How can Democrats get their message out effectively ahead of 2022? Is it worth having conversations with folks from the other side of the aisle? How can we communicate more effectively with those we don’t necessarily see eye-to-eye with? This week’s episode of The Brief explores the answers to these and many other questions. Hosts Markos Moulitsas and Kerry Eleveld spoke with guest Mónica Guzman, journalist and author of the upcoming book I Never Thought of it That Way, which is now available for pre-order.
Moulitsas opened the show by acknowledging the reality Democrats are currently facing after a tough 2021 election cycle, at least part of which he attributed to a failure to get their messages across effectively:
“If we’re not communicating well, maybe it’s time to get past that reflective anger [that tells us to simply avoid talking to those across the aisle] and maybe start thinking of a better way of engaging, because politically it’s not doing us any favors,” he added.
Eleveld pushed back on that idea a bit. “I’m not sure that what we saw in Virginia was a pushback … it might not have as much to do with our poor communication as much as it does ... the natural cycle of who’s in the White House and the fact that many people, even if they were Republicans, hated Trump.” Eleveld’s own father was a Republican, and she recalled having conversations with him about then-President George W. Bush. “There are ways of engaging [conservatives] that are not offensive, that are not so aggressive” that may be better at getting them to see alternative points of view, she noted. “We need to engage people in a way that draws them in rather than shuts them out.”
Moulitsas brought up the point that communication touches every facet of our lives. How we understand conflicts can shape our worldview and how we understand everything—thus making communication is one of the most powerful tools in politics. He himself has cut off family members who support Trump, deciding not to engage with them at all. “How big of a mistake did I make in cutting those people off?” Moulitsas mused. “How does [choosing to communicate] lead to a better outcome than the polarization we have right now?”
The pair also reflected on how the conversations around gay rights and gay marriage have hugely shifted the needle on LGBTQ rights over the past 10 years. Moulitsas called the push to legalize gay marriage and normalize queerness the “greatest victory in the last decade.”
As Eleveld explained, it was a diverse movement that took a lot of hard work. She also touched on the importance of sharing stories to humanize gay people:
Eleveld and Moulitsas then brought on Guzman to talk about how to communicate effectively about political issues.
The premise of Guzman’s book lies in the idea that not being able to exchange ideas and have open dialogues between both sides leads to serious issues. Invited by Moulitsas to explain how she got the idea to write her book and what inspired her, she said:
Guzman is liberal, and her parents are very conservative Mexican immigrants who voted for Trump. What made her really pause was when her liberal friends would say things about people who voted for Trump that made her think, “Eh, that isn’t right. There’s more to it than that, and I think we can get more curious and open and see more.”
Eleveld wondered how Guzman even got herself to the point of wanting to be curious, thinking that she wanted to bridge that gap and could find a way of communicating about these things that also wasn’t a betrayal of herself and her personal beliefs.
Guzman understands that “our personal beliefs feel very much a part of who we are, so to even want to get into a conversation with someone, that means that you feel that you’re putting them at risk.” Her work as a journalist also helped her really understand others’ perspectives. Having done this work for 17 years, she has had a lot of conversations that are focused on getting to know someone without judgment:
“From a communications standpoint, have I missed an opportunity to influence those family members [that I cut off]? Have I contributed to a culture that has actually harmed Democrats and liberals electorally? We have the numbers, we should be winning a lot more. We’re not. We’re not communicating [well] to our own supporters, we’re not communicating to persuadables, and certainly not people who are already written off as deplorable. So I’m at a point where, and your book was a big part of this, Monica, I’m starting to reflect back and wonder what have I done to contribute to this and what can I do to change that?” Moulitsas asked. “I know I’m wrong [about people not being persuadable]. Can you tell me why I’m wrong?”
As Guzman noted, “It’s good that we have partisans. It’s good that we have fighters. The fight is good and important, and it must never end. And I think sometimes the perception is that trying to embrace more curiosity or stay more open to [the fact] that we may not know everything we should know about people and there might be common ground to find means that I am being disloyal to my convictions, that I am abandoning my values, right?”
Her approach is to make sure people feel seen and heard during conversations and that they are not simply about convincing the other person about your side:
Talking to people who voted for Trump has yielded important insights as well. Guzman offered a real-life example, describing a trip she and other Democrats took to Sherman County, a rural county in Oregon where 74% of voters went for Trump. While she was there, one farmer she spoke to seemed to be aligned well with Democrats on many issues, and even added that he supported same-sex marriage. Yet when he talked about the reasons he voted for Trump, he explained how deeply he cared about Waters of the United States, a crucial federal policy about bodies of water and when they can fall under federal regulation. Ultimately, WOTUS affects many farmers who fear that the rule could be interpreted in a way to affect rain-made seasonal ponds on their land. In the end, this farmer voted for Trump because he couldn’t trust Democrats to take his concerns seriously on the matter.
“For several of the liberals on that trip, that was an ‘aha’ moment. They thought, ‘They must have voted this way because they feel opposite of me,’ but they voted on an economic issue. When you’re partisan … you’re missing a big chunk of what actually motivates other people,” she said of her takeaway from that conversation.
Ultimately, Guzman encouraged the audience to be curious and ask what is missing, since it is often so easy to “rationalize our way to disliking the other side.” Go to the primary source and ask, “What are your concerns with this? ... You might actually find stuff that is really surprising and relatable. And if you don’t see the whole story, how are you going to solve the problems?”
