Every lived experience is a valid lived experience. With 8+ billion unique realities currently coexisting on this planet, it's mathematically impossible to have one singular truth/way of living. We desperately need more respect for differences, more compassionate understanding, more patience, more practice seeing the world from other vantage points, and more restraint from quick judgement.
Yes! This is the most thought-provoking thing you’ve written that I have read. It will change my life. I wish I would have read it sooner. It may have saved my best friend from junior high from blocking me.
Also, I know this is true because my dad and I were opposite politically but were always able to love each other.
I think it may be helpful if everyone began to realize that the encouragement of moral narscisism is a marketing tool. You mentioned that it is new -I remember it in the Clinton days when I was young and trying to figure out where I stand on issues. I was so confused about how people I love and admire could be so beholden to a particular radio host who was loud, rude, one sided, and unreasonable. It was confusing because it was so incongruent with their character otherwise. Would love for you to say more about what “new” means to you in the historical sense. Maybe it isn’t new, it’s just grown like wildfire because of social media click bait and news outlets that PROFIT, just as that radio host was, from the outrage machine. I think if people can recognize when they are being manipulated for profit they will be less likely to take the bait. That is precisely why YOU, Adam Grant, and others need to exist out their in the zeitgeist, and why I’m glad you haven’t given up, despite being on the receiving end of the madness at times.
I am hopeful there are more people recognizing that what we are doing isn't working, but I think the question is where to start? I think both sides feel it isn't safe/fair/helpful to step back knowing many on "the other side" won't meet that step. I would love to hear an example of how a group or leader from the past took this step and it moved a community back to a perspective of moving forward together.
It definitely is an exercise in trust. I think we start in increments. Talking to one person at a time. Someone who has different views. Sharing your views in nonjudgmental ways. This has worked for me. I now have a much more open mind to other opinions and am not as “fearful” of the world ending if a candidate I don’t care for is elected. I think so much about this is fear based.
I wholeheartedly agree this exercise of trust is essential. In addition to sharing your views in non judgmental ways, LISTEN to opposing views in non judgmental ways. Big progress was made in my relationship with my brother when I began listening to understand rather than to disprove.
Wow…”listening to understand rather than to disprove.” That comment is an “ah-ha” moment for me, thank you! I’ve been trying to navigate a conversation line with family members that are opposite of the spectrum from me and I think I just realized that I am absolutely listening to disprove. All of my follow up thoughts after a conversation are ways to disprove…I need to listen to understand.
Yes! Jordan Klepper was asked about this topic and his response was (paraphrasing) be curious. Go into these hard convos wanting to understand different ideas, rather than wanting to change someone’s mind.
I’ve started employing that and it’s been helpful. It dials down the anxiety.
I recently completed my degree in counseling and one of the biggest takeaways was that curiosity is the opposite of judgement! So, if I have a client who is speaking with me about something I may personally disagree with, instead of casting judgement, I ask questions.
I’m a board certified health coach and that was one of the big things I learned in my training. Being curious, asking questions in order to better understand and without judgement. So important to remember. Thank you Sharon!!!
The civil rights leaders of the past spring to mind as examples of people who stepped forward knowing that they would be met with tremendous resistance. But they stood up for what they knew was right and eventually got others to come together with them. It obviously wasn’t fast or easy but it did happen.
This is a beautiful example, but I’m not sure it’s quite right for the current situation. It’s almost like we need a trust exercise in stepping BACK and hoping the other side will also step back and not forward into the space we’ve ceded. It’s the Overton window problem.
Tammy, I have asked similar questions and came to see what the responses were to your questions. [ Edit to add for clarity -- I responded to you as the OP, but it was to a different question embedded within the dialog that followed. I see what you asked originally again now and my response doesn't make complete sense if taken only in the context of your original question. That's why! ;) ] What I am reading turned on a lightbulb for me. Over the winter, I took a certification course to become a conscious dying coach and a death doula. Part of that training was learning and implementing the art of conscious communication and deep listening into our practice. Wow. Learning this (and non-violent communication) CHANGED.MY.LIFE. All of the things mentioned.. the skills that are being discussed here... are part of Conscious Communication and Non-violent Communication. These are ways to navigate conflict and difference of opinion without making anyone right/wrong or within a bubble of judgment/shame. I'm still un-learning old ways at 48 years young... and learning new ones to replace them with. It's hard work and sometimes messy. But it has changed many of my previously challenged relationships for the better. Mostly, the one with myself. I suppose that I see this as a way to take personal responsibility in taking that voluntary "step back" and hoping that those changes ripple out. I can't wait for a leader. You know? :( I hope this helps. xx
This is a tough one because I think it’s easy to read this and say “yep, that’s the other side behaving badly.” So often we don’t see ourselves as part of the problem. I was trying to think of examples from both the conservative and liberal views as I read this article. Then I realized, it’s really about the individual. The most strongly held beliefs seem to lead to hatred and distrust of the other side. When we are open to listening to why people believe what they believe and also turning that exercise on ourselves, we may experience a softening towards others. I am going through a personal period of revelation with respect to this election. I am stepping back and removing myself from aligning with either candidate. Instead, I am trying to focus on what I can do to improve my relationships, my community, the lives of those around me etc and not make it about a party platform. I’m doing this because I’m so disappointed and even sad about where we are in politics. Everyday is another dig, attack, more fear-mongering to try to get our votes. As part of Braver Angels I’ve met some wonderful new friends on both sides of the aisle. They are just great people. They helped me to grow as a person without criticizing or trying to change my mind. Our local group has a bi-weekly column in our paper and I think we are making a difference, drip by drip. I guess what I’m saying in a roundabout way is, yes! We need to stop making this about our own moral beliefs and demonizing others. We need to work together and find common ground and also remember we are all humans with both good and bad qualities.. we are flawed but also amazing. I am willing to put the work in to be a better person and make our country a better place. Being a new grandma will certainly change your perspective!
Wow!! This was really inspiring to read. I’ve heard about Braver Angels on MPR and it sounds like an amazing, transformational organization. Thank you for sharing your experience.
Like you, I’m trying to focus on my own behavior. Being a positive, loving light in the world is what I’m aspiring to be and that will spread to those around me because I know positive energy grows/expands.
Idk, I have a hard time holding space for others' viewpoints/morality when they don't view me as a fully formed person capable of making decisions about my own body that impact my own life. My experience is that people who view my gender as less than capable of making decisions about my own body also view me as less than capable in other areas as well, it's almost like it "comes with the assignment." And as I've gotten older, I have less tolerance for holding space/time for listening to other's views on how my beliefs are sins. I just don't feel like I owe everyone time/space in my life.
I feel this. I am happy to engage in thoughtful debate of actual policy - why Medicaid should be expanded in my state, for example, or why gun safety laws need to be in place. I expect and hope for conversation and compromise! What I can no longer abide at 46 years old is being told I am a childless sociopath, or incapable of make medical decisions with my doctor because of my gender, or that my trans family members are less than human. When political leaders and their supporters start on that line of ranting I cannot help that my defenses go up, and I truly believe I’m on the right side of history. There’s non-negotiables for me and attacking my humanity and that of my family is top of that list.
I am sorry you feel this way- it truly saddens me. You must that the attacks come from both sides however. And it’s heartbreaking…it really is. What has helped me is that choosing to believe that people are inherently good (although power does corrupt politicians for sure). Usually there are two sides to a decision or feeling. And those two sides just see things differently. It’s not as black and white as many perceive. That level of understanding is so crucial to unity.
One, If power corrupts politicians, is it not possible that power also corrupts other people? Is wealth power? Is patriarchy power? Is white supremacy power? Is it possible that those things, just by way of example, can also corrupt people? When someone is corrupted, are they still inherently good? (I am not saying they're not, I'm simply exploring the philosophical statements you've written above -- and don't feel the need to answer -- I'm more exploring these thoughts in my own head, not arguing etc).
Two, is unity the goal? At the macro level, is unity even possible in a country of 330 million people? What is a realistic goal?
Absolutely it’s power. But let’s take it even further- CEOS of social platforms people trust and believe in - BLM, Planned Parenthood, Southern Baptist Convention, >>>>there is a potential for all of them to be corrupt. And it has happened. Time and time again. There are wealthy, patriarchy attitudes coming from both sides. And your question “can those people still be good?” My answer is it doesn’t seem like it, but I still choose to believe the opposite. It bothers me that some politicians “use” certain Americans who are less privileged for their own gain just so they can stay in power. They say they are “for them” but in reality they just want their vote. They don’t give a rats behind about them. And yet- I still want to believe they are good people even they they’ve been corrupted by power and wanting to stay in power. And honestly they all lie.
Are they good? I don’t know. I want to believe that, yes they are. But I will never know becuase I do not personally know them.
Unity. I think it should always be the goal whether it’s 2 or 2,000,000,000,000. Without a striving for unity then power and corruption will always win, won’t it?
I don't think people should ever "trust and believe in" social media platforms, as they've done nothing, ever, to show that they can be trusted or believed in, and also, they never said that's their goal. People might have assigned that goal to them, but that's the people's fault, not the company's fault.
Can all organizations or companies become corrupt, yes, of course. They don't exist separate from the people who make them up. People can be corrupted, therefore, so too can organizations or companies or governments etc. It's not a "sides" thing, it's universal thing. Corruption knows no bounds.
I'm not sure I can agree that everyone is still a good person even if they've been corrupted. I think I would need to see an acknowledgement and an awareness and a willingness to change before they would go back to being a "good person," at least in my mind. I think if I were to give a corrupted person the presumption of "really being a good person inside," I would be a fool if I weren't wary in my dealings with them. I wouldn't want to be so beholden to the belief that I have to think of everyone as a "good person" that I end up blinding myself to their corruption with my own "goodness."
