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.

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

"They want us divided sign" that represents partisanship among democrats and republicans.

In recent philosophical and political discourse, the concept of “deep disagreement” has gained traction as a diagnostic for the dysfunction of contemporary public debate.

Getty Images, Jena Ardell

Manufacturing Dissent: How ‘Deep Disagreement’ Serves the Anti-Democratic Elite

In recent philosophical and political discourse, the concept of “deep disagreement” has gained traction as a diagnostic for the dysfunction of contemporary public debate. The premise is simple yet highly seductive: Some disagreements we are told are so fundamental, so rooted in incompatible worldviews or paradigmatically incommensurable epistemologies, that no meaningful argumentation is possible between the disagreeing parties. The implication is stark: Reason and Dialogue cannot bridge the gulf. But this diagnosis, while sounding sobering and serious, is in fact a dangerous illusion. It is an intellectual sleight of hand that masks both the manufactured nature of such disagreements and the vested interests that thrive on perpetuating them.

Indeed, contrary to its glossy surface neutrality, the notion of “deep disagreement” is not merely a philosophical tool but has become a performative trope, perfectly suited for an age of outrage, polarization, and algorithmic amplification. It helps rationalize the breakdown of dialogue, casting it not as a product of bad faith, deliberate miscommunication, or elite manipulation, but as a tragic inevitability of divergent rationalities. In doing so, it gives cover to a much darker political agenda: The delegitimation of democracy itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bipartisan Bonding on the Ballfield: Women in Congress Find Unity Through Softball
a yellow baseball sitting on top of a table
Photo by Patti Black on Unsplash

Bipartisan Bonding on the Ballfield: Women in Congress Find Unity Through Softball

On a recent hot and steamy July evening in Washington, D.C., the players for a unique sporting event were warming up. Audi Field, home of the DC United and Washington Spirit soccer teams, had been converted into a baseball diamond. And the athletes were not some group of high-paid professionals – they were amateurs at softball, but not at politics.

This was the annual Women’s Congressional Softball Game, now in its 17th year. The game was founded by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida) and former Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri) as a vehicle to raise money for the Young Survival Coalition (YSC), a nonprofit that helps young women affected by breast cancer by providing resources and support. Wasserman Schultz was a breast cancer survivor at the age of 41 and explained in an interview before the game why she founded the event. “I knew when I came out on the other side, I wanted to use my platform to be able to help fill a void in the fight against breast cancer,” she said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz: Connecting With Community

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz was sworn in for a second term as a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 129th district, January 8, 2025

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz: Connecting With Community

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz is an American businesswoman and politician who is a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 129th district.

Cepeda-Freytiz was elected on November 8, 2022, and returned to Harrisburg for a second term after being re-elected in 2024. The 129th district includes parts of Reading and Spring Township as well as Sinking Spring, West Reading, and Wyomissing.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stitching & Sustainability: Refugee Artisan Initiative

ruler, measuring tape, working hands

Stitching & Sustainability: Refugee Artisan Initiative

Since Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, there has been an increase in anxiety around citizenship for immigrants and refugees in the United States.

By the end of his first day, Trump signed 10 executive orders relating to immigration. This included an order to halt refugee admissions, including tens of thousands of refugees who had already been cleared to come to the U.S. by the Biden administration. The order, “REALIGNING THE United States REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM,” largely targets the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Keep ReadingShow less