers without ever learning their stories. Yet beneath the surface, we often share more than we realize. Sometimes, all it takes is one conversation. Jean and Bella, 82 and 24 respectively, discovered this through their interest in composting.

Bella regularly attended a Sunday morning "Cookies and Conversation" intergenerational discussion group at Hebrew SeniorLife, where Jean lives in Brookline, MA. The two had spoken before, but only in passing. Like many people meeting someone from a different generation, Bella wasn't always sure how to bridge the gap.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cropped shot of a group of people joining their hands in solidarity

A new union political director explains why labor membership has halved since 1983 even as public approval hits record highs—and what's driving the gap.

LumiNola/Getty Images

The Ongoing Fight for Bread and Roses

Last Monday, I started a new job as the political director for IBEW 569, a local electrical workers' union based here in San Diego. In talking to friends about what I’m doing–while learning, fast, in real time, how to do the job myself–it occurred to me that there’s actually quite a knowledge gap in society today regarding an understanding of what unions are and what they’re supposed to do. So let’s get into it.

A union is, at its core, a group of workers who agree to negotiate together instead of alone. One worker asking a boss for a raise has almost no leverage. A thousand workers asking together hits different. That leverage of teamwork, that collective bargaining, is how the overtime pay, workplace safety standards, and employer-sponsored health insurance all came to exist in this country. None of it was handed down out of corporate goodwill. Fair wages (bread) and dignity (roses) were won, often at real cost. In 1890, the average workweek for manufacturing employees and building tradesmen was around 100 hours or more. Workers in Chicago who rallied for an eight-hour workday faced police violence, but we have that and weekends now because people were willing to lose their jobs, and sometimes their lives, to organize for it.

Keep ReadingShow less