On unity -- I think viewing it as "unity" versus "power and corruption" (as if those are the only options) is also a black/white way of looking at it, it's just using different words. I'm more of a middle-ground person. So, maybe it looks like legislation that is sponsored by both sides but where both have to give things up -- that's still not unity, it's simply life and cooperation/agreement. The recent border security package reached with Sen Hankford and Sen Sinema as chief negotiators is a good example. No one got everything they wanted, but they each got something. Unfortunately power/corruption superseded its adoption and moving forward on it, but the bill itself existed as a testament to what is possible. And then there is also the power/corruption example associated with it to show us what that looks like.
At the micro level, just by way of example, in divorce (two sides typically very much opposed), no one gets what they want, no one. You figure out the things that mean the most to you, and you become willing to negotiate on other things. There is not "unity" (b/c hey, the marriage was the unity and that's over), but some other middle ground has to be reached. It's not unity, and hopefully, it's not power/corruption.
So, no, I don't think "unity" should always be the goal. I don't think it's a if/then situation, where if you're not striving for unity, then power/corruption will always win. I don't think it's a duopoly like that, and dare I say, I think to approach it that way might actually hinder negotiating to that middle ground. "Unity" to me sounds like "perfection," nice to have but you'll never get there. When the goal feels unattainable, I think people are generally less invested in figuring out how to get there (b/c why try?).
Let's aim for something that's "good enough" and somewhere in the middle, where we both get things and where we both have to give things up.
I can appreciate where you’re coming from, and I agree that not everything is black and white. However, when people are calling for my brother and his husband’s marriage to be nullified by the courts, that is a very black and white issue to me. When my doctor tells me I may need a D&C for menopausal issues but she’s uncertain if it “will be allowed” that is a black and white issue to me. It’s not just about words and attacks - there are some very serious policies that have been put in place that tangibly affect people’s lives and their pursuit of happiness. That’s where my line in the sand is. Either I can manage my healthcare, or I can’t. There’s no gray area there. And I don’t think that’s moral narcissism, I think it’s a response to an attack on my personal liberty.
The black and white issues you speak of are very real to me too, and I suspect they are from the perspective of a white person (like me). But Imagine being a Black woman, or man living in Georgia or Texas.
I suspect most of us in this thread are white?
For the first time in the history of the world more white people are taking a stand because SOME of our rights and liberties are at risk. And because the internet and social media platforms make standing up possible.
Every aspect of a Black person's life is affected by systems created by white people corrupted by a love of power and money with the intent to control and oppress. As a nation, we have known this for 100's of years and most of us have remained silent because it does not touch us personally.
I believe we have a duty to stand up. We must do it in a respectful way but for me remaining silent feels like I am going against my moral compass and it is not an option.
How can we truly support our Black brothers and sisters in the best way?
Jennifer, I respect you and your opinion, thank you for commenting. I do have questions- I would love to see resources on doctors that can’t perform a D & C due to menopausal issues (or any other issue) as I believe that is misinformation. Also, who exactly is calling for your brothers marriage to be nullified? It’s so interesting because as a woman, I don’t feel in any way that I can’t manage my own health.
Just eight days ago, Liberty Counsel again sent a brief to the Sixth Circuit Court, challenging Obergefell. Additionally, Justice Thomas commented that the court should reconsider Obergefell in his opinion when they overturned Roe v Wade. So there is a chorus of ultra conservative voters wanting to end same sex marriage, and we cannot go about thinking the Court won’t do it, as they are on a roll as of late.
As far as my D&C, in GA we have a heartbeat bill, and some hospitals are gunshy to do anything that might be viewed as a medical abortion - even if there is no baby and no chance of there being a baby - without making the patient go through more tests and appointments than is medically necessary. Laws like this have a very real impact on medical staff and how they view patient care. I think my doctor would have found a way to get it done one way or another, but I recognize I’m a white woman with a lot of resources and excellent employer healthcare that would have provided travel coverage if I needed to go elsewhere. But make no mistake, these are very real issues depending on where you live.
My husband has worked in corporate healthcare management for 40 years. The federal abortion laws are so unclear that physicians are scared to perform procedures for fear of prosecution. Hospitals in the state of Utah are beginning to have difficulty recruiting doctors because we are one of the most restrictive states and physicians don't want to practice in restrictive states because of fear.
Imagine what it is like for a Black Woman in Georgia where the majority of physicians are white males?
This is first hand knowledge on the ground of what is currently going on in healthcare
All D & C's under the current laws are illegal in some states. And Physicians and hospitals are so uncertain that some won't take the risk.
I agree that everyone on both sides needs to take like 80 chill pills.
However...
Isn't there a right answer? Someone is right, are they not? There's that old fable of the elephant and the blind men who are describing what they feel. The one at the tail says it's a rope, the one at the trunk says it's a snake, etc. Of course they are using their limited experience to describe this thing as best as they know how.
But it isn't a snake. It isn't a rope. It is an elephant.
Where do we draw the line between moral narcissism and the reality that someone is indeed correct? Would it be narcissistic for the blind man to call it an elephant, or is he just correct?
So stepping back from the example. It doesn't matter when we're talking about being kind. We don't have to be kind to only one group of people. We can be kind to the people who think it's a rope while not believing it's a rope. We can choose kindness for them and also choose kindness for others. I think about the people in my community many of whom would not be kind based on someone's vote or belief. I am going to be kind to them anyway. Being kind is not electing them to office or agreeing with their beliefs. It's not even necessarily being their best friend. It's choosing to in any given situation to not call them names or ostracize them. Even if they may not reciprocate. Because they're not the only ones watching.
Excellent points! And we do need to stand up against those who use their power unkindly, who know they are hurting others, but continue to do so to maintain and expand their own power (political or financial). And we don't have to dehumanize, name call, make any kind of ad hominem attacks, exaggerate or lie to stimulate working together and considering the welfare of all.
I’ll throw out my answer to that question for what it’s worth. I think what Sharon is saying is that being right only gets us so far. In your analogy, if the blind men continue to insist that they have found a rope or a snake, and everyone who can see mocks them/isolates from them for refusing to accept the “right” answer, and the men’s mental health suffers and they go online and become radicalized against people with vision, then was it worth it to mock them, even though they were hard-headed and wrong?
I think this is an excellent point but I also think that if the two worked together they could have come up with elephant. Working singularly for what is best for one does not serve the many. Listening and respecting one another and working together to create a bigger picture is likely to be more beneficial than just being right.
I think the difference is that the “elephant” in this example is a concrete object. It can be scientifically proved that it’s an elephant. The fact that the men are blind illustrates how not looking at the “big picture” can skew our judgment. In the case of moral opinions, there is no concrete scientific evidence as to what is right or wrong. It really is an opinion. It may be based on religion, upbringing, life experiences, etc.. which vary for every individual. In the instances of truly heinous crime, murder for example, most people will agree that is wrong - but for so many issues it really is what a person believes to be their truth.
Such good points. The rise of hyper individualism and “my truth” as a response to information fits directly under the heading of moral narcissism for me. I do believe there are some things that are concrete and true, no matter what, but I can’t think of many topics in politics that fall under that umbrella.
Hi, I really like the story of the elephant and the blind men. It illustrates that what is known is based on perspective (which is limited information).
In the story, there are six blind men who feel the various parts of the elephant and try to describe the elephant. They are all incorrect because their “view” is too limited. None of them are right about the elephant on their own because of each is limited by the information they have on hand. In fact, it takes someone else to say that none of them are correct. This person tells them the elephant is so big that their limited knowledge of the elephant keeps them from knowing the truth about an elephant. The blind men then realize that they must work together to truly understand. (Of course, I overly simplified a beautiful story with a deeper spiritual meaning.)
I think that speaks to Sharon’s point regarding community. One group (aka one blind man) does not hold enough information to be “right”. In order to be right, groups must work together to solve problems because each group has a limited perspective of the problem.
That’s what I get out of the story, and I really appreciate you helping me to put these ideas together by sharing your thoughts.
This was a helpful read, Sharon. Yet again you’ve helped me recognize that I am also part of the problem in my othering of people who are so “clearly” wrong and ill-informed. By treating these people as toxic, I contribute to the problem. Sometimes it’s not about being right, it’s about the relationship. Man it’s hard though.
I think this narcissism is part of why so little gets done in congress. Finding common ground with people we spend so much time othering is seen as weak and a forfeiture of power. It’s amazing that people who are deeply religious will not see the hypocrisy in their moral narcissism. But also when I truly reflect on what you said , I see how I am part of the problem too.
Great point about compromise being viewed as an unfavorable outcome. It feels like many people in positions of power have stopped framing "the common good" or finding a shared story/vision that includes all citizens in their policy conversations.
Consistently being thoughtful, kind, gentle and respectful will go a long ways towards healing the divide. It starts with each of us living out these attributes and being courageous in reaching out with genuine care and curiosity with those who think differently than ourselves. Unfortunately, we don’t have many leaders who exhibit these characteristics, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it ourselves. It can and will be contagious when we do!
"Sometimes it's not about being right, it's about the relationship." That's a REALLY great point!!! Forming trust between "the other side" is the long game, not short term rewards. And that's what we need to think about in politics. What will this decision look like in 10-20 years, or 100-200 years? How can we work together to make this the best situation for the most people?
