How To: Have a Respectful Debate About Politics

Within a political landscape of unequal valuations of human life 

By Trent Andersen 

As a political science student on the precipice of graduation, this question haunts me, and its answer continues to elude me. How do we have a respectful debate about politics? How are we to critically engage with each other on political topics without screaming or totally shutting down? Too often I see people throw on the rose-colored glasses called “agreeing to disagree” or shelter themselves behind filter bubbles and simply rebuff these conversations. Such conclusions are steeped in a myriad of privileges. When an individual or group’s humanity is in question within political discourses, “agree to disagree” is gravely insufficient in facilitating fruitful and respectful discussions. If anything, it only exacerbates the divide. To understand how we can create respectful political conversations, it is imperative we understand the nature and definition of respect. 

To respect is to consider worthy of high regard. With this definition, it is impossible to have a respectful debate about politics without the prerequisite condition of mutual respect. Admittedly, the dilemma is how are respectful political debates possible when one views people of color, LGBTQIA+, people with disabilities, and/or immigrants as undeserving of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? An effective democracy is predicated on a politically engaged electorate, which is born out of discussion. However, such discussions cannot be rooted in the degradation of one’s humanity. Therefore, the question becomes: how can we work to minimize the chasm between respect and political discussions?. According to Professor Emerita, Dr. Joan Tronto, we can accomplish this goal, and so much more, by prioritizing the ethic of care. In her book, Caring Democracy, she defines care as, “a species activity that includes everything that we do to maintain, continue, and repair our ‘world’ so that we can live in it as well as possible,”. Rooting ourselves in caring relationships breeds respect. Respect lays the foundations for meaningful and productive discussions. Fruitful discussions can lead to a healthy, and thriving political landscape and society. Tronto argues, and I wholeheartedly agree, that “we need to rethink American democracy, as well as our fundamental values and commitments, from a caring perspective.” 

Anecdotally, it seems many political conversations that go south view rights as something finite. As if granting rights, resources, and opportunities to one group, immigrants for example, means less for another group. I view this mindset as being rooted in American individualism while also relating to the field of political psychology. The key takeaway I learned in a course about political psychology of mass behavior is that people think in groups. They view themselves as part of a group and want to see their group win. In this sense, politics can mimic sports. People who identify with a particular party want to see their party win, because it makes them feel like they are also winning. However, a consequence of this group mindset is the creation of the categories “Us” and “Them”. As mentioned above, people want to see their group, and by proxy, themselves win. This competitive mindset within the political landscape seems counterintuitive to creating meaningful change and building a more just and caring society: because it is! I believe, as does Professor Tronto, that there is another way. 

What if we stretch and expand these rigid categories of us and them, until they shatter. We see our shared humanity as the foundational source of these discussions. In doing so we shift our collective political mindset away from a paradigm of winning and losing towards one of care, and subsequently, respect. The questions now become: How can we orient our society to create the most good, for the most people? How can we optimize the life chances of our fellow humans? Make no mistake, I am not advocating for folks to run around screaming “I don’t see color,” or minimizing the wide array of experiences and identities that make up our world. Rather, by recognizing our shared humanity, we can forge the prerequisite respect necessary for productive political conversations. One that acknowledges and celebrates differences and builds bridges. Our country is a product of genocide, slavery, and colonialism. These are legacies that must be dealt with directly. Therefore, before respectful political discussions can be forged, there must be a balancing of the scales through the (re)articulation of our shared humanity.