As Thanksgiving approaches in the aftermath of election season, many of us anticipate gatherings with a sense of unease. We’re worried that heated political debates will turn family time into a battleground. It seems we’ve forgotten how to connect with one another, opting instead for avoidance or confrontation.
The problem nowadays is that we don’t just see those with opposing political views as people we disagree with; we often see them as fundamentally wrong. On both sides of the spectrum—whether left or right—our political stances are heavily influenced by deeply rooted grievances. We’re quick to label the other side as extreme and even unreasonable.
But there’s a way to heal this growing divide. Drawing from over 40 years of experience as a child and family therapist, I’ve found strategies to help families engage more openly and empathetically. Let me share a few pointers.
At the heart of resolving any heated disagreement is the principle that we need to genuinely listen to each other. This seems straightforward, but true listening often eludes us, especially in political conversations where we’re more focused on readying our rebuttals rather than understanding the other person’s perspective.
True listening begins as a mindset and evolves into a skill. To genuinely listen, it’s essential to learn about the person’s world beyond their political beliefs—what stresses them, what injustices do they feel, what values guide them, and what stories move them.
Taking time to know someone’s life outside of politics often reveals shared experiences or values—common ground that we can acknowledge and appreciate, even when political views differ. This approach shifts us from fruitless arguments into something more meaningful: a dialogue.
It’s crucial to recognize the distinction between a dialogue and a debate. The goal of a debate is triumph, underpinned by the idea that there’s a right answer, and it’s mine. In dialogue, an open mind allows for the possibility that someone else’s insights might enrich or transform our own. Here, the aim isn’t to win but to explore new solutions and understandings.
Typically, political arguments force us into choosing between opposing viewpoints. In dialogue, however, understanding what concerns someone more than what their opinions are shifts the discourse. Opinions can be debated, but concerns are meant to be discussed.
By framing discussions around concerns, we might discover commonalities in the problems themselves, even if we disagree on their root causes or solutions. And when common ground is elusive, understanding the concerns allows us to recognize their validity in different contexts.
It’s also vital to look at others’ ideas with generosity while keeping our views grounded in humility. Humility demands we accept that there may be facts we’re not privy to or perspectives we haven’t considered. Both charity and humility help counteract the dangerous certainty that tends to dominate political arguments.
Ultimately, the most fruitful discussions veer away from ideological stances towards practical ones—talking about what actually works, not what should work. Pragmatic language is conditional rather than absolute. Asking questions like “under what circumstances, and to what extent?” transforms rigid beliefs into open-ended inquiries, cutting down on personal attacks and focusing on solving issues rather than labeling individuals.
These changes—from debate to dialogue, opinions to concerns, certainty to humility, and ideology to practicality—enhance the likelihood of positive exchanges within families and among political adversaries alike.
Sure, constructive political conversations aren’t always possible. They require willingness and discipline that’s tough to maintain. In the political arena, debates and arguments are sometimes necessary. And dialogue, though richly beneficial, is merely a starting point.
Nonetheless, we can initiate small shifts. Brief moments of empathy and acknowledging others’ concerns demonstrate a readiness to listen, often easing tensions and softening harsh judgments on both sides. These minor adjustments can spark a positive chain of listening and understanding—listening invites more listening, empathy breeds empathy, and future conversations become a tad smoother.
While we might not have the power to change how politicians communicate, apart from casting our votes, we do have control over how we listen and converse with each other.
Kenneth Barish, clinical professor of psychology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City, shares insights in his upcoming book, “Bridging Our Political Divide: How Liberals and Conservatives Can Understand Each Other and Find Common Ground,” from which this discussion is drawn.