I think that this moral narcissism is also loud and rude. I watched a tiny bit of footage from yesterday; the questioning of the new Secret Service head. The total rudeness shown to each other; the shouting and bullying. The childish behavior. These individuals, all parties, all stripes, need to watch some footage of themselves. Is this civilized? Is this productive? Would we want to watch our parents or our children or friends behave like Josh Hawley or Ted Cruz did in that hearing? I think, no matter what you believe, we should agree the level of discourse we have today is taking society backwards. Moral narcissism sure seems to me to be accurate cause; now that it’s defined and seen, let’s work on fixing it. I think most of us are open to self reflection.
Moral narcissism is new? It sounds very old to me. Pagans persecuting Christians, Catholics persecuting Protestants (and vice versa). I do agree that trying to have conversations across the divide of beliefs is something we need to do. But when people "on the other side" tell me, a lesbian, that marriage equality should be overturned, that LGBTQ people shouldn't be allowed to be teachers, and that I'm going to hell.... Well it's kind of hard to be civil to people who see me as less than human.
This was a tough one for me. When I was growing up, my part of the extended family was Republican and another part was Democrat. We disagreed all the time but it was from a base of shared values, a common set of facts and a belief in science and medicine. Even though we shared all of that, we could still end up with different opinions and neither group was demonized by the other for that. We even good naturedly teased each other if our candidate won and theirs didn’t; I think because in the end, both sides wanted the same basic things but maybe just differed on how best or most efficiently to accomplish them. Fast forward to now. I am no longer a Republican because that party’s values, demonization of others, complete denigration and disregarding of science, journalism, medicine and facts, fear mongering and encouragement of violence is anathema to me. One part of my family is still Republican. I admit I no longer have much to do with them, not because their beliefs are different than mine but because they refuse to acknowledge facts, data or science and they think things like rounding up millions of immigrants and putting them in camps or illegally overturning an election are great ideas. Its horrifying to me, not because I don’t believe the same thing but because it is just objectively and demonstrably wrong. I mean, I don’t think I really get the whole bleu cheese thing, I guess, but what did people do with their moral narcissism during the time when Adolph Hitler was amassing power, laying out his vision for the country and putting his people in the frame of mind necessary to accomplish all of the terrible things his party did? During the lead-up to the Civil War, instead of people within the same family taking up arms against each other because of their differing beliefs should they have put away their moral narcissism in order to try to listen patiently, to try to find common ground? What would those conversations have been like? “I’m having a little trouble understanding why you think it’s ok to own people and have them work for you for free”? I don’t know. As I said at the top, this is a tough one for me.
I am in no way going to be very articulate with my feelings, but absolutely this.
There’s the MO quote of when they go low we go high and I just wonder to what end has that taken us? I respect it, of course. It’s what I would hope would be effective, but I don’t believe it has.
I in no way want to sound rude Sharon bc I deeply respect you and your work, but this feels a bit like the both sides-ing approach. As far as I can tell, the left is not treating the right as less than human (like in reverse), are not preventing the right from holding their beliefs, are not taking their guns (ya know except possibly the ones that are purely for slaughtering masses), are not taking away rights. There’s so many better ways for me to say this, but the two are not the same at all.
The right didn’t even used to care about abortion (politically) and now do so at rates shockingly high compared to other democratic nations. This was stirred up to garner votes, to use people, to manipulate them.
As someone who had a stint in what I would deem a cult (subjective term of course), I feel the right has become a cult and it thrives off of cutting people off from truth and knowledge. It thrives off cognitive dissonance.
I’m sorry but I don’t agree that “group B” radicalized “group A” because of speaking up against the manipulation happening on the right and leading to real harm (and actual loss of life rather than the just the idea of it - speaking as someone who clings to the “idea of life” going through years of infertility, ivf, 3 pregnancies that ended in miscarriage).
Anyway, I’ve wrestled with whether or not to comment and I deeply respect what’s being attempted here, but I think it may be to our detriment. We’ve tried to “go high”. I do see how some respond in less high ways bc this has very real and scary effects, but that is a reaction to the dehumanization that was happening from the right with very real consequences.
I think it’s time we believe who people are when they show us (ahem T), and stop acting like “well that’s not what he meant” while he works to destroy democracy on the backs of the rights’ willful ignorance.
If anyone can manage to hold neutrality in all this it’s you Sharon, but I don’t have the faith you do that it will work in bringing people back from the cognitive dissonance required to stay on the right.
My only hope is that people start waking up, or that they no longer cause sway and damage like they have any longer until they do wake up.
I will add that my MIL is going through cancer treatments and so I no longer have the capacity to deal with the petty sh*t that is so common in politics. I will vote bc my (and so many beautiful and worthy humans) lives depend on it. Maybe someday in the future we can get back to arguing approach rather than whether or not democracy should continue in this country, but we’re not there right now imo.
I am someone who considers herself very far left, and I probably agree with all of your policy thoughts hinted at here, etc. but I do disagree with the idea that "the left is not treating the right as less than human." And I don't think "speaking up against the manipulation happening on the right " is what Sharon is talking about when she speaks to radicalization.
What I think is dehumanization being done by the left that could be leading to radicalization is literally saying that "anyone who votes for Trump is *enter expletive here*. (a word that could actually be inhuman, lol). You might not be doing this and I might not be doing this, but 60 seconds on any political social media post reveals people do, right? And I think that is what is not helping. We can stand up for our healthcare rights, black friends, trans relatives, etc without basically implying that anyone on the other side is a "lost cause."
And I say this as someone who has to constantly fight the thought "anyone who votes for Trump is stupid or brainwashed or racist" in my head everyday :D because, if I go to the other side of my brain, that doesn't seem to make sense, either. That's a whole lot of people! But it isn't easy and I still don't know how to make sense of it, because I cannot see their perspective. So I might never understand. But whether or not I understand or not never means I have to agree with them. It also doesn't mean I need to tell them they are X name, never listen to what they have to say about anything, etc.
I guess you can find vitriol on any and all sides somewhere on social media. I think the difference, to me anyway, is that unlike on the right, any dehumanizing language you may see on the left does not come from the President, Vice-President, Speaker of the House, Senators, Congresspeople, governors or most other leaders. And to me, that’s a big difference.
I think you're very articulate! Sharon's hope has infected me, though. I kind of believe like Mayor Pete, that if the Trump/Project 2025 side loses yet again (2018 mid-terms, 2020 election, 2022 mid-terms) I think the extreme right fever will break and we can return to some sort of normalcy, only better. The U.K. did it, Poland did it, Venezuela tried to do it and France narrowly avoided having to do it. We can do it, too.
Thank you for saying this for me!!!!! I need glasses and my eyes are blurring trying to type on my phone but you said exactly what I wanted to say, so thank you!
Its exacerbated by social media. We can type comments in outrage defending our position without the inconvenience of making eye contact with a real, live person. The compassion and connection is lost. Even as one who rarely engages in online debates, simply the act of reading comment sections for many years leads to this polarized, inhumane view of humanity! My in person conversations are much more nuanced and compassionate.
I agree with the diagnosis, but the prescription to cure it - I don’t want to shift all the responsibility, but it’s got to come from the top! I think there are lots of Americans willing to seek and understand the other side, even with their own biases. But many of us on both sides feel threatened, and that brings out the good in no one. We need our leaders to come out and demonstrate good will and good faith, and leaders who are willing to SPEAK AGAINST the extremism on their own side. It’s hard to compromise on a higher level when there is general panic in the nation. And it’s hard to make headway with someone of opposite values when we’re constantly being told they are the enemy.
Not to say that it doesn’t matter that we all try to reach across the aisle in our personal lives. It does! It shows us what’s possible. It gives us new perspectives. And I like that Sharon is giving us a name for this. I just think that we must push our leaders to give us examples of the cure before we can expect things to change on a large scale.
What if, instead of waiting for the people at the top to be better leaders, the people they lead start to work together to find common ground? In so doing, other leaders who reflect the shared values of cooperation and mutual respect can be identified and elected to replace the current leaders who are motivated by political narcissism.
I definitely don’t want to wait for leadership from the top! I just feel as if our efforts keep getting stuck in slow motion. But you are correct 💕 We are all accountable for creating the right atmosphere for change and tomorrow’s leaders! And it is about more than today’s political climate.
I agree we are each accountable, and we each make change. I tell everyone I’m nonpartisan so I can talk to everyone, because I believe I can learn from everyone. I only belong to nonpartisan organizations (League of Women Voters, Moms Demand Action). I’m always looking for common ground. If I can’t find it, I work to build it. Then together we attempt to agree on common sense, and use it for the common good.
I think you hit the nail on the head, Caroline. Yes we can do our small part, but our leaders need to lead!! I’m going to be vulnerable here- I am politically homeless. I identity as conservative. But still homeless. In the 2020 election I voted independently. I wanted to vote for the republican nominee but just couldn’t. After the election I hoped so desperately that the president would seek to unite us- because that is what he ran on…yet I didn’t happen. Time after time he made remarks and did things that showed me the opposite of unity. Honestly this sounds dramatic, but it broke my heart as a conservative American woman. I was so very hopeful that he would unite us!!!! Instead I felt ostracized and unheard.
And right now I don’t see either 2024 nominee at this point uniting us. They both lie to get votes and it’s ridiculous. And it’s really sad. Power corrupts.
So we just keep our heads down, live our best lives, do our small part and hope for the best, I guess.
I honestly do not think unity is a reasonable goal. President Biden supports, IMO, mainstream ideas.... infrastructure improvement, addressing climate change, women's' healthcare, lowering prescription drug costs, supporting workers' rights, common sense gun laws. If those issues cannot be agreed on, it will continue to be them against us.
