Take sting out of political differences to reduce conflict
Stress for Success
November 7, 2006


Today is Election Day. I hope you’re planning to vote.

And thank goodness the campaigning is almost over! I’m tired of how too many politicians and much news coverage highlight the wide and deep polarization of our country. Do you ever wonder who or what could possibly unite us short of another 9/11?

I’m old enough to remember the ‘60s’ and ‘70s’ anti-war, civil rights and women’s movements. Does it seem to you (if you’re old enough to remember), as it seems to me, that the political environment of today is much more volatile, polarized and downright hostile than during those raucous decades? There’s even a new TV drama, “Studio 60”, that’s building this relatively new American social schism between the religious conservatives and the more secular population into its plot line.

Like many families, mine has hotly debated countless contemporary political issues. It used to be fun until we started to take it too personally. Since we know we’ll never change each other’s minds we virtually never have those discussions (read arguments) any more.

We’ve also taken an important step. We’ve learned to accept that we all come to our beliefs with good intentions so we don’t demonize each other as ignorant or crazy (not often anyway). This is what I wish for our divided American culture.

It’s perfectly human to have disagreements with others. To take these differences to a much higher, more stressful and polarizing level all you have to do is negatively label each other. “You’re so ignorant, blind, uninformed, self-centered, etc.”

When you label another person negatively it’s like spreading fertilizer on the ground to grow a conflict. When you disapprovingly label another person you’re giving off negative nonverbal signals. The other person picks up on them and reacts more guardedly and defensively toward you and probably joins you in the negative labeling game. You pick up on that person’s resistance and label her even more. All of this leads to an escalating cycle that pits one against the other. The chance for rational discussion, or even emotional discussion that’s tempered, diminishes with each negative judgment.

To reduce political polarization and conflict escalation, counter every negative assumption you make about someone with the facts and behaviors of the situation that you believe justify your negative judgments.

For example, if you believe someone is “naïve” for a belief he has, challenge yourself to identify what he has “done” (factual behavior) that validates your label of naïve. Perhaps he (factually) does not follow the news and argues his position with statements that are clearly inaccurate. You’d get much further if you gathered the facts that dispute his arguments. Let go of labeling him “naïve” and simply present the “facts” to him, (not that this will do much good at changing his mind but it can take the sting out of the encounter).

There’s nothing wrong with political arguments. Discussions would probably be more productive but given how passionately many feel about their positions, argument is most likely a better description of what typically goes on. If you at least want to explore each other’s beliefs in search of common ground or if you insist on trying to convince him (good luck!) drop all negative judgments of him and address only his behaviors and the facts of the situation. Defenses go down and more actual listening to understand can take place. Tiny little bridges of trust begin to develop; slowly but surely respect grows. Be still my heart!
Jacquelyn Ferguson, M. S., of InterAction Associates, is a trainer and a Stress Coach. E-mail her at www.jackieferguson.com or call 239-693-8111 for information about her workshops on this and other topics or to invite her to speak to your organization.