Getting Along in 2026: Making a case for Conversations not Battles

I’m right, you’re wrong!

In 1969, I was a freshman at Colorado College in Colorado Springs. That January, classes were on hold for a week as the school put on a college-wide symposium on Violence in America.

It was a divisive time. The Vietnam War was raging and had divided the country. Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy had both been assassinated the year before. The Democratic Convention in the summer of 1968 had been a violent disaster (The chant "The whole world is watching!" was the catch phrase then) When Nixon became president,(promising a secret plan to the end the war) he framed the country as a battle between Middle America, "the silent majority" and a radical left wing fringe composed of hippies, leftist college students and professors, and "pointy-headed" intellectuals. Vice President Spiro Agnew described the left as "nattering nabobs of negativism." (points for the alliteration) Of course, the left used to chant to President Johnson, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?!"

There was an understandable generational divide. Our parents had lived through the chaos, tragedies, and sacrifices of World War II. It shaped their lives and how they saw America as the savior of the free world, as a country that could do no wrong (as long as you were white). And now their children were questioning the very premise of America.

It was a fraught time.

That January, the college optimistically sought to host speakers representing a wide range of views. There were speakers from the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) who had not yet turned violent. There were speakers from the middle of the political divide, as well as young Republicans.

Here is what ties that January to today. Speakers on the right were shouted down by angry students who were not there to understand a different perspective. They were there to stifle those who opposed them. To be fair, I leaned their way, but as a shy Minnesotan, whose father was the chairman of Clark McGregor's (a Republican) first congressional campaign, I was the quiet one in the corner.

Now we are in the same space. We yell at each other from our corners, not to understand but to win arguments.

Underneath is a looming crisis that could bring down the house. We think of our political opposites as "not like us," as somehow evil and unintelligent. (or as our Fearless Leader says, "Stupid, Low intelligence, piggy, garbage, and the r-word)

There are individuals at the left and right extremes who are convinced that they are in the right and brook no compromise, and they get a lot of attention. But the vast majority of us (I believe) are in the middle, muddling through and just trying to live our lives.

My question is, how can we have conversations, understand each other, and as a result calm the turbulent seas? That seems to me to be the question of the moment.

First, we have to understand that the quest for moderation is a guerrilla war. We are battling political, media, and social media foes who profit from outrage. Fox News loves immigrant-on-citizen crime. Liberals shout from the rooftops about instances of ICE arresting citizens. All this to capture eyeballs, make money, and feed meat to the bases.

So, as members of the "muddle in the middle," what can we do to not necessarily agree with each other, but at least understand each other?

Here are some thoughts.

We all graduated from MSU: The University of Making Stuff Up.

Example: We see someone wearing a MAGA hat or having a Rainbow sticker on their car back window. In less than a second we *make up* an entire backstore about their politics, socio-economic status and religion. We make it up! Why? The brain is designed to generalize and make snap decisions based on limited information. First impressions matter! It's a skill we evolved as early primates and Homo Sapiens — is that a tiger in the bush or just the wind? Taking the time to ask "What am I making up?" could just get you killed. Better to assume it's a tiger and run.

However, in today's world, when most of us are not under physical threat, we can stop and take a second to ask the question, "What am I making up about this individual (or group)? Are Somalians really garbage? Are pro-lifers really anti-woman?

"What am I making up?" is my go-to these days when we are inundated with misinformation and weird opinions. As citizens, we have a duty to check stuff out and find the facts. We need to be especially cautious with stuff that reinforces our worldview. When we hear or read something that we strongly agree with, we get that dopamine rush. (and of course the Almighty Algorithm just feeds us what we want to hear) But is it factual? Is it true? Is there another side?

The result of communication is misunderstanding, just to different degrees.

Getting to an understanding (it does not mean agreeing) when the issues are contentious is hard. We're often driven by the desire to "be right" and to "win" arguments, instead of getting to understanding first.

Part of the problem is the semantics of our era. We need to stop using words that are so overused and provocative that, except for telling what tribe you belong to, have been rendered meaningless.

For example, I have no idea what these words mean: Woke, Communist, Socialist (the right points to Venezuela! The left points to Scandinavia!) MAGA, conservative, and liberal, to name a few.

To truly have a conversation, we need to get underneath those labels and ask, "What do you mean when you say Mandami is a communist?" Or, "Could you tell me more about being 'Pro-choice?"

This calls for a bit of calm reflection, and that brings us to the next idea.

