How to get Democrats and Republicans talking

Democracy is a challenging idea. It is easy enough to favor a government that reflects the will of the people we like. But what about a government that reflects the will of people we hate or who seem to reject the idea of ​​democracy altogether? On January 20, Donald Trump will return to the White House, not because of a violent coup, a secret conspiracy to “find votes” or even the anti-majority quirks of the Electoral College, but because we had an election and Trump received the most votes.

If the outcome of the 2024 presidential election makes you fear for the health of American democracy, you should ask yourself what we can do to preserve democracy without trashing the very principle we are trying to save: That government should reflect the will of the people.

The only realistic answer is some form of dialogue. If the majority of citizens want to vote for an outcome that we think is wrong, then the only democratic way to prevent that outcome is to try to talk to them and give them an opportunity to change their minds.

Of course, people have been telling us for eight years that we need to do a better job talking and listening to those we disagree with. One of the reasons this has not worked so well is that when we think of ‘political dialogue’ we usually think of how we can get our political opponents to admit they are wrong. But right now, when Democrats and Republicans not only to disagree, but to hate and fear each otherpublicly admitting that we are wrong and that “those people” are right can be so difficult that our the brain just won’t let us do it.

Fortunately, there is another way to talk about politics. In my new book, “Persuasion, integration and deliberative democracy: The will of the whole,” describe an approach to political dialogue that the early 20th-century philosopher Mary Parker Follett called “integration.” In an inclusive dialogue, we are not trying to decide who is right or wrong, but to work together to solve our problems in ways that are satisfactory to all parties. To do this, we try to put aside our surface-level, zero-sum disagreements and focus on the desires and concerns that drive those disagreements.

For example, the political dialogue about race in American politics today often involves debates about big questions of whether America is a racist country or if DEI is just another form of racism. These debates could only be resolved if one side is willing to admit it’s wrong, and while that’s not likely to happen, we keep trying, which often only ends up pushing each side further.

But what if we asked different questions? Are there things we could do to reduce racial disparities in the economy, law, and education that would benefit all Americans, regardless of skin color? Are there ways to help people from marginalized racial backgrounds thrive in organizations without making white Americans feel guilty about their own racial backgrounds?

These are not easy questions to answer. But there are no more zero-sum debates. Instead, these are hard problems that would require Americans across the political spectrum to work together to solve them. And we know that working toward a common goal with those we hate or fear can reduce prejudice. So even if we don’t try to convince people to change their minds, participating in the integration can sometimes lead them to do so on their own.

This may sound impossible, but the world’s best negotiators already use integration in dialogues between opponents who are so deeply divided that persuasion is no longer possible. Successful lawmakers tell us that integration—not persuasion—is how bipartisan deals are forged in Congress. And for career diplomats like the former US ambassador Stuart Eizenstatthis form of dialogue is the only effective approach to negotiations between groups or nations that have literally tried to kill each other.

If integration can help resolve conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, then why not republicans and democrats in our own “troubled” period? Given the stakes for our country and the election results, integration might be worth a shot.

Graham Wright is a research associate professor at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University.