I hear you, Kathleen, and agree with these examples and that these are mainstream ideas.
I also think it's especially difficult to unite when each side has their own biased sources for current affairs/news, and wonder what any president or VP could do to unite folks right now in this climate. But I am thankful to Sharon for nudging me to think about this more critically. I live in a northern liberal city, and as I said upthread, I'm genuinely curious to hear the experiences of folks who have different experiences and perspectives, even if they don't align with mine. This feels like a good space for that.
Conservative/republican ideas are common sense ideas. Honestly both parties largely support similar ideas, they just go get there differently. And until we stop saying “them against us” we will absolutely never unify. We are all in this together👉to have a better future for those behind us.
Thanks for being vulnerable and sharing your perspective, Shannon. I'm genuinely curious about your thoughts on the things the next president can do to promote unity. What does that look like to you approach/policy-wise?
Well first of all, they can choose unifying Veeps. Maybe a more moderate politician? They can do this instead of choosing someone for the sole purpose of bringing on more votes just so they can stay in power. When Biden chose Kamala- one of the most liberal politicians there are, it totally discounted his touts of “unity” in America.
Thanks for sharing more of your perspective, Shannon. It's such a huge issue to tackle, and so many folks in our country want political outcomes immediately because we're used to the immediacy that comes with other aspects of our lives. But small steps are a start, right? So, what do you think are one or two small steps the next president could take once in office where you'd feel like they were unifying us — whether or not they're who you voted for?
I'm also equally curious to hear other people's opinions on this.
My story is so similar.. I am just trying to be positive and hope that whoever is elected will do what’s best for the country.. and with the checks an balances, nothing horrible will happen.. How’s that for “optimism?” lol .. there’s always 2028!
Many of us aren’t at all certain that 2028 will host a typical, nationwide election at all, based on the words of the leader of what I must consider the opposition. Within the last week, former President Trump has told an audience that they needed to vote for him this year because there wouldn’t be another election. Now, I am impressed by his ability to give separate messages with the same words, but this one is his “best” performance yet. One audience seemed to have heard that there’ll be no need for a 2028 election because by then, he’ll have fixed everything. When asked to say what he meant, he said he was just speaking to Christians who, he said, traditionally don’t vote in sufficiently large numbers. The only Christian-related interpretation I can think of is that he’s saying the prophecies of Revelation will be coming to fruition.
Riiiiight…. However, he demonstrated his disdain for elections he loses in the days preceding January 6, and more so on that day.
There is no calm, accepting conversation possible with those who think they’re right in overthrowing the duly elected leaders of our country. And that is only one of a fair amount of topics on which I see no middle ground. Sorry, Sharon. What’s the only peaceful response when someone tells me that the 2020 election was “stolen,” except to walk away?
This piece and the accompanying comments section are so rich with insight and wisdom. One thing I especially appreciate about Sharon’s writing is the bravery to really invite us ALL to look at our own contributions to what is happening around us. I’ve been guilty of distancing myself from those I fervently disagree with, and am now wondering how my withholding of community (especially because my identities allow me to show up safely in most spaces) may be unknowingly contributing to the radicalization I disdain and fear so much. Such a thought provoking read! Thank you, Sharon and community here.
Group B's motivation is that their freedom is under attack from group A. Understanding motivation is important in the situation you describe. If group A's motivation is to force group B to adhere to their way of thinking, what will stop them? There is no moral equivalence when only one group is the only one who is allowed to set the rules. If group A is allowed to set rules that kill members of group A and B. The moral choice is to stop Group A from being allowed to set the rules for everyone.
The world has been faced with this dilemma many times in the past. It has never ended well without a lot of pain and suffering along the way.
There are always some people who will want to exert power over others and will use what ever excuse they can to justify it.
I think you will also find that historically group A leaders never really want to live under the rules they want to impose on others themselves they just want to control group B.
Thanks for writing this. When I read this edition of The Preamble, the point that stuck out to me was: Group A's beliefs and subsequent actions caused members of both groups to die.
Group B's beliefs and actions caused Group A to feel feelings they didn't like.
This is NOT the same thing!
Then it turns out that members of Group A made conscious choices to "carry out terrorist attacks" and "plan political violence." How is Group B at fault for the choices of Group A? Group B is responsible for their own behaviors and actions, just as Group A is responsible for their own responses to those behaviors and actions.
This Preamble and all of the comments have given me a lot to think about. I listened to an interview recently with Pete Buttigieg where he gave his perspective on comments made about childless individuals in America. I thought he was calm, insightful, and articulate. I did not sense in his response a moral narcissism but a clarification that just because you don’t have children doesn’t mean you’re not invested in the good of the country.
So how do we go about dispelling misinformation that exists so rampantly in our society? I don’t believe that we should attack one another and demean each other, but how do we actually get to a place where we can engage in more civil discourse? I do believe compromise is the answer, along with treating one another with civility, but I’m not sure that I see that in some of our current leaders and lawmakers.
This is a great concept and one that I will revisit with others especially during the next 3 months! Per one of Sharon's suggestions, I reached out to my older brother who's a huge Trump fan, seeking to understand him better. I spent a few hours listening to his strong and impassioned views on multiple topics. The key was listening. Honestly, something shifted for me, in a positive way. Even though I still strongly disagree with many of his beliefs, I respect him more. Listening allowed me to understand him better and it provided clarity instead of fear around what I assumed he believed. Many times during our convo, I said "Oh I see why he believes that" (even though to myself, I felt his beliefs were based on misinformation). It does start with us, and trust in the listening process may have surprising benefits.
That's great, but did he sit there and patiently listen to your views and did anything shift for him? Or was this just a one-sided conversation? Someone important in my life holds complete opposite views of me, and what I find is that I can be curious as all heck, listen, coddle, hold space, understand, etc.., and he does *none* of that in return. He's not curious, not interested in hearing my views, doesn't read across the spectrum, just loves explaining his own views, loudly, and monopolizing conversations. So, yes, that's great if it's mutual, but when it's one-sided, I think it defeats the purpose b/c it only emboldens them that they don't need to listen or understand, they just get to espouse. My "next step" (for myself) is to make further conversations about my "noticing" -- "I see I ask you all about your beliefs and ask questions b/c I want to understand, I'm curious why you don't ask about mine and why you won't feel the need to understand me or my beliefs." -- *that* will be progress b/c *that* is the conversation that matters.
Yes, I see your point! I was so focused on trying to take a different approach that I didn’t realize how quiet I was and no he didn’t really ask me my thoughts. The few times I did speak he came right back, so not an exchange. Even though as you say, it was one-sided, next time, I will be aware of this be more vocal and maybe ask for more give and take. Thanks for this perspective!
Absolutely! It's a start, right?! It's the beginning of a series (hopefully) of conversations. I will be curious how it goes to bring him around and express your own curiosities around his (seemingly) lack of curiosity. The key (for me) is not to do it in an attacking way, more of a "noticing" or a "curious" -- "I'm noticing that... (you're explaining your positions but not asking about mine) (or whatever)..., is there anything about me or my positions that you're curious about? Any questions I can answer for you?" Good luck deepening this relationship and sharing with your brother. Hopefully he's on board for some reciprocity!
But isn’t it progress that you’re simply listening to him, regardless of he does the same for you? That’s what it’s all about isn’t it? It isn’t about what the other side of the conversation does or does not do, it’s about us. That’s where the change happens.
For myself, I disagree; though, I don't dispute that that might work for you, it's just not how I view "being in relationship" with someone. For me, relationships require reciprocity. Where there is no reciprocity, there is no sustainability to that relationship. It will falter and die.
So, no, I don't think mere one-sided listening is "what it's all about." I think it's a start, but without that second part to the conversation, which I noted above, the conversation around the curiosity of the noticing that the other person isn't interested in my views etc.., then I think the whole inquiry falls flat. Get me to that second part, the part where we converse about why they're not curious about me or my beliefs -- for me, that's where the true learning will occur -- and only *then* might there be an opening into an exchange of ideas. But that one-sided stuff, for the sake of saying "I listened," for the sake of feeling "better," for the sake of patting myself on the back for "trying," I'm done with that -- rather, get me to the second part -- "I noticed you're not asking about my beliefs and that it seems like you're not interested in learning more about why I believe what I believe, tell me more about that, I'm curious why you're not curious, can we talk about that?"
No, I totally see what you’re saying. From a relationship reciprocity perspective yes I totally understand. And sometimes it’s so important for boundaries to be set in those relationships. But just from a personal well-being perspective it’s progress for yourself that you’ve listened- even though it hasn’t been reciprocated.
I think the reason it is still progress is because in a week, a month, a year, the other person could have their curiosity sparked, and they might remember this conversation and think oh I should ask them because they will listen and respond since they were able to be curious and ask me about my beliefs.
THIS 👏 THIS 🤌 THIS 🙌 THIS 🫶 THIS
Every lived experience is a valid lived experience. With 8+ billion unique realities currently coexisting on this planet, it's mathematically impossible to have one singular truth/way of living. We desperately need more respect for differences, more compassionate understanding, more patience, more practice seeing the world from other vantage points, and more restraint from quick judgement.
This may be my favorite Preamble yet. ❤️
Yes! This is the most thought-provoking thing you’ve written that I have read. It will change my life. I wish I would have read it sooner. It may have saved my best friend from junior high from blocking me.
Also, I know this is true because my dad and I were opposite politically but were always able to love each other.