Think it possible you may be mistaken

Think about conversations with individuals from the other tribe. As mentioned, our motivations are often to win, to be right, and to convert. At some level, we believe our worldview is correct, and we're often hardcore about it. Take, for example, an atheist and an Evangelical Christian. These worldviews are radically different and deeply rooted in meaning. We often go into those conversations not to understand, but to defend our position (be right). In this scenario, the consequences of learning that you've been wrong are pretty profound (like hell or nothingness!), so our defenses are up, and our willingness to learn something and just maybe be changed vanishes.

What's important to hold as a belief is reflected in the words of Oliver Cromwell's (1599 – 1658) speech to the Scottish general assembly, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

It calls on us to be humble and to be a searcher rather than to be certain.

The art of deep listening

Abby Phillip hosts an opinion show on CNN each night. The show's tagline is that individuals with different perspectives can discuss current events civilly.

It is a noble effort.

But when things get heated at the table, it's a model of how most of us conduct ourselves in conversation and arguing.

We don't listen!

What we do is pretend to listen while we impatiently wait for the other person to shut up, or wait until they seem to be tapering off, and then jump in as quickly as we can to score our points. While we are waiting, we are marshaling our arguments. Another feature of our "heated conversations" is that everyone is talking over each other. Often, the loudest or most assertive person “wins.” But being loud and assertive does not mean you're right.

Here's what I think I heard you say

I know I'm shouting into the hurricane, because today the desire to be right is overwhelming. Here are a few ideas to help when individuals with different opinions meet over coffee.

1. Don't come from a position that "I'm right and I will convert this individual with my brilliant arguments." Rather, try an approach of curiosity and a desire to understand.

2. Deep listening: When someone is speaking, listen. Don't marshal bullet points in your brain. Try this: When things get heated, listen so you can repeat what you hear. Example: Someone says to you, "I don't know how you can be against the death penalty, but you support killing babies in the womb." (Stop. Breathe, don't come up with a rebuttal!) Rather, repeat back: "What I hear you saying is if I'm against the death penalty, I should be against abortion. Is that correct?" The goal is to understand, not convince someone that they are wrong and you, as the holder of all wisdom, are right.

Judge less, understand more

One of my favorite exercises in the training we do is simply called the Six Minute Process. A group of individuals sits in a circle, and one by one, they have six minutes to talk about themselves. No interruptions and no judging (that's hard because, as mentioned, we are quick to make stuff up). The objective is to answer the question, "If you knew this about me, you'd better understand me." I've done dozens of these sessions, and some of my colleagues have done hundreds. Although it's meant to be a chance for the participants to feel comfortable talking about themselves, it has a profound impact on the facilitators. You learn that everyone has a story: marriages, kids, being fired, a cancer diagnosis, deaths, divorces. No one, it seems, gets through adulthood without being scathed.

The lesson learned is not to demonize those on the other side of the divide. Everyone has a story! They are much like us. They want their kids to be healthy and happy, and they want enough money for security and a future. They have gone through tough times. We can choose to see them as full human beings rather than stereotypes.

To this point, there is a Christian parable. When the Pharisees found a woman guilty of adultery, they came to Christ to ask what punishment should be dealt. (Stoning to death was the norm) Famously, Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

To me, the message, the hard work, is to be less "righteous," less judgmental, and more accepting of the truth that none of us are perfect. We are all fallible humans.

To end, let's remember that we are historically a cantankerous lot. During the effort to write the Constitution in the 1780s, the federalists and the anti-federalists were burning down each other's printing presses. The issues then were states' rights vs the federal government, slavery, taxes, and how to deal with the indigenous population.

And here we are today in another time of great divisiveness. Now, as before, we need listeners, the curious, the peacemakers, and the seekers of solutions and compromise. We will get through this, but each of us has a role to play.

I will leave you with a favorite quote by William Manchester, A World War II Marine who fought on Guadalcanal and author of "The Glory and the Dream." He wrote:

"But if liberty is to signify anything substantive, it must also be extended to the last limits of the endurable, shielding under it's broad tent the genuinely unpopular champions of causes which the majority regards as reprehensible. Any people can cheer an Eisenhower, a MacArthur, a John Glenn, a Neil Armstrong; it takes generosity of spirit to suffer the Weathermen who hated LBJ, the birchers who baited JFK, the liberty Leaguers who heckled FDR."

Be Brave. Be Kind. Fight Fires.