Why are there more "Blues" than "Reds" in dialogue spaces?

As I've (re)dived into the world of political bridging and dialogue work the past few months,* one of the questions that surfaces in multiple venues is how to bring more conservative voices to the table.

Organizations such as Braver Angels strive for a balance of views at their events, and frequently post that events are closed to more progressive registration unless the registrant can bring along a "Red" friend to the event.

I am called to express my current sense-making of this matter, which I am sure will continue to evolve. There's a few ways I think we can view this imbalance in political dialogue work. These framings might seem contradictory, but to me each one provides a piece of the puzzle in how to think about bridging social divides.

1) A progressive worldview is inherently more compatible with interest in dialogue work.

Liberal values such as multiculturalism, diversity, and/or tolerance lend themselves to curiosity about the Other.

Of course, many people within the left-of-center spectrum are not curious about opposing perspectives. One driver of this is trauma - it's hard to be curious about why someone opposes laws requiring enthusiastic consent for sexual activity when you have experienced sexual violation. I have found in my own journey that boundaries are important. While I advocate for curiosity about differing perspectives, I believe this is only effective and helpful if it is within one's "growth edge" and does not send us into our "panic zone."

If a conversation is sending me into that panic zone, I have learned to allow myself to have healthy boundaries and withdraw from the conversation, seeking support for triggers that came up. At the same time, I am willing to experiment with stepping outside of my comfort zone for the sake of being an informed and engaged citizen. As I have found healing over the years for my own traumatic experiences with sexual violation, I have a little more space in my psyche to empathize** with why people hold views that some might label misogynistic. This is bridging work, and in a way is part of my own healing probably deserving of commentary beyond the scope of this current reflection. It is also not mutually exclusive with being angry about those beliefs existing. It's an "and" universe.

Despite the traumas or other reasons that people may carry for not engaging in dialogue "across the aisle," it does seem empirically true that left-of-center folks are showing up in dialogue spaces at greater numbers. The conservative worldview emphasizes the "me and mine" value of loyalty. Thus it seems reasonable that showing up at a dialogue event such as those put on by Braver Angels might be more likely to provoke fears of social ostracization, or just be less appealing on its face, to a conservative person. (Although this value of loyalty and discourse of betrayal also has also rapidly grown on the US activist spaces I've followed over the past decade or so, and is part of how I became disillusioned with New Left "nexus"-oriented spaces.)

I am saying this as a matter of observation/theory, not a moralistic judgment. When I have access to my forebrain, curiosity, and the desire to understand, I find the insights about values and political ideology gained from social scientists helpful tools for working toward a society I want to live in, not a hammer to bludgeon people with.

2) People on the right-of-center spectrum may be experiencing more fear/trauma than traditional liberals, or at least have less resources to deal with it.

If curiosity is a product of a 'soothed-enough' nervous system, then we can examine the unequal distribution of progressives and conservatives in dialogue spaces forensically. Whoever is not showing up might feel less safe to do so - and maybe just less safe in general.

I need to define at least one term here. What do I mean by resource? I am using it the way I learned at BayNVC's Leadership Program, in material developed by NVC trainer Miki Kashtan. Resources are inherently related to power, and can be both internal and external.

External resources to deal with fear and trauma might include:

• money and/or insurance to help access (good) therapy

• community agencies/social services that help meet physical & mental health needs

• membership in a religious community and accompanying pastoral care

• safe enough housing and public spaces in which one's nervous system can relax

• supportive family who will provide a safety net and/or emotional support in crisis

Internal resources to help with fear and trauma might include:

• secure attachment with parents or other trusted adults in childhood, giving a base of resilience to cope with subsequent challenges

  • This could stem from being read to as a child; being told "I love you" and "You can do this" (which comes back to external resources).

• a sense of spiritual connection/support, such as the feeling that God, the Universe, or some other metaphysical entity wants what's best for you/loves you

Internal and external resources are inherently related, as may be clear from these lists. A stressed-out single parent living in poverty may be less able to set up a child for secure attachment, at least without programs like WIC, food stamps, subsidized childcare, etc to take the edge off.

