Popping Our Political Bubbles
Politics, like religion and sex, is rarely safe dinner party conversation, unless you know for sure that you are with like-minded folks. And so, too often, we only talk politics and issues with those who we already know agree with us. This is true in person and certainly on online where Facebook can feel like the ultimate echo chamber, enforcing just what we want to hear. But that doesn’t get us anywhere, so I want to share three recent occasions where I had the opportunity to break out of my personal political bubble.
First, my talented friend Philippa Hughes, told me about the dinner parties she’s been throwing where she invites Trump voters over to her house to talk politics. She is a liberal and didn’t vote for Trump, but she approached the dinners with no agenda beyond getting everyone a little closer to understanding where the other side is coming from. As she says: “I believe that the dinner party is an opportunity to speak to each other as human beings and not as avatars. Breaking bread builds relationships that can bridge the vast ideological gap that exists in our country … We need to cultivate and nurture those relationships in order to find ways to work together to heal the divide that threatens the now tenuous fabric of our democracy. Polarization serves politicians, not what’s best for the American people.” Most importantly, Philippa says she isn’t trying to change anyone’s mind – she is just hoping to connect with her guests as people, not political opponents.
Second, I hosted a diverse group of friends at my house Monday night to hear Josh Feigelson talk about his project, Ask Big Questions. Josh, who was the Rabbi at Northwestern University, spoke to us about the vital need to learn how to really connect with each other, especially now. His brainchild, Ask Big Questions, puts disparate people together to discuss questions that matter to everyone and that everyone can answer. When I first met Josh I was a little skeptical that a set of questions could really be designed in a way to bridge differences. But I lay in bed that night turning one of his questions “For whom are we responsible?” over and over in my head. At the dinner he had us pair up with people we didn’t know to discuss some of the questions, including “What do we choose to ignore?”, “How do we disagree?” and “Who is in your community?” I watched one of my more liberal friends in deep discussion with one of my more conservative friends on the topic of “How do we listen?” They talked about having compassion for the emotional impact that one’s perspective has on them, about the importance of listening to someone without letting our own agenda intercede, and about the humility of accepting that we are not always 100% right in our views. We all left the gathering feeling more connected and more hopeful.
Finally, my organization Running Start just elected new board chairs, one Republican and one Democrat. The three of us got together last week to choose speakers for an upcoming event. I began the conversation with one ground rule: whoever we choose has to be politically neutral. As ideas were thrown out, it quickly became clear that what was neutral for one person was not at all neutral for another. But after talking ideas through constructively and respectfully we ended up with stronger choices and better-informed perspectives than we had entering the discussion. It reminded me of why it is so important to have diverse people making decisions together: we often are not aware how much are choices reflect our biases.
My hope is that we can use this discordant and divisive time to pop our political bubbles and work on understanding the people we disagree with. We don’t have to like their views, but we do need to listen. If there is one thing I learned in law school, it is that there is always another side to the story and that our judgements are much sounder when we take the time to hear where the other side is coming from.
