Our discourse about political discourse is broken
We deserve a better explanation than polarization and cancel culture
This week, a bigot was assassinated.
Amidst all of the calls to end political violence, end gun violence, and heal our nation, a new narrative is emerging: this man should be celebrated for engaging in healthy debate across difference. Violence, no matter the victim, is wrong. That a bigot is lionized for doing AMAs (ask-me-anything) with more restraint than we expect bigots to hold, shows how broken our discourse about discourse is. Healthy political discussion starts with empathy and curiosity, not “prove me wrong.”
The conversation about healthy political discourse feels icky for so many reasons, many of which are rooted in the disconnection and de-valuing of people in our society by those in power. The purpose should be to truly see others, and to connect, not pontificate. Restraint is the minimum, not the main indicator.
The discussion feels disorienting because healthy discourse seems so rare that it’s tempting to celebrate the glimmers we do see. We cannot simply blame the existence of fringe ideas or polarization or the far-left or right, although I do think we can blame big tech. Fringe ideas should be allowed, but we shoudn’t feel so much pressure to validate them because they exist. Some fringe ideas are bigoted and some are intended to help people live healthy, fulfilled lives, (think: polyamory, abolition) but they’re just not popular yet. There is a difference.
It feels existential because the stakes are so high. The people who win get to determine what happens to some of our most existential concerns: our broken political system, untenable levels of inequality or climate change.
It feels paralyzing because we are contending with power structures who don’t want regular people to be powerful. These structures have long suppressed free speech, at times with violence.
It feels hollow because the political-industrial complex has reduced politics into issues, and people into demographics. We have been minimized into race, age, ideology, issue opinions, and voter propensity scores. In political spheres, we rarely get to be the dynamic, complex people we are, whose identities don’t always predict our beliefs. We’ve been told that we’re all in the majority and we just need to mobilize the people who agree with us or look like us. Our organizations are only funded for measurable outcomes on unreasonable timelines. The things we actually care about—family, friends, making enough money to live a good life, our Labubu collection or our favorite TV shows—occupy an entirely different world. One of these worlds is fun and inviting and one is not.
It feels demoralizing because the people shaping toxic discourse—politicians, tech companies, talking heads, or organization leaders—do not actually want to hear or see us for who we are, or be with us where we are. We are only useful insofar as we help them profit from our outrage, proselytize their ideology, pass their ballot measure or win their election.
Through all this, we are told to “agree to disagree,” a mantra that sounds straight out of a white picket fence fantasy in which people of color did not exist. We are encouraged to push for centrist solutions that won’t actually fix systemic problems. We are expected to celebrate bigots with the audacity to speak up, and shame those who call them out. None of this will work because it doesn’t actually address what people are seeking right now.
In hoping for healthy political discourse, most regular people are wanting to feel deeply seen and understood, and it’s so intensely scary to try for that right now. We should have the political homes, churches, civic groups, community organizations, outreach from political parties or time with friends to meet this need. Instead, we have one-way conversations with talking heads on tiktok or youtube or postcards telling us how to vote. When spaces to ask questions and be ourselves alongside others are hard to find, it’s easier to mistake a bigot’s “prove me wrong” AMA for healthy discourse.
To be sure, many people will say that the bigot in question, along with many organizations on the right, did help people feel seen. Those things are true. But being seen at the expense of others—whether they are an immigrant, trans, a person of color, or even Republican—is not the goal.
Helping people feel seen and understood is a huge opportunity. It’s a purpose we can all relate to, and the outcome, connection, is something we all want. Think of what would change if we asked questions to understand—like what’s on your mind, not, what issues do you care about—on a canvassing walk. Or, if we stopped to acknowledge people—“I see how hard you’re working,” or “I know things are changing a lot”—before asking them to vote. Words are not enough, but they can set the tone.
In a world where people feel truly seen and connected, bigots lose their power. That is a world in which we can finally address real, existential concerns like affordability, racial justice, loneliness or climate change. To get there, we must reframe our discourse about political discourse: not around polarization or restraint, but about truly seeing all of us as people who deserve something better.
P.S. If you are curious about how to respond to, or counter, political violence in your community, check out HOPE PV, or this very handy summary of their guide, by Scot Nakagawa.