(This is why I continue to generally vote blue, despite my frustrations with US partisanship. Out of the two major options in the US, blues tend to craft policy that increases resources to people. I believe that a lack of such resources will only lead to greater fear and untreated trauma and decrease our collective ability to engage in transpartisan dialogue.)

This connects back to why "Reds" may be experiencing more fear and trauma without resources to deal with it, and thus are less likely to show up in dialogue spaces. People living in Red areas generally have less social services, because that is the policy they vote for/are stuck in a cycle of.

Conservative folks tend to have more children and have them younger, for what I'm sure is a wide variety of cultural and social reasons, but probably including lack of access to reproductive health options. When young people who have inherited intergenerational trauma have children younger, there is less time for individual healing and personal development before those patterns are passed on to the next generation. I feel safe making the conjecture that this leads to default modes of child-rearing including authoritarianism and corporal punishment being perpetuated, due to stress and just less time to question their effects or achieve the nervous system regulation necessary to choose other parenting strategies that will lead to the next generation having that ability to soothe without lashing out.

(I know I'm generalizing and not backing up all my claims with evidence as much as I'd like. I'm sure if this post gets any kind of audience there will be critiques, and hey, maybe we can dialogue about it, do more research, and I can learn something. But I can speak from personal experience spending time under the care of a casual, progressive-leaning California mom vs. a conservative-leaning dad and step-mom from the South: one of those experiences was much more authoritarian than the other.)

Red areas also tend to be more rural and are less likely to have high speed WiFi, which could limit people's ability to participate in online dialogue events. And population being sparser could be a limitation on in-person dialogue activities.

In general, I'd hypothesize a correlation between poverty and lack of participation in dialogue-for-democracy spaces, just as there is a correlation between employment status and general activism involvement - years ago someone pointed out to me that activist circles tend to be made up of college students and retirees, because working individuals/parents just don't have the time or energy. I experienced this myself as I entered the more traditional workforce.

It turns out my hypothesis would not make sense as a reason for lower Red participation though, given that Reds tend to have higher income on average. I include this here as an example of frank humility about being wrong. That being said, I would hypothesize that even left-of-center folks who actually show up to dialogue spaces have higher-than-average incomes for our political demographic, but I don't have any data to analyze this one way or the other. I just know from experience that paying the bills can take away brain space from activities further up the needs hierarchy.

Parenting approaches, population density, and socioeconomic status are just a few factors I think may contribute to conservative people showing up to dialogue spaces in lesser numbers.

3) Progressives focused on dialogue work have not yet figured out how to help conservatives feel safe enough to participate - because we have not figured out how to do this even on our own side of the aisle.

If (a) one's sense of safety is dependent on being around others who think similarly, and (b) one's cultural/ideological values point to violence rather than communication as the solution to political tension (going back to moral foundations theory cited in my first point), what motivation is there to participate in cross-ideological dialogue?

Either people on the right will be "too comfortable" to have any motivation to dialogue (for example, living in a conservative-majority area and being unconcerned about things changing), or, when they get uncomfortable, their outlook - and nervous systems - tell them to seek authoritarian, rather than collaborative, solutions.

A talking point of New Left activism is that people need to be made uncomfortable, if their comfort is at others' expense. Tying this back into external vs. internal resources, there are two kinds of "comfortable" - the kind that is based in material comforts, and the kind that is based in internal resources which can give rise to distress tolerance. And while, as stated, these two things cannot be fully separated, perhaps the conservative experience in America is one of not knowing how to be emotionally comfortable, or tolerate distress, without physical comforts that may be hoarded at another's expense.

Now I get to talk about my favorite concept that I've never shared: emotional socialism. Just as those on the left with a socialist bent advocate that material (external) resources be shared out "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs," I advocate for a similar principle to be applied for internal resources.