Watch yesterday’s episode below:
YouTube Video
Or listen to it on the following platforms:
Moulitsas opened the show by acknowledging the reality Democrats are currently facing after a tough 2021 election cycle, at least part of which he attributed to a failure to get their messages across effectively:
“If we’re not communicating well, maybe it’s time to get past that reflective anger [that tells us to simply avoid talking to those across the aisle] and maybe start thinking of a better way of engaging, because politically it’s not doing us any favors,” he added.
Eleveld pushed back on that idea a bit. “I’m not sure that what we saw in Virginia was a pushback … it might not have as much to do with our poor communication as much as it does ... the natural cycle of who’s in the White House and the fact that many people, even if they were Republicans, hated Trump.” Eleveld’s own father was a Republican, and she recalled having conversations with him about then-President George W. Bush. “There are ways of engaging [conservatives] that are not offensive, that are not so aggressive” that may be better at getting them to see alternative points of view, she noted. “We need to engage people in a way that draws them in rather than shuts them out.”
Moulitsas brought up the point that communication touches every facet of our lives. How we understand conflicts can shape our worldview and how we understand everything—thus making communication is one of the most powerful tools in politics. He himself has cut off family members who support Trump, deciding not to engage with them at all. “How big of a mistake did I make in cutting those people off?” Moulitsas mused. “How does [choosing to communicate] lead to a better outcome than the polarization we have right now?”
The pair also reflected on how the conversations around gay rights and gay marriage have hugely shifted the needle on LGBTQ rights over the past 10 years. Moulitsas called the push to legalize gay marriage and normalize queerness the “greatest victory in the last decade.”
As Eleveld explained, it was a diverse movement that took a lot of hard work. She also touched on the importance of sharing stories to humanize gay people:
Eleveld and Moulitsas then brought on Guzman to talk about how to communicate effectively about political issues.
The premise of Guzman’s book lies in the idea that not being able to exchange ideas and have open dialogues between both sides leads to serious issues. Invited by Moulitsas to explain how she got the idea to write her book and what inspired her, she said:
Guzman is liberal, and her parents are very conservative Mexican immigrants who voted for Trump. What made her really pause was when her liberal friends would say things about people who voted for Trump that made her think, “Eh, that isn’t right. There’s more to it than that, and I think we can get more curious and open and see more.”
Eleveld wondered how Guzman even got herself to the point of wanting to be curious, thinking that she wanted to bridge that gap and could find a way of communicating about these things that also wasn’t a betrayal of herself and her personal beliefs.
Guzman understands that “our personal beliefs feel very much a part of who we are, so to even want to get into a conversation with someone, that means that you feel that you’re putting them at risk.” Her work as a journalist also helped her really understand others’ perspectives. Having done this work for 17 years, she has had a lot of conversations that are focused on getting to know someone without judgment:
“From a communications standpoint, have I missed an opportunity to influence those family members [that I cut off]? Have I contributed to a culture that has actually harmed Democrats and liberals electorally? We have the numbers, we should be winning a lot more. We’re not. We’re not communicating [well] to our own supporters, we’re not communicating to persuadables, and certainly not people who are already written off as deplorable. So I’m at a point where, and your book was a big part of this, Monica, I’m starting to reflect back and wonder what have I done to contribute to this and what can I do to change that?” Moulitsas asked. “I know I’m wrong [about people not being persuadable]. Can you tell me why I’m wrong?”
As Guzman noted, “It’s good that we have partisans. It’s good that we have fighters. The fight is good and important, and it must never end. And I think sometimes the perception is that trying to embrace more curiosity or stay more open to [the fact] that we may not know everything we should know about people and there might be common ground to find means that I am being disloyal to my convictions, that I am abandoning my values, right?”
Her approach is to make sure people feel seen and heard during conversations and that they are not simply about convincing the other person about your side:
Talking to people who voted for Trump has yielded important insights as well. Guzman offered a real-life example, describing a trip she and other Democrats took to Sherman County, a rural county in Oregon where 74% of voters went for Trump. While she was there, one farmer she spoke to seemed to be aligned well with Democrats on many issues, and even added that he supported same-sex marriage. Yet when he talked about the reasons he voted for Trump, he explained how deeply he cared about Waters of the United States, a crucial federal policy about bodies of water and when they can fall under federal regulation. Ultimately, WOTUS affects many farmers who fear that the rule could be interpreted in a way to affect rain-made seasonal ponds on their land. In the end, this farmer voted for Trump because he couldn’t trust Democrats to take his concerns seriously on the matter.
“For several of the liberals on that trip, that was an ‘aha’ moment. They thought, ‘They must have voted this way because they feel opposite of me,’ but they voted on an economic issue. When you’re partisan … you’re missing a big chunk of what actually motivates other people,” she said of her takeaway from that conversation.
Ultimately, Guzman encouraged the audience to be curious and ask what is missing, since it is often so easy to “rationalize our way to disliking the other side.” Go to the primary source and ask, “What are your concerns with this? ... You might actually find stuff that is really surprising and relatable. And if you don’t see the whole story, how are you going to solve the problems?”
Watch yesterday’s episode below:
YouTube Video
Or listen to it on the following platforms: