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

Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping.

Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics

Introduction

A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.

Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Divided American flag

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson writes on the serious impacts of "othering" marginalized populations and how, together, we must push back to create a more inclusive and humane society.

Jorge Villalba/Getty Images

New Rules of the Game: Weaponization of Othering

By now, you have probably seen the viral video. Taylor Townsend—Black, bold, unbothered—walks off the court after a bruising match against her white European opponent, Jelena Ostapenko. The post-match glances were sharper than a backhand slice. Next came the unsportsmanlike commentary—about her body, her "attitude," and a not-so-veiled speculation about whether she belonged at this level. To understand America in the Trump Redux era, one only needs to study this exchange.

Ostapenko vs. Townsend is a microcosm of something much bigger: the way anti-democratic, vengeful politics—modeled from the White House on down—have bled into every corner of public life, including sports. Turning “othering” into the new national pastime. Divisive politics has a profound impact on marginalized groups. Neither Ostapenko nor Donald Trump invented this playbook, yet Trump and his sycophants are working to master it. Fueled by a sense of grievance, revenge, and an insatiable appetite for division, he—like Ostapenko—has normalized once somewhat closeted attitudes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less