I think it may be helpful if everyone began to realize that the encouragement of moral narscisism is a marketing tool. You mentioned that it is new -I remember it in the Clinton days when I was young and trying to figure out where I stand on issues. I was so confused about how people I love and admire could be so beholden to a particular radio host who was loud, rude, one sided, and unreasonable. It was confusing because it was so incongruent with their character otherwise. Would love for you to say more about what “new” means to you in the historical sense. Maybe it isn’t new, it’s just grown like wildfire because of social media click bait and news outlets that PROFIT, just as that radio host was, from the outrage machine. I think if people can recognize when they are being manipulated for profit they will be less likely to take the bait. That is precisely why YOU, Adam Grant, and others need to exist out their in the zeitgeist, and why I’m glad you haven’t given up, despite being on the receiving end of the madness at times.
I know this feeling so well, too. And yes…let’s follow the money
Oh yes - the incongruence is so mind boggling. Why people aren’t aligned to their core values makes no sense to me.
I am hopeful there are more people recognizing that what we are doing isn't working, but I think the question is where to start? I think both sides feel it isn't safe/fair/helpful to step back knowing many on "the other side" won't meet that step. I would love to hear an example of how a group or leader from the past took this step and it moved a community back to a perspective of moving forward together.
It definitely is an exercise in trust. I think we start in increments. Talking to one person at a time. Someone who has different views. Sharing your views in nonjudgmental ways. This has worked for me. I now have a much more open mind to other opinions and am not as “fearful” of the world ending if a candidate I don’t care for is elected. I think so much about this is fear based.
I wholeheartedly agree this exercise of trust is essential. In addition to sharing your views in non judgmental ways, LISTEN to opposing views in non judgmental ways. Big progress was made in my relationship with my brother when I began listening to understand rather than to disprove.
Wow…”listening to understand rather than to disprove.” That comment is an “ah-ha” moment for me, thank you! I’ve been trying to navigate a conversation line with family members that are opposite of the spectrum from me and I think I just realized that I am absolutely listening to disprove. All of my follow up thoughts after a conversation are ways to disprove…I need to listen to understand.
That's awesome!
Curiosity not judgment. ?
I love the idea of approaching people with curiosity. I'm lousy at converting other people, but if I can get to know someone better, that's a win.
Yes! Jordan Klepper was asked about this topic and his response was (paraphrasing) be curious. Go into these hard convos wanting to understand different ideas, rather than wanting to change someone’s mind.
I’ve started employing that and it’s been helpful. It dials down the anxiety.
I recently completed my degree in counseling and one of the biggest takeaways was that curiosity is the opposite of judgement! So, if I have a client who is speaking with me about something I may personally disagree with, instead of casting judgement, I ask questions.
Ted Lasso! And my daughter reads a book series where the main character is told to “Be Brave. Be curious. Be kind.”
I’m a board certified health coach and that was one of the big things I learned in my training. Being curious, asking questions in order to better understand and without judgement. So important to remember. Thank you Sharon!!!
The civil rights leaders of the past spring to mind as examples of people who stepped forward knowing that they would be met with tremendous resistance. But they stood up for what they knew was right and eventually got others to come together with them. It obviously wasn’t fast or easy but it did happen.
This is a beautiful example, but I’m not sure it’s quite right for the current situation. It’s almost like we need a trust exercise in stepping BACK and hoping the other side will also step back and not forward into the space we’ve ceded. It’s the Overton window problem.
Tammy, I have asked similar questions and came to see what the responses were to your questions. [ Edit to add for clarity -- I responded to you as the OP, but it was to a different question embedded within the dialog that followed. I see what you asked originally again now and my response doesn't make complete sense if taken only in the context of your original question. That's why! ;) ] What I am reading turned on a lightbulb for me. Over the winter, I took a certification course to become a conscious dying coach and a death doula. Part of that training was learning and implementing the art of conscious communication and deep listening into our practice. Wow. Learning this (and non-violent communication) CHANGED.MY.LIFE. All of the things mentioned.. the skills that are being discussed here... are part of Conscious Communication and Non-violent Communication. These are ways to navigate conflict and difference of opinion without making anyone right/wrong or within a bubble of judgment/shame. I'm still un-learning old ways at 48 years young... and learning new ones to replace them with. It's hard work and sometimes messy. But it has changed many of my previously challenged relationships for the better. Mostly, the one with myself. I suppose that I see this as a way to take personal responsibility in taking that voluntary "step back" and hoping that those changes ripple out. I can't wait for a leader. You know? :( I hope this helps. xx
This is a tough one because I think it’s easy to read this and say “yep, that’s the other side behaving badly.” So often we don’t see ourselves as part of the problem. I was trying to think of examples from both the conservative and liberal views as I read this article. Then I realized, it’s really about the individual. The most strongly held beliefs seem to lead to hatred and distrust of the other side. When we are open to listening to why people believe what they believe and also turning that exercise on ourselves, we may experience a softening towards others. I am going through a personal period of revelation with respect to this election. I am stepping back and removing myself from aligning with either candidate. Instead, I am trying to focus on what I can do to improve my relationships, my community, the lives of those around me etc and not make it about a party platform. I’m doing this because I’m so disappointed and even sad about where we are in politics. Everyday is another dig, attack, more fear-mongering to try to get our votes. As part of Braver Angels I’ve met some wonderful new friends on both sides of the aisle. They are just great people. They helped me to grow as a person without criticizing or trying to change my mind. Our local group has a bi-weekly column in our paper and I think we are making a difference, drip by drip. I guess what I’m saying in a roundabout way is, yes! We need to stop making this about our own moral beliefs and demonizing others. We need to work together and find common ground and also remember we are all humans with both good and bad qualities.. we are flawed but also amazing. I am willing to put the work in to be a better person and make our country a better place. Being a new grandma will certainly change your perspective!
Wow!! This was really inspiring to read. I’ve heard about Braver Angels on MPR and it sounds like an amazing, transformational organization. Thank you for sharing your experience.
Like you, I’m trying to focus on my own behavior. Being a positive, loving light in the world is what I’m aspiring to be and that will spread to those around me because I know positive energy grows/expands.
I had not heard of Braver Angels. Thank you for sharing- I am following up!
I’m trying to do the exact same thing! At the end of the day I don’t like either party and only a grass roots effort will change things!!
Idk, I have a hard time holding space for others' viewpoints/morality when they don't view me as a fully formed person capable of making decisions about my own body that impact my own life. My experience is that people who view my gender as less than capable of making decisions about my own body also view me as less than capable in other areas as well, it's almost like it "comes with the assignment." And as I've gotten older, I have less tolerance for holding space/time for listening to other's views on how my beliefs are sins. I just don't feel like I owe everyone time/space in my life.
I feel this. I am happy to engage in thoughtful debate of actual policy - why Medicaid should be expanded in my state, for example, or why gun safety laws need to be in place. I expect and hope for conversation and compromise! What I can no longer abide at 46 years old is being told I am a childless sociopath, or incapable of make medical decisions with my doctor because of my gender, or that my trans family members are less than human. When political leaders and their supporters start on that line of ranting I cannot help that my defenses go up, and I truly believe I’m on the right side of history. There’s non-negotiables for me and attacking my humanity and that of my family is top of that list.
I am sorry you feel this way- it truly saddens me. You must that the attacks come from both sides however. And it’s heartbreaking…it really is. What has helped me is that choosing to believe that people are inherently good (although power does corrupt politicians for sure). Usually there are two sides to a decision or feeling. And those two sides just see things differently. It’s not as black and white as many perceive. That level of understanding is so crucial to unity.
Two thoughts.
One, If power corrupts politicians, is it not possible that power also corrupts other people? Is wealth power? Is patriarchy power? Is white supremacy power? Is it possible that those things, just by way of example, can also corrupt people? When someone is corrupted, are they still inherently good? (I am not saying they're not, I'm simply exploring the philosophical statements you've written above -- and don't feel the need to answer -- I'm more exploring these thoughts in my own head, not arguing etc).
Two, is unity the goal? At the macro level, is unity even possible in a country of 330 million people? What is a realistic goal?
Absolutely it’s power. But let’s take it even further- CEOS of social platforms people trust and believe in - BLM, Planned Parenthood, Southern Baptist Convention, >>>>there is a potential for all of them to be corrupt. And it has happened. Time and time again. There are wealthy, patriarchy attitudes coming from both sides. And your question “can those people still be good?” My answer is it doesn’t seem like it, but I still choose to believe the opposite. It bothers me that some politicians “use” certain Americans who are less privileged for their own gain just so they can stay in power. They say they are “for them” but in reality they just want their vote. They don’t give a rats behind about them. And yet- I still want to believe they are good people even they they’ve been corrupted by power and wanting to stay in power. And honestly they all lie.
Are they good? I don’t know. I want to believe that, yes they are. But I will never know becuase I do not personally know them.
Unity. I think it should always be the goal whether it’s 2 or 2,000,000,000,000. Without a striving for unity then power and corruption will always win, won’t it?
Many things here.
I don't think people should ever "trust and believe in" social media platforms, as they've done nothing, ever, to show that they can be trusted or believed in, and also, they never said that's their goal. People might have assigned that goal to them, but that's the people's fault, not the company's fault.
Can all organizations or companies become corrupt, yes, of course. They don't exist separate from the people who make them up. People can be corrupted, therefore, so too can organizations or companies or governments etc. It's not a "sides" thing, it's universal thing. Corruption knows no bounds.