In my 'peak Facebook' days, I started butting heads with people over the question of engaging in dialogue with people with divergent points of view. I was called a Nazi and the like for my pro-dialogue stance. I think some of that came out of my peers' discomfort with their perception that I was expecting them to also engage in such dialogue. At the time I was not able to clearly articulate, at least not to their satisfaction, that my own willingness to engage in dialogue work did not imply an expectation they also do so if it would send them into their panic zone. Rather, I had some capability to engage with opposing viewpoints in a non-hostile way, I was willing to devote energy into doing so in hopes of working toward the world I want. I was acting within my ability.

Teasing this out gets hairy, because it partly involves a clash of theories of change (e.g. whether dialogue or no-platforming is the more effective strategy for desired social change). It also touches on issues related to giving out cookies - if I even appreciate someone for being willing to engage in a dialogue, some say that is setting far too low of a bar for those who may hold views like white supremacy. Yet this type of engagement is exactly how people like Daryl Davis and Matthew Stevenson have inspired real change for some who hold such views.

R. Derek Black's case demonstrates the powerful need for community and support when questioning and possibly stepping away from views one has held for one's entire life and upon which the basis of secure family/community attachment is built. This is part of why cancel culture is so counterproductive: people are most vulnerable when questioning deeply entrenched beliefs, and the hostile atmosphere of cancel culture-oriented spaces discourages vulnerability.

This is not to say that those who advocate for cancel culture-type strategies should instead be the ones who are shouted down and over-ridden. These folks are my current final frontier for extending empathy (and I say this as someone who once participated in cancel culture tactics). One thing that could be helpful in the greater dialogue space is to have more dialogue between left-of-center individuals who advocate for such approaches (de-platforming, etc) and those who take a pro-dialogue stance.

If we could build some empathy and even some shared understanding between those who already lean left about when and how political dialogue is desirable, left-of-center citizens could build momentum together and negotiate/communicate across the aisle from a more cohesive place, instead of being caught in our own internal tug-of-war. But this will only be effective if it is based on empathy and respect, not shouting each other down (being shouted into silence is not actually agreement, did you know?)

This is why I'd like to see more dialogue spaces like Braver Angels facilitates, but not just between "Reds" and "Blues." There are many other schisms of political identity, like "moderates and radicals" or "socialists and liberals." On the Red side of things, there could be dialogues between "traditional conservatives and libertarians." Teasing out the multi-faceted nature of our identities, and learning to relate with others on the basis of all/many of them, is part of the bridging work discussed by john a. powell and Stephen Menendian in Belonging without Othering.

In fact, the thought process I've put myself through by writing this all out has helped me affirm that this is where I want to put my energy - in the political schisms that exist beyond Red vs. Blue.

I'm sure that if this post gets any kind of visibility, I may be called out or pushed back on for many things. I made some claims/speculations that I myself started to question as I looked for evidence to link to backing them up - which is a good thing, then, as articulating the thoughts 'on paper' helps me refine them.

I am interested in further dialogue about the ideas I've developed here, including if you disagree or want to invite me to consider something I have not, but my availability is limited, as I am a human with finite time and energy. I will likely prioritize invitations to explore further that come from a place of respect and trust that I am interested in learning and developing ideas further, and that we can both learn from each other. However, I will respond on the basis of my needs in the moment, without expecting myself to disclose all of those needs, just as I would not expect such a disclosure from others when making decisions to meet their own needs.

This may seem like an excessive amount of explicit parameters, but my experiences with online communication about social issues leads me to think them worthwhile - and also a way to model the type of engagement with boundaries that I've been advocating for here. If you want to engage within these parameters, you can reach me through the contact form or my email on my website.

Notes

*See the Resource Directory on my website for examples of groups doing this work.

**People often get confused with the word empathize and think it means agreeing with or condoning a perspective. While some may use it that way, many of us do not. For me as an NVC practitioner, it is about understanding the underlying human needs behind an action or statement, and recognizing the common humanity in a person's subjective experience - that how they feel is something I can relate to.