Tips For Conservatives: How To Be Better Heard By The Other Side

I don’t know how many times I’ve watched a conservative make a point that I basically agreed with, only to think: Why did you say it like that?

The argument may be reasonable. The concern may be legitimate. But sometimes the first thing out of someone’s mouth is phrased in a way that can make someone immediately stop listening if they don’t already agree.

Conservatives are often portrayed as cold, uncaring, or lacking empathy. I don’t think that’s an accurate description of most conservatives I’ve known. But I do think conservatives sometimes communicate in ways that reinforce that perception unnecessarily.

Say the Part You Think Should Be Obvious

One of the easiest ways to lose people is to skip over the human part of an issue because you assume everyone already knows how you feel.

Maybe it seems obvious to you that you care about children being killed in a school shooting. Maybe you think everyone knows you care about a woman facing an incredibly difficult pregnancy decision, even if you disagree with the choice she makes. Maybe you assume it’s understood that a transgender person deserves to be treated with dignity even when you disagree about transgender policy.

Say it anyway.

Not because empathy is a debate tactic. If it’s genuine, it’s part of what you actually believe. And if the person across from you doesn’t hear it, they may interpret everything that follows through a completely different lens.

Ben Shapiro famously says that “facts don’t care about your feelings.” There’s an important truth in that. Something doesn’t become less true because it makes us uncomfortable. However:

Acknowledging someone’s fear, pain, or circumstances doesn’t require you to change the facts, abandon your principles, or agree with their solution. It means remembering that you’re not communicating with a fact. You’re communicating with a person.

If the first thing someone hears after a mass shooting is a defense of gun rights, they may hear, “My guns matter more than those people.” That may not be remotely what you mean. But if it isn’t, don’t communicate it that way.

Look for Common Ground—Not Automatic Middle Ground

Independent doesn’t mean finding the midpoint between two political positions, and neither does having a productive conversation.

Sometimes the right answer may be entirely on one side. Sometimes compromise makes sense. Sometimes neither side has it right.

Before arguing about what should be done, it helps to figure out what you actually agree on. You may both want people to be safer, have access to medical care, or be treated fairly while disagreeing completely about how to get there. Saying the obvious part helps you identify the common ground. On many political issues, I find that we actually have a similar end goal and disagree on how to reach it.

Common ground doesn’t settle the argument. It helps identify what you’re actually arguing about.

Sometimes the Real Disagreement Is Underneath the Argument

Not every political disagreement is really about competing solutions to the same problem.

Sometimes the underlying premise is different.

Abortion is the obvious example. Someone who believes an unborn child is a human life isn’t simply proposing a different public policy for women facing unwanted pregnancies. They’re starting from a fundamentally different moral premise than someone who does not assign the fetus the same moral status. If that’s the disagreement, arguing only about a particular week limit or exception can miss what the other person is actually telling you.

You don’t have to accept their premise. But identifying it makes for a much more useful conversation than repeatedly arguing past each other.

If Their Solution Is Wrong, What’s Yours?

This may be the biggest communication problem I see.

Someone identifies a problem and proposes a solution. Conservatives explain why that solution is misguided, unconstitutional, ineffective, too expensive, or likely to create unintended consequences.

Sometimes they’re right.

But if you agree the original problem exists, that’s only half an answer.

If gun control won’t make people safer, what will? If government-run or government-expanded health care isn’t the answer, how should someone who can’t afford medical care get it? If a particular bathroom or sports policy creates problems, what rule handles those problems better?

It’s much easier for someone to hear “I think there’s a better solution” than “your solution is wrong, and I’m done talking.”

How This Changes the Conversation

Abortion: Don’t Let the Mother Disappear

Years ago, I saw a post showing compassion for an abortion survivor. I responded with something along the lines of, That’s great, but can you also start by acknowledging the mother—the woman who got to a point where she felt like she needed to have an abortion?

I wasn’t asking anyone to change their position on abortion. I wasn’t asking them to say her decision was right. I was asking them to acknowledge her.

The amount of resistance that simple suggestion received stuck with me.

If you’re pro-life, you can believe abortion ends a human life while also acknowledging that a pregnant woman may be scared, financially overwhelmed, facing serious medical concerns, dealing with an abusive relationship, or confronting a situation she never expected.

Recognizing her circumstances doesn’t require abandoning your belief about the unborn child. If you’re asking people to recognize the life and value of the unborn child, don’t communicate in a way that seems to forget the life and value of the woman carrying it.

And once you’ve acknowledged both, explain what you actually want society to do. If the goal is fewer abortions, what would help women who feel abortion is their only or best option? Maternal care? Adoption? Support for vulnerable mothers? More responsibility from fathers? Preventing unwanted pregnancies?

There may still be a fundamental moral disagreement. That’s okay. The point isn’t to manufacture a middle ground. It’s to make sure the mother doesn’t disappear from the argument while you’re explaining why the unborn child matters.

Guns: Say Clearly That You Want People to Be Safe

If you’re responding to a shooting or an argument about gun violence, start by saying the thing you may think shouldn’t need to be said: you want people to be safe.