I'm not sure I can agree that everyone is still a good person even if they've been corrupted. I think I would need to see an acknowledgement and an awareness and a willingness to change before they would go back to being a "good person," at least in my mind. I think if I were to give a corrupted person the presumption of "really being a good person inside," I would be a fool if I weren't wary in my dealings with them. I wouldn't want to be so beholden to the belief that I have to think of everyone as a "good person" that I end up blinding myself to their corruption with my own "goodness."
On unity -- I think viewing it as "unity" versus "power and corruption" (as if those are the only options) is also a black/white way of looking at it, it's just using different words. I'm more of a middle-ground person. So, maybe it looks like legislation that is sponsored by both sides but where both have to give things up -- that's still not unity, it's simply life and cooperation/agreement. The recent border security package reached with Sen Hankford and Sen Sinema as chief negotiators is a good example. No one got everything they wanted, but they each got something. Unfortunately power/corruption superseded its adoption and moving forward on it, but the bill itself existed as a testament to what is possible. And then there is also the power/corruption example associated with it to show us what that looks like.
At the micro level, just by way of example, in divorce (two sides typically very much opposed), no one gets what they want, no one. You figure out the things that mean the most to you, and you become willing to negotiate on other things. There is not "unity" (b/c hey, the marriage was the unity and that's over), but some other middle ground has to be reached. It's not unity, and hopefully, it's not power/corruption.
So, no, I don't think "unity" should always be the goal. I don't think it's a if/then situation, where if you're not striving for unity, then power/corruption will always win. I don't think it's a duopoly like that, and dare I say, I think to approach it that way might actually hinder negotiating to that middle ground. "Unity" to me sounds like "perfection," nice to have but you'll never get there. When the goal feels unattainable, I think people are generally less invested in figuring out how to get there (b/c why try?).
Let's aim for something that's "good enough" and somewhere in the middle, where we both get things and where we both have to give things up.
**you must KNOW
I can appreciate where you’re coming from, and I agree that not everything is black and white. However, when people are calling for my brother and his husband’s marriage to be nullified by the courts, that is a very black and white issue to me. When my doctor tells me I may need a D&C for menopausal issues but she’s uncertain if it “will be allowed” that is a black and white issue to me. It’s not just about words and attacks - there are some very serious policies that have been put in place that tangibly affect people’s lives and their pursuit of happiness. That’s where my line in the sand is. Either I can manage my healthcare, or I can’t. There’s no gray area there. And I don’t think that’s moral narcissism, I think it’s a response to an attack on my personal liberty.
I hear and feel your thoughts.
The black and white issues you speak of are very real to me too, and I suspect they are from the perspective of a white person (like me). But Imagine being a Black woman, or man living in Georgia or Texas.
I suspect most of us in this thread are white?
For the first time in the history of the world more white people are taking a stand because SOME of our rights and liberties are at risk. And because the internet and social media platforms make standing up possible.
Every aspect of a Black person's life is affected by systems created by white people corrupted by a love of power and money with the intent to control and oppress. As a nation, we have known this for 100's of years and most of us have remained silent because it does not touch us personally.
I believe we have a duty to stand up. We must do it in a respectful way but for me remaining silent feels like I am going against my moral compass and it is not an option.
How can we truly support our Black brothers and sisters in the best way?
Jennifer, I respect you and your opinion, thank you for commenting. I do have questions- I would love to see resources on doctors that can’t perform a D & C due to menopausal issues (or any other issue) as I believe that is misinformation. Also, who exactly is calling for your brothers marriage to be nullified? It’s so interesting because as a woman, I don’t feel in any way that I can’t manage my own health.
Just eight days ago, Liberty Counsel again sent a brief to the Sixth Circuit Court, challenging Obergefell. Additionally, Justice Thomas commented that the court should reconsider Obergefell in his opinion when they overturned Roe v Wade. So there is a chorus of ultra conservative voters wanting to end same sex marriage, and we cannot go about thinking the Court won’t do it, as they are on a roll as of late.
As far as my D&C, in GA we have a heartbeat bill, and some hospitals are gunshy to do anything that might be viewed as a medical abortion - even if there is no baby and no chance of there being a baby - without making the patient go through more tests and appointments than is medically necessary. Laws like this have a very real impact on medical staff and how they view patient care. I think my doctor would have found a way to get it done one way or another, but I recognize I’m a white woman with a lot of resources and excellent employer healthcare that would have provided travel coverage if I needed to go elsewhere. But make no mistake, these are very real issues depending on where you live.
My husband has worked in corporate healthcare management for 40 years. The federal abortion laws are so unclear that physicians are scared to perform procedures for fear of prosecution. Hospitals in the state of Utah are beginning to have difficulty recruiting doctors because we are one of the most restrictive states and physicians don't want to practice in restrictive states because of fear.
Imagine what it is like for a Black Woman in Georgia where the majority of physicians are white males?
This is first hand knowledge on the ground of what is currently going on in healthcare
All D & C's under the current laws are illegal in some states. And Physicians and hospitals are so uncertain that some won't take the risk.
I agree that everyone on both sides needs to take like 80 chill pills.
However...
Isn't there a right answer? Someone is right, are they not? There's that old fable of the elephant and the blind men who are describing what they feel. The one at the tail says it's a rope, the one at the trunk says it's a snake, etc. Of course they are using their limited experience to describe this thing as best as they know how.
But it isn't a snake. It isn't a rope. It is an elephant.
Where do we draw the line between moral narcissism and the reality that someone is indeed correct? Would it be narcissistic for the blind man to call it an elephant, or is he just correct?
So stepping back from the example. It doesn't matter when we're talking about being kind. We don't have to be kind to only one group of people. We can be kind to the people who think it's a rope while not believing it's a rope. We can choose kindness for them and also choose kindness for others. I think about the people in my community many of whom would not be kind based on someone's vote or belief. I am going to be kind to them anyway. Being kind is not electing them to office or agreeing with their beliefs. It's not even necessarily being their best friend. It's choosing to in any given situation to not call them names or ostracize them. Even if they may not reciprocate. Because they're not the only ones watching.
Excellent points! And we do need to stand up against those who use their power unkindly, who know they are hurting others, but continue to do so to maintain and expand their own power (political or financial). And we don't have to dehumanize, name call, make any kind of ad hominem attacks, exaggerate or lie to stimulate working together and considering the welfare of all.
Bravo! Such great insight. There’s no downside to being kind.
I’ll throw out my answer to that question for what it’s worth. I think what Sharon is saying is that being right only gets us so far. In your analogy, if the blind men continue to insist that they have found a rope or a snake, and everyone who can see mocks them/isolates from them for refusing to accept the “right” answer, and the men’s mental health suffers and they go online and become radicalized against people with vision, then was it worth it to mock them, even though they were hard-headed and wrong?
I think this is an excellent point but I also think that if the two worked together they could have come up with elephant. Working singularly for what is best for one does not serve the many. Listening and respecting one another and working together to create a bigger picture is likely to be more beneficial than just being right.
I think the difference is that the “elephant” in this example is a concrete object. It can be scientifically proved that it’s an elephant. The fact that the men are blind illustrates how not looking at the “big picture” can skew our judgment. In the case of moral opinions, there is no concrete scientific evidence as to what is right or wrong. It really is an opinion. It may be based on religion, upbringing, life experiences, etc.. which vary for every individual. In the instances of truly heinous crime, murder for example, most people will agree that is wrong - but for so many issues it really is what a person believes to be their truth.
Such good points. The rise of hyper individualism and “my truth” as a response to information fits directly under the heading of moral narcissism for me. I do believe there are some things that are concrete and true, no matter what, but I can’t think of many topics in politics that fall under that umbrella.
Hi, I really like the story of the elephant and the blind men. It illustrates that what is known is based on perspective (which is limited information).
In the story, there are six blind men who feel the various parts of the elephant and try to describe the elephant. They are all incorrect because their “view” is too limited. None of them are right about the elephant on their own because of each is limited by the information they have on hand. In fact, it takes someone else to say that none of them are correct. This person tells them the elephant is so big that their limited knowledge of the elephant keeps them from knowing the truth about an elephant. The blind men then realize that they must work together to truly understand. (Of course, I overly simplified a beautiful story with a deeper spiritual meaning.)
I think that speaks to Sharon’s point regarding community. One group (aka one blind man) does not hold enough information to be “right”. In order to be right, groups must work together to solve problems because each group has a limited perspective of the problem.
That’s what I get out of the story, and I really appreciate you helping me to put these ideas together by sharing your thoughts.
This was a helpful read, Sharon. Yet again you’ve helped me recognize that I am also part of the problem in my othering of people who are so “clearly” wrong and ill-informed. By treating these people as toxic, I contribute to the problem. Sometimes it’s not about being right, it’s about the relationship. Man it’s hard though.
I think this narcissism is part of why so little gets done in congress. Finding common ground with people we spend so much time othering is seen as weak and a forfeiture of power. It’s amazing that people who are deeply religious will not see the hypocrisy in their moral narcissism. But also when I truly reflect on what you said , I see how I am part of the problem too.
IT IS HARD!!!
Thank you. It is painfully hard.
Great point about compromise being viewed as an unfavorable outcome. It feels like many people in positions of power have stopped framing "the common good" or finding a shared story/vision that includes all citizens in their policy conversations.
Yes compromising is seen as 'losing' when it's what is needed the most!
Consistently being thoughtful, kind, gentle and respectful will go a long ways towards healing the divide. It starts with each of us living out these attributes and being courageous in reaching out with genuine care and curiosity with those who think differently than ourselves. Unfortunately, we don’t have many leaders who exhibit these characteristics, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it ourselves. It can and will be contagious when we do!
