View from here: Up for debate

Early this year, at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore encouraged an audience of Republicans and Democrats to improve the civility of their political discourse, especially with those they disagreed with. The two don’t agree on many issues but have struck up an unlikely friendship built on mutual respect. The theme of that event, sponsored by this magazine and Brigham Young University’s Wheatley Institute, was how to disagree better.
That night, speakers across the political spectrum — from ABC’s Donna Brazile, former chair of the Democratic National Committee, to The Atlantic’s Peter Wehner, a former speechwriter for three Republican presidents — spoke on improving civility in public life. This has been a focus for this magazine all year, but I was still surprised to see how a fairly innocuous plea to be polite was used against Cox. One of his political opponents called the initiative “a leftist, Marxist tactic to get people to drop their opinions,” and Cox was roundly booed at the state’s GOP convention. Throughout the campaign season the initiative was mocked, in a state known for its kindness.
I thought about this as I read Frank Bruni’s “Persecution Complex” in this month’s issue, an excerpt from his book “Age of Grievance.” The New York Times columnist argues that these days, people on both the left and the right feel attacked, even dehumanized, by the other side, and rather than seeking to understand each other — or heaven forbid, realize they might be wrong about a particular issue — they retreat deeper and deeper into their respective echo chambers.
Over the past year, inspired by that night at the National Cathedral, I’ve made a concerted effort to practice disagreeing better. I’ll be honest, it hasn’t been easy. There are times I’ve felt insulted. At times I’ve been offended at the suggestion I’m blind to my own biases, uneducated or not that intelligent. In my worst moments, I’ve responded in kind. I’ve often left these exchanges feeling like I let my emotions get the best of me.
But disagreeing better, I’ve learned, doesn’t mean we have to compromise our own beliefs or values. It’s OK if we feel some level of frustration with someone who holds an entirely different worldview. And it can put a strain on a relationship.
But we shouldn’t let differences of political ideology end friendships, or worse yet, make us think of our friends and family as enemies. This may sound like hyperbole, but America is a country built on the idea of disagreeing better. That’s because it’s the bedrock of pluralism, the very foundation of a diverse society that draws on the strengths of people of wildly different backgrounds, ethnicities and belief systems.
And here’s one more thing I’ve learned: during a tense political season like the one we’ve just endured, it’s easy to forget our lives are so much bigger than politics. When things have gotten heated, I’ve found I can almost always find common ground on some other topic. And that has reminded me that our political leanings don’t make us who we are.
By the time many of you read this, the voting will be over, or close to it. One side will undoubtedly feel aggrieved, or worse. But regardless of who wins, true friendship and family ties must persist and survive this election. And the next one, too.
This story appears in the November 2024 issue of Deseret Magazine. Learn more about how to subscribe.