Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

To Overcome Our Divides, We Must Try to Understand the Other Side’s Anger

I’m in an unusual and uncommon line of work: I work on reducing toxic political polarization with the nonpartisan organization, Builders. As part of this work, I get to talk with Americans who may very much disagree politically but can agree it’s vitally important we detoxify our politics.

After the election, I’ve been listening carefully to the people in our community. I’ve listened to Democratic voters distraught at Trump’s election, who can’t understand how so many people could vote for someone like him.


I’ve listened to Trump supporters who are angered by the contempt they see aimed their way from the left — and perplexed by the left’s narratives and fears.

I’ve listened to independent and “politically homeless” voters who are frustrated by both “sides.”

As I've listened, one idea has increasingly stood out to me as very important and yet under-examined: Republicans and Democrats are not symmetrical groups. They are not like two sides of a chess board, with the same pieces. They have very different traits. They move in different ways.

And yet, we often try to compare them as if they were similar — as if they were mirror-images of each other. We look for the bad things our opponents do and, because we don’t find equivalent versions of those things on “our side,” we think “this toxicity is all their fault.”

Meanwhile, our opponents will do the same thing: they’ll get angry about bad and extreme things they see on “our side” that they don’t see on “their side.”

For example, one oft-heard argument on the left for why our divides are Republicans’ fault is: “There’s no Democratic Party version of Trump.” They mean: There’s no major Democratic leader who speaks in an aggressive and divisive way as Trump; no one who has promoted distrust of election results like Trump has done (to name a few things).

Because they see no equivalent on the left for these things they see as extreme and dangerous, that leads them to think, “Our toxic divides are the fault of Trump and the Republicans.”

It may be true there is no “Democratic version of Trump,” but there are other, different Democratic things that serve as sources of Republican anger. For example, there are the big swings in Democratic stances in recent years (as Republican stances largely stayed the same).

This difference leads many to conclude it’s the Democrats who have become extreme and unreasonable. Because there’s no mirror-image equivalent of those stance shifts on the right, it can be easy to conclude, “Our toxic divides are the left’s fault.”

Those are just a couple examples, but there are many areas of asymmetry. There are asymmetries in education, in religion, in how the parties think and strategize, and more.

One major area of asymmetry is that liberals dominate major cultural institutions, like academia, news media, and entertainment media. This asymmetry can help explain Republicans feeling misunderstood and frustrated (and maybe helps explain early support for Trump’s aggressive style).

For some Republicans, Trump’s aggressive style is an understandable response to the aggressions and toxicity they perceive on the left. As is standard in conflict, people focus on the threats from the “other side” — meaning any negative things on one’s own side are easily overlooked.

Republicans I’ve talked to emphasize the toxicity they’ve seen and faced from liberals. It’s true there are many pieces of evidence for it. For example, Democrats are more likely to cut off friendships for political reasons. This can be used as another building block for the “this is Democrats’ fault” narrative.

But, on the other hand, one could make the case that this group difference is largely due to Trump’s divisive personality. One could imagine a Democratic version of Trump causing Republicans to be the ones cutting off more friendships.

We have to face the fact that it’s simply easy for us to form defensible narratives of how it’s the “other side” that has gone crazy and is the unreasonable aggressor. And once we’re “in” one dominant narrative or the other, it can be hard to see all the various building blocks our adversaries have used to form their narratives.

We’ll always find it hard to see how anyone can see us as the bad guys.

This dynamic leads us to essentially gaslight each other. We speak as if the “other side” is crazy and irrational. We interpret everything they say in maximally pessimistic ways. Our public discourse becomes a toxic stew of insults and threats, real and perceived: a place where anyone can easily build all sorts of dark narratives about the moral badness of any group.

To be clear: I’m not arguing that anyone should or must think both groups are equally at fault for our toxic divides. But one can think “the other side is more at fault” while seeing that our conflict is complex and there are ways that both sides contribute.

This helps us see that when we frame our divides in simplistic “it’s all their fault” ways, we ourselves will contribute to the toxicity of the conflict.

As I’ve listened to many Americans talk about their fears and anger, it has emphasized to me that understanding each other is more important than ever. I know that sounds like a kumbaya cliche, but I (and many others) believe it’s true.

We need more people to really try to see what the “other side” sees: to be willing to see how rational and compassionate people can see a person's group as the "bad guys."

The truth is that we’ve scarcely tried to understand each other as a nation. We’ve been caught in a decades-long cycle of increasing rage and contempt. And, if we want to get out of it (which we know most Americans do), we’ll need a lot more people to approach our divides with humility and empathy.

To Overcome Our Divides, We Must Try to Understand the Other Side’s Ange r was first published by Independent Voter News, and was republished with permission.

Zachary Elwood works with Builders, a nonpartisan organization equipping people to overcome toxic polarization and solve our toughest problems. He’s the author of “ Defusing American Anger.


Read More

It’s Time for a New American Agenda
blue and white star print textile

It’s Time for a New American Agenda

America is once again gripped by multiple political and societal crises. Most days in our local communities and in our wider public lives it can feel like we’re living through dizzying confusion, chaos, and division.

Acrimonious partisanship only deepens in Washington, DC, and our state capitols. Renewed calls for a third party are heating up, while Democrats plan to spend tens of millions of dollars to understand voters better, as if they had just discovered some new civilization. It’s like we’re collectively stuck in the Tower of Babel, unable to understand one another and what we share in common.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hope, Champagne, and the Courage To Celebrate in Turbulent Times
Getty Images, wilatlak villette

Hope, Champagne, and the Courage To Celebrate in Turbulent Times

“There is hope, a way forward, however unpredictable. We can dance around the petulant games of powerful men. But, as ever, we are at the mercy of the seasons.” - Widow Clicquot

“Widow Clicquot,” adapted from a book by Tilar J. Mazzeo, is the story of Barbe Nicole Clicquot Ponsardin, widowed in 1805 at the age of 27, who inherited her husband’s debt-ridden vineyards. Against all odds, particularly as women had virtually no economic “value” or power in the early 19th century, she, and her vineyards, eventually prospered. It was she who created the Veuve Clicquot champagne dynasty.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining The Democracy Movement: Ben Bain
- YouTube

Defining The Democracy Movement: Ben Bain

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages 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 initiative 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 latest interview in this series features Ben Bain, Director of State Capacity at the Niskanen Institute and Volunteer Coordinator in Washington, DC, for More Perfect Union, a bridging organization—where we originally met.

Keep ReadingShow less

Angelica Salas’s Journey From Undocumented Immigrant to Community Leader at CHIRLA

Angelica Salas has long been a leading advocate for immigrant rights in Los Angeles. Since becoming Executive Director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) in 1999, she has transformed the organization into one of the most powerful immigrant-led advocacy groups in the country. Her leadership has redefined what grassroots organizing can look like, mobilizing communities around issues ranging from Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to voter outreach and legal services.

Salas’s journey into activism is deeply personal. Born in Durango, Mexico, she arrived in the United States at the age of five, undocumented, to reunite with her parents who had migrated for work. Growing up in Pasadena, California, her family lived in the shadows of deportation until they were able to legalize their status. In 2008, Salas became a U.S. citizen, adding a powerful chapter to a story she shares with many of the people CHIRLA serves. Her own experience navigating the U.S. immigration system informs her commitment to building dignity, not dependency, in the immigrant rights movement. After graduating from Occidental College with a degree in history and sociology, Salas joined CHIRLA in 1995 and became its executive director just four years later.

Keep ReadingShow less