"Sometimes it's not about being right, it's about the relationship." That's a REALLY great point!!! Forming trust between "the other side" is the long game, not short term rewards. And that's what we need to think about in politics. What will this decision look like in 10-20 years, or 100-200 years? How can we work together to make this the best situation for the most people?
But what happens when only 1 side is willing to compromise?
One side, or one person on that side? I think if we dug in we'd find that no side is as monolithicly unbending as they'd appear to be.
I think that this moral narcissism is also loud and rude. I watched a tiny bit of footage from yesterday; the questioning of the new Secret Service head. The total rudeness shown to each other; the shouting and bullying. The childish behavior. These individuals, all parties, all stripes, need to watch some footage of themselves. Is this civilized? Is this productive? Would we want to watch our parents or our children or friends behave like Josh Hawley or Ted Cruz did in that hearing? I think, no matter what you believe, we should agree the level of discourse we have today is taking society backwards. Moral narcissism sure seems to me to be accurate cause; now that it’s defined and seen, let’s work on fixing it. I think most of us are open to self reflection.
Moral narcissism is new? It sounds very old to me. Pagans persecuting Christians, Catholics persecuting Protestants (and vice versa). I do agree that trying to have conversations across the divide of beliefs is something we need to do. But when people "on the other side" tell me, a lesbian, that marriage equality should be overturned, that LGBTQ people shouldn't be allowed to be teachers, and that I'm going to hell.... Well it's kind of hard to be civil to people who see me as less than human.
100% Laura!
This was a tough one for me. When I was growing up, my part of the extended family was Republican and another part was Democrat. We disagreed all the time but it was from a base of shared values, a common set of facts and a belief in science and medicine. Even though we shared all of that, we could still end up with different opinions and neither group was demonized by the other for that. We even good naturedly teased each other if our candidate won and theirs didn’t; I think because in the end, both sides wanted the same basic things but maybe just differed on how best or most efficiently to accomplish them. Fast forward to now. I am no longer a Republican because that party’s values, demonization of others, complete denigration and disregarding of science, journalism, medicine and facts, fear mongering and encouragement of violence is anathema to me. One part of my family is still Republican. I admit I no longer have much to do with them, not because their beliefs are different than mine but because they refuse to acknowledge facts, data or science and they think things like rounding up millions of immigrants and putting them in camps or illegally overturning an election are great ideas. Its horrifying to me, not because I don’t believe the same thing but because it is just objectively and demonstrably wrong. I mean, I don’t think I really get the whole bleu cheese thing, I guess, but what did people do with their moral narcissism during the time when Adolph Hitler was amassing power, laying out his vision for the country and putting his people in the frame of mind necessary to accomplish all of the terrible things his party did? During the lead-up to the Civil War, instead of people within the same family taking up arms against each other because of their differing beliefs should they have put away their moral narcissism in order to try to listen patiently, to try to find common ground? What would those conversations have been like? “I’m having a little trouble understanding why you think it’s ok to own people and have them work for you for free”? I don’t know. As I said at the top, this is a tough one for me.
I am in no way going to be very articulate with my feelings, but absolutely this.
There’s the MO quote of when they go low we go high and I just wonder to what end has that taken us? I respect it, of course. It’s what I would hope would be effective, but I don’t believe it has.
I in no way want to sound rude Sharon bc I deeply respect you and your work, but this feels a bit like the both sides-ing approach. As far as I can tell, the left is not treating the right as less than human (like in reverse), are not preventing the right from holding their beliefs, are not taking their guns (ya know except possibly the ones that are purely for slaughtering masses), are not taking away rights. There’s so many better ways for me to say this, but the two are not the same at all.
The right didn’t even used to care about abortion (politically) and now do so at rates shockingly high compared to other democratic nations. This was stirred up to garner votes, to use people, to manipulate them.
As someone who had a stint in what I would deem a cult (subjective term of course), I feel the right has become a cult and it thrives off of cutting people off from truth and knowledge. It thrives off cognitive dissonance.
I’m sorry but I don’t agree that “group B” radicalized “group A” because of speaking up against the manipulation happening on the right and leading to real harm (and actual loss of life rather than the just the idea of it - speaking as someone who clings to the “idea of life” going through years of infertility, ivf, 3 pregnancies that ended in miscarriage).
Anyway, I’ve wrestled with whether or not to comment and I deeply respect what’s being attempted here, but I think it may be to our detriment. We’ve tried to “go high”. I do see how some respond in less high ways bc this has very real and scary effects, but that is a reaction to the dehumanization that was happening from the right with very real consequences.
I think it’s time we believe who people are when they show us (ahem T), and stop acting like “well that’s not what he meant” while he works to destroy democracy on the backs of the rights’ willful ignorance.
If anyone can manage to hold neutrality in all this it’s you Sharon, but I don’t have the faith you do that it will work in bringing people back from the cognitive dissonance required to stay on the right.
My only hope is that people start waking up, or that they no longer cause sway and damage like they have any longer until they do wake up.
I will add that my MIL is going through cancer treatments and so I no longer have the capacity to deal with the petty sh*t that is so common in politics. I will vote bc my (and so many beautiful and worthy humans) lives depend on it. Maybe someday in the future we can get back to arguing approach rather than whether or not democracy should continue in this country, but we’re not there right now imo.
I am someone who considers herself very far left, and I probably agree with all of your policy thoughts hinted at here, etc. but I do disagree with the idea that "the left is not treating the right as less than human." And I don't think "speaking up against the manipulation happening on the right " is what Sharon is talking about when she speaks to radicalization.
What I think is dehumanization being done by the left that could be leading to radicalization is literally saying that "anyone who votes for Trump is *enter expletive here*. (a word that could actually be inhuman, lol). You might not be doing this and I might not be doing this, but 60 seconds on any political social media post reveals people do, right? And I think that is what is not helping. We can stand up for our healthcare rights, black friends, trans relatives, etc without basically implying that anyone on the other side is a "lost cause."
And I say this as someone who has to constantly fight the thought "anyone who votes for Trump is stupid or brainwashed or racist" in my head everyday :D because, if I go to the other side of my brain, that doesn't seem to make sense, either. That's a whole lot of people! But it isn't easy and I still don't know how to make sense of it, because I cannot see their perspective. So I might never understand. But whether or not I understand or not never means I have to agree with them. It also doesn't mean I need to tell them they are X name, never listen to what they have to say about anything, etc.
I guess you can find vitriol on any and all sides somewhere on social media. I think the difference, to me anyway, is that unlike on the right, any dehumanizing language you may see on the left does not come from the President, Vice-President, Speaker of the House, Senators, Congresspeople, governors or most other leaders. And to me, that’s a big difference.
Good point! Agreed, I do think that difference matters.
I think you're very articulate! Sharon's hope has infected me, though. I kind of believe like Mayor Pete, that if the Trump/Project 2025 side loses yet again (2018 mid-terms, 2020 election, 2022 mid-terms) I think the extreme right fever will break and we can return to some sort of normalcy, only better. The U.K. did it, Poland did it, Venezuela tried to do it and France narrowly avoided having to do it. We can do it, too.
Thank you for saying this for me!!!!! I need glasses and my eyes are blurring trying to type on my phone but you said exactly what I wanted to say, so thank you!
Its exacerbated by social media. We can type comments in outrage defending our position without the inconvenience of making eye contact with a real, live person. The compassion and connection is lost. Even as one who rarely engages in online debates, simply the act of reading comment sections for many years leads to this polarized, inhumane view of humanity! My in person conversations are much more nuanced and compassionate.
I agree with the diagnosis, but the prescription to cure it - I don’t want to shift all the responsibility, but it’s got to come from the top! I think there are lots of Americans willing to seek and understand the other side, even with their own biases. But many of us on both sides feel threatened, and that brings out the good in no one. We need our leaders to come out and demonstrate good will and good faith, and leaders who are willing to SPEAK AGAINST the extremism on their own side. It’s hard to compromise on a higher level when there is general panic in the nation. And it’s hard to make headway with someone of opposite values when we’re constantly being told they are the enemy.
Not to say that it doesn’t matter that we all try to reach across the aisle in our personal lives. It does! It shows us what’s possible. It gives us new perspectives. And I like that Sharon is giving us a name for this. I just think that we must push our leaders to give us examples of the cure before we can expect things to change on a large scale.
What if, instead of waiting for the people at the top to be better leaders, the people they lead start to work together to find common ground? In so doing, other leaders who reflect the shared values of cooperation and mutual respect can be identified and elected to replace the current leaders who are motivated by political narcissism.
I definitely don’t want to wait for leadership from the top! I just feel as if our efforts keep getting stuck in slow motion. But you are correct 💕 We are all accountable for creating the right atmosphere for change and tomorrow’s leaders! And it is about more than today’s political climate.
I agree we are each accountable, and we each make change. I tell everyone I’m nonpartisan so I can talk to everyone, because I believe I can learn from everyone. I only belong to nonpartisan organizations (League of Women Voters, Moms Demand Action). I’m always looking for common ground. If I can’t find it, I work to build it. Then together we attempt to agree on common sense, and use it for the common good.
I think you hit the nail on the head, Caroline. Yes we can do our small part, but our leaders need to lead!! I’m going to be vulnerable here- I am politically homeless. I identity as conservative. But still homeless. In the 2020 election I voted independently. I wanted to vote for the republican nominee but just couldn’t. After the election I hoped so desperately that the president would seek to unite us- because that is what he ran on…yet I didn’t happen. Time after time he made remarks and did things that showed me the opposite of unity. Honestly this sounds dramatic, but it broke my heart as a conservative American woman. I was so very hopeful that he would unite us!!!! Instead I felt ostracized and unheard.
