I joined a conservative podcast last night and it was an experience, to say the least. I have two main takeaways from it:
First, I remain convinced that it is important to continue discussions with people with whom we firmly disagree.
Second, while the discussion might help create a shared sense of reality and lead to some agreement on previously disputed facts, it can be immensely frustrating to do. Making it vitally important to remain calm and civil, if you can.
Of the topics we discussed, I’ll just summarize our brief conversation on the attempted coup on January 6th, 2021 as my main reason to not support Trump, in fact — to loathe him.
When I first brought up the topic of 1/6, it was immediately met with incredulity and dismissal. My interlocutor had no knowledge of the ongoing criminal cases involving fraudulent electors and affirmed that Donald Trump could not materially benefit from those who peacefully (as he said) entered the Capitol on 1/6/21 and therefore couldn’t have wanted it to take place. In fact, my sanity was brought into question for merely bringing up the topic as a serious matter.
Fortunately, the host of this podcast (who disagrees with me on plenty on religion and politics) acts in good faith and was helpful in creating some agreements for the sake of discussion. For example, when January 6 was asserted by my interlocutor as people peacefully entering the Capitol, the host agreed with me that it is true that both a violent mob attacked the Capitol and some people did appear to enter peacefully. It’s a small, but significant point of agreement as it allowed the conversation to move forward and kept it firmly rooted in facts. I’ve seen many conversation simply break down at this point. Agreements for discussion’s sake and good faith argumentation is important and isn’t owned exclusively by liberals.
Long story short, we talked about 1/6 for quite a while and it got to the point where we had to sign off. Our host, again acting in good faith, brought us to a point of agreement: Trump may have acted extralegally to preserve power because he and his supporters firmly believed votes were stolen in the 2020 election. This is another small but important step together in a common direction. My interlocutor became open to facts pertaining to a violent riot at the Capitol on 1/6/21 when he previously wasn’t and is eager to have another discussion. Contrast this with the beginning of the discussion when the idea itself was met with dismissal.
In the span of an hour, a civil conversation with political opponents ultimately didn’t change anyone’s mind about supporting Trump (or in my case being firmly against him). What did happen though, and this is key, is my interlocutor and the host admitted that a violent riot took place. When we talk again, I’ll be sure we discuss Tina Peters in Arizona as well as the ongoing case against Michigan legislators who are charged with signing fradulent electoral documents to throw the state to Trump, despite him losing it soundly. All of this, I will contest took place to benefit Trump and with his knowledge.
This is a conversation I could easily have in my echo chambers, but I’m not sure of the good that it does. I find it exceedingly valuable to have these difficult discussions with people who find my ideas crazy, but after an hour think that perhaps I’m not looney at all and that there might be something wrong with (some of) Trump’s actions.
Thanks for reading,
DP