Then explain where you disagree. Maybe you believe the proposed restriction infringes on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Maybe you think it targets law-abiding gun owners rather than the people committing crimes. Maybe you don’t believe it would meaningfully reduce the shootings people are trying to prevent.

But if you agree shootings are a real problem, don’t stop there.

What would you do instead? Better enforcement of existing laws? School security? Mental-health interventions? Changes to prosecution or sentencing? Something else?

You don’t have to accept someone else’s solution to demonstrate that you care about the problem they’re trying to solve. But if you’re asking them to reject their solution, giving them an alternative is a much stronger conversation than simply explaining why they’re wrong.

And if those alternatives are the same ones we’ve been proposing for years while the problem continues, there’s another fair question: How do we actually move them forward?

Health Care: “That’s Not Government’s Job” Doesn’t Finish the Argument

Start with the agreement: people should be able to get necessary medical care without the cost destroying their financial lives. You don’t have to support government-run health care to acknowledge that getting sick shouldn’t mean choosing between treatment and financial ruin. A conservative can make a serious argument that government is not the best institution to run or finance more of America’s health-care system.

But “the government shouldn’t do it” only tells me who you don’t want solving the problem. If your answer is more competition, transparent prices, health savings accounts, different insurance rules, lower drug costs, increased provider supply, charity care, or some combination of market reforms, explain how those ideas get us from where we are now to something better. How does the person who needs cancer treatment, insulin, surgery, or basic medical care actually get the care they need at a price they can afford?

Conservatives have been talking about many of these ideas for years, while people across the political spectrum continue to agree that the status quo isn’t good enough. That’s where repeating the standard arguments becomes frustrating. If we agree there’s a problem and we agree the current system isn’t working well enough, eventually we have to get beyond explaining why the other side’s solution is wrong. What are we actually going to do about it?

Acknowledge the problem. Establish the shared goal. Then argue about the best way to get there. Rejecting the other side’s proposal isn’t the same thing as solving the problem.

Transgender Issues: Don’t Lose Sight of the Person

Before debating bathrooms, sports, pronouns, or medical treatment, remember that you’re talking about a human being who wants to live a happy, fulfilling life and be treated with dignity. If you’re approaching this from a Christian perspective, that person is created in God’s image, too. You can believe that without agreeing with every idea or policy surrounding transgender issues.

Then be specific about what you actually disagree with. Adults living as they choose, medical decisions involving children, competitive sports, bathrooms, and pronouns aren’t one giant policy question.

Bathrooms are a good example of why it’s worth following a policy beyond the principle behind it.

Which Bathroom Should They Use?

Before thinking about politics or policy, look at each person and make the choice that feels most natural. Which restroom would you expect each person to use?

Person A

This is Patricio Manuel

Professional boxer and transgender man.
Born female.

You chose:

Under a biological-sex restroom rule, Patricio would be required to use WOMEN’S ROOM.

MEN’S WOMEN’S

Person B

This is Blaire White

Political commentator and transgender woman.
Born male.

You chose:

Under a biological-sex restroom rule, Blaire would be required to use MEN’S ROOM.

MEN’S WOMEN’S

SEE RESULTS

Person A photo: Aswadhin, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Cropped from original.

Person B photo: Joey Sarson, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Cropped from original.

You may still believe biological sex should determine restroom access. But were those the results you expected? Did seeing how the rule would apply to actual people make you think about it differently?

You don’t have to change your position. But if you’re asking someone else to accept your solution, you should be willing to follow it through to the people who would actually have to live under it.

Empathy Isn’t Surrender

I think some conservatives resist this kind of language because they’re afraid acknowledging the other side’s concern means conceding the argument.

It doesn’t.

You can understand why someone wants tighter gun laws and still oppose the restrictions. You can understand why someone wants government to guarantee health coverage and still believe that’s the wrong solution. You can understand why a woman might consider an abortion while believing abortion is morally wrong. You can treat a transgender person with dignity while disagreeing about particular policies.

Understanding another person’s concern is not the same thing as agreeing with their conclusion.

In fact, being able to state the other side’s concern fairly usually makes your own argument stronger. It shows that you’ve considered more than the easiest version of the position you’re opposing.

Are You Trying to Win the Argument or Be Heard?

There’s a version of political communication designed to make the people who already agree with you cheer. Cable news, social media, political rallies, and fundraising emails are full of it.

That’s different from talking to someone who actually disagrees with you.

If you want that person to hear you, start with the human concern. Find the common ground that really exists. Figure out whether you’re disagreeing about the goal, the premise, or the solution. Explain why you reject their proposal. Then tell them what you’d do instead—and be willing to think through what your own solution actually produces.

You still may not persuade them. They may understand you perfectly and decide you’re wrong.

That’s okay.

A productive political conversation doesn’t require agreement. It requires two people who understand what the other is actually saying well enough to disagree about the real thing.

And yes, liberals can be terrible at this too. We’ll get to them.