And right now I don’t see either 2024 nominee at this point uniting us. They both lie to get votes and it’s ridiculous. And it’s really sad. Power corrupts.
So we just keep our heads down, live our best lives, do our small part and hope for the best, I guess.
I honestly do not think unity is a reasonable goal. President Biden supports, IMO, mainstream ideas.... infrastructure improvement, addressing climate change, women's' healthcare, lowering prescription drug costs, supporting workers' rights, common sense gun laws. If those issues cannot be agreed on, it will continue to be them against us.
I hear you, Kathleen, and agree with these examples and that these are mainstream ideas.
I also think it's especially difficult to unite when each side has their own biased sources for current affairs/news, and wonder what any president or VP could do to unite folks right now in this climate. But I am thankful to Sharon for nudging me to think about this more critically. I live in a northern liberal city, and as I said upthread, I'm genuinely curious to hear the experiences of folks who have different experiences and perspectives, even if they don't align with mine. This feels like a good space for that.
Conservative/republican ideas are common sense ideas. Honestly both parties largely support similar ideas, they just go get there differently. And until we stop saying “them against us” we will absolutely never unify. We are all in this together👉to have a better future for those behind us.
Thanks for being vulnerable and sharing your perspective, Shannon. I'm genuinely curious about your thoughts on the things the next president can do to promote unity. What does that look like to you approach/policy-wise?
Well first of all, they can choose unifying Veeps. Maybe a more moderate politician? They can do this instead of choosing someone for the sole purpose of bringing on more votes just so they can stay in power. When Biden chose Kamala- one of the most liberal politicians there are, it totally discounted his touts of “unity” in America.
Thanks for sharing more of your perspective, Shannon. It's such a huge issue to tackle, and so many folks in our country want political outcomes immediately because we're used to the immediacy that comes with other aspects of our lives. But small steps are a start, right? So, what do you think are one or two small steps the next president could take once in office where you'd feel like they were unifying us — whether or not they're who you voted for?
I'm also equally curious to hear other people's opinions on this.
My story is so similar.. I am just trying to be positive and hope that whoever is elected will do what’s best for the country.. and with the checks an balances, nothing horrible will happen.. How’s that for “optimism?” lol .. there’s always 2028!
Many of us aren’t at all certain that 2028 will host a typical, nationwide election at all, based on the words of the leader of what I must consider the opposition. Within the last week, former President Trump has told an audience that they needed to vote for him this year because there wouldn’t be another election. Now, I am impressed by his ability to give separate messages with the same words, but this one is his “best” performance yet. One audience seemed to have heard that there’ll be no need for a 2028 election because by then, he’ll have fixed everything. When asked to say what he meant, he said he was just speaking to Christians who, he said, traditionally don’t vote in sufficiently large numbers. The only Christian-related interpretation I can think of is that he’s saying the prophecies of Revelation will be coming to fruition.
Riiiiight…. However, he demonstrated his disdain for elections he loses in the days preceding January 6, and more so on that day.
There is no calm, accepting conversation possible with those who think they’re right in overthrowing the duly elected leaders of our country. And that is only one of a fair amount of topics on which I see no middle ground. Sorry, Sharon. What’s the only peaceful response when someone tells me that the 2020 election was “stolen,” except to walk away?
Yes! 🤞🏼
This piece and the accompanying comments section are so rich with insight and wisdom. One thing I especially appreciate about Sharon’s writing is the bravery to really invite us ALL to look at our own contributions to what is happening around us. I’ve been guilty of distancing myself from those I fervently disagree with, and am now wondering how my withholding of community (especially because my identities allow me to show up safely in most spaces) may be unknowingly contributing to the radicalization I disdain and fear so much. Such a thought provoking read! Thank you, Sharon and community here.
Right? I am learning a lot from reading the comments. Y’all are the best and give me so much to think about.
Group B's motivation is that their freedom is under attack from group A. Understanding motivation is important in the situation you describe. If group A's motivation is to force group B to adhere to their way of thinking, what will stop them? There is no moral equivalence when only one group is the only one who is allowed to set the rules. If group A is allowed to set rules that kill members of group A and B. The moral choice is to stop Group A from being allowed to set the rules for everyone.
The world has been faced with this dilemma many times in the past. It has never ended well without a lot of pain and suffering along the way.
There are always some people who will want to exert power over others and will use what ever excuse they can to justify it.
I think you will also find that historically group A leaders never really want to live under the rules they want to impose on others themselves they just want to control group B.
Thanks for writing this. When I read this edition of The Preamble, the point that stuck out to me was: Group A's beliefs and subsequent actions caused members of both groups to die.
Group B's beliefs and actions caused Group A to feel feelings they didn't like.
This is NOT the same thing!
Then it turns out that members of Group A made conscious choices to "carry out terrorist attacks" and "plan political violence." How is Group B at fault for the choices of Group A? Group B is responsible for their own behaviors and actions, just as Group A is responsible for their own responses to those behaviors and actions.
This Preamble and all of the comments have given me a lot to think about. I listened to an interview recently with Pete Buttigieg where he gave his perspective on comments made about childless individuals in America. I thought he was calm, insightful, and articulate. I did not sense in his response a moral narcissism but a clarification that just because you don’t have children doesn’t mean you’re not invested in the good of the country.
So how do we go about dispelling misinformation that exists so rampantly in our society? I don’t believe that we should attack one another and demean each other, but how do we actually get to a place where we can engage in more civil discourse? I do believe compromise is the answer, along with treating one another with civility, but I’m not sure that I see that in some of our current leaders and lawmakers.
This is a great concept and one that I will revisit with others especially during the next 3 months! Per one of Sharon's suggestions, I reached out to my older brother who's a huge Trump fan, seeking to understand him better. I spent a few hours listening to his strong and impassioned views on multiple topics. The key was listening. Honestly, something shifted for me, in a positive way. Even though I still strongly disagree with many of his beliefs, I respect him more. Listening allowed me to understand him better and it provided clarity instead of fear around what I assumed he believed. Many times during our convo, I said "Oh I see why he believes that" (even though to myself, I felt his beliefs were based on misinformation). It does start with us, and trust in the listening process may have surprising benefits.
That's great, but did he sit there and patiently listen to your views and did anything shift for him? Or was this just a one-sided conversation? Someone important in my life holds complete opposite views of me, and what I find is that I can be curious as all heck, listen, coddle, hold space, understand, etc.., and he does *none* of that in return. He's not curious, not interested in hearing my views, doesn't read across the spectrum, just loves explaining his own views, loudly, and monopolizing conversations. So, yes, that's great if it's mutual, but when it's one-sided, I think it defeats the purpose b/c it only emboldens them that they don't need to listen or understand, they just get to espouse. My "next step" (for myself) is to make further conversations about my "noticing" -- "I see I ask you all about your beliefs and ask questions b/c I want to understand, I'm curious why you don't ask about mine and why you won't feel the need to understand me or my beliefs." -- *that* will be progress b/c *that* is the conversation that matters.
Yes, I see your point! I was so focused on trying to take a different approach that I didn’t realize how quiet I was and no he didn’t really ask me my thoughts. The few times I did speak he came right back, so not an exchange. Even though as you say, it was one-sided, next time, I will be aware of this be more vocal and maybe ask for more give and take. Thanks for this perspective!
Absolutely! It's a start, right?! It's the beginning of a series (hopefully) of conversations. I will be curious how it goes to bring him around and express your own curiosities around his (seemingly) lack of curiosity. The key (for me) is not to do it in an attacking way, more of a "noticing" or a "curious" -- "I'm noticing that... (you're explaining your positions but not asking about mine) (or whatever)..., is there anything about me or my positions that you're curious about? Any questions I can answer for you?" Good luck deepening this relationship and sharing with your brother. Hopefully he's on board for some reciprocity!
Thanks for the good luck!
But isn’t it progress that you’re simply listening to him, regardless of he does the same for you? That’s what it’s all about isn’t it? It isn’t about what the other side of the conversation does or does not do, it’s about us. That’s where the change happens.
For myself, I disagree; though, I don't dispute that that might work for you, it's just not how I view "being in relationship" with someone. For me, relationships require reciprocity. Where there is no reciprocity, there is no sustainability to that relationship. It will falter and die.
So, no, I don't think mere one-sided listening is "what it's all about." I think it's a start, but without that second part to the conversation, which I noted above, the conversation around the curiosity of the noticing that the other person isn't interested in my views etc.., then I think the whole inquiry falls flat. Get me to that second part, the part where we converse about why they're not curious about me or my beliefs -- for me, that's where the true learning will occur -- and only *then* might there be an opening into an exchange of ideas. But that one-sided stuff, for the sake of saying "I listened," for the sake of feeling "better," for the sake of patting myself on the back for "trying," I'm done with that -- rather, get me to the second part -- "I noticed you're not asking about my beliefs and that it seems like you're not interested in learning more about why I believe what I believe, tell me more about that, I'm curious why you're not curious, can we talk about that?"
No, I totally see what you’re saying. From a relationship reciprocity perspective yes I totally understand. And sometimes it’s so important for boundaries to be set in those relationships. But just from a personal well-being perspective it’s progress for yourself that you’ve listened- even though it hasn’t been reciprocated.
I think the reason it is still progress is because in a week, a month, a year, the other person could have their curiosity sparked, and they might remember this conversation and think oh I should ask them because they will listen and respond since they were able to be curious and ask me about my beliefs.