Other

Four Tips to Talk Politics – Even With Those Who Support the Candidate You Despise

Last month, we polled 1,866 of our newsletter readers and found that 9 out of 10 feel the 2016 elections are more polarizing and controversial than the 2012 elections. In fact, 1 in 3 have been attacked, insulted, or called names, and 1 in 4 have had a political discussion hurt a relationship.

The data shows most of these heated discussions take place in the following locations:
• the home (40%)
• the community (31%)
• the workplace (28%)
• on social media (26%)

And for most, talking politics is so bad that they just avoid speaking up altogether. In fact, 81% admit to avoiding political discussions at all costs; in general, people are far more restricted about who they talk politics with than they were in 2012. And the people they most avoid include coworkers (79%), strangers (70%), and neighbors (56%).

And yet, people aren’t fighting about the issues. Respondents report that many of the topics that were “hot” four years ago are no longer controversial.

In 2016, the issues people struggle to discuss include: foreign policy, gun control and terrorism. In 2012, people struggled to agree on: same-sex marriage, economic recovery, taxes, healthcare, education and the role of the government.

So if the issues aren’t lighting everyone’s fire, then it’s clear the candidates themselves are the toxic topic.

When asked to describe people who supported a candidate they didn’t like, the top ten most used adjectives included (in order): angry, uneducated, ignorant, uninformed, racist, white, narrow and blind.

However, we also probed to find formulas from those who successfully discussed politics with someone who held a dramatically different opinion. When asked what they did that worked, respondents most often used words like: agree, listen, common, open, respect, think, and ask.

By analyzing the tactics used by subjects who reported holding successful political conversations, we uncovered four tips for talking politics with others—even those voting for the candidate you despise the most.

1. Look for areas of agreement. Let the other person know you share common goals, even if your preferred tactics for achieving them differ.
2. Avoid personal attacks. While you don’t have to agree with the other person’s view, you can still acknowledge that his or her view is valid, rather than “idiotic” or “evil.”
3. Focus on facts and be tentative. Consider the source of your facts, and ask the other person to do the same. Ask two questions: Could the facts be biased? Could they be interpreted differently?
4. Look for signs of disagreement. If the other person grows quiet or starts to become defensive, reinforce your respect for him or her and remind him or her of the broader purpose you both share.

View the results of our study in the infographic below or download a copy for yourself.

Politics Infographic_051316

5 thoughts on “Four Tips to Talk Politics – Even With Those Who Support the Candidate You Despise”

  1. While I agree that many of us who disagree on our choice of political candidates do share common goals and values, I find that my fears for my country are at the absolute worse in my 73 years. To me, one of the candidates employs many of the same strategies as occurred in Germany in the 1930’s and I cannot bear to think that history could repeat itself, here in America. People asked where were the German people? Will they ask the same of us in 5 years?

  2. I think for the most part it’s better to avoid these discussions. Most of my friends are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I can discuss things reasonably and like to stick with facts (verified from credible sources, although it’s getting hard to find credible sources these days!) and avoid polarizing language. But I’ve learned that my friends can’t. They believe things they’ve read that support their opinions, even without any evidence. There’s just no way to have a reasonable discussion with them so I just avoid the topic! I have a brother who has similar views to me, but he too likes to use polarizing language about the “other side” so I don’t talk to him a lot about politics either!

  3. It is pointless to debate with Democrats. Their logic is so unsound they simply get angry and lash out.

  4. I must say as a new subscriber to this news letter that I am completely taken back by the approach of this editor of what I believe is usually a level forward positioning piece of journalism. However, the ideas presented that suggest one should ” Avoid personal attacks. While you don’t have to agree with the other person’s view, you can still acknowledge that his or her view is valid, rather than “idiotic” or “evil.”
    How should one acknowledge that someone whom is suggesting that Socialism and Governmental control of the economy is valid. As a small business owner for over thirty years it would be unfathomable to consider for a moment that this nation could exist under a socialist structured government for more than small space in time. Even with the most devoted defenders of that extreme and criminally irresponsible ideology it could only lead to a second revolution. Some might suggest a civil war but there would not be enough support on either side to mount a two team attack. The entire population with the exception of a minimal group of various socioeconomic bleeders of the prosperous other group would stand beside a socialistic structured government – were one could not even apply to college or attend a religious function without the permission of the government which would result in a total revolution. The system would need to be cleansed from the bottom to the top to remove the corrupt, self promoting politicians and lobbyist. Without a total cleansing the infection would only continue to manifest itself over and over and continue filling the governmental chambers with more of the same.
    So how does one that goes to work every day that does without the name brand fashions and sacrifices the international vacations and avoids the highly over priced jewelry or the foreign car – that cost more than my first house ” focus on facts and be tentative” to these type ideologies?. How could you possibly under this scenario “consider the source of their facts? How could a hard working responsible American citizen ask these two questions as the editor has suggested: Could the facts be biased? Could they be interpreted differently? this is part of the reason our nation is in this positiontoday …no one wants to take a stand for what’s right, what’s decent and what’s morally responsible. I think you guys missed it this time!

Comments are closed.