The Surprising Cure for Political Division | Psychology Today

[Scott]

I definitely think more of this is needed. Quoting part of it that I thought was quite interesting, followed by a bit of commentary...

**
A real example: How money brought two political opposites together

Before the last presidential election, I attended a personal finance conference. I spent time with a podcaster I admire—someone who sees the world the way I do when it comes to money, family, meaningful work, and the value of helping others. We were part of the same community of purpose.


When he casually mentioned he supported a presidential candidate I strongly opposed, I was stunned.

If the conversation had taken place online, I probably would have unfollowed him. If he’d been a stranger, I might have dismissed him as uninformed or malicious.

But he wasn’t a stranger. I knew him. I trusted who he was.


Instead of shutting down, we talked. Really talked.

Our conversation wasn’t tense. It wasn’t angry. It wasn’t about humiliating or converting the other person. We were curious. We tried to understand. And even though neither of us changed our mind, both of us walked away feeling respected and strangely optimistic.

There’s a name for what we created in that moment: Common ground.

Common ground doesn’t require agreement

It just requires humanity.

And yet, this type of connection is becoming rare. We’re more isolated than ever. Social media replaced social clubs. Streaming replaced community gatherings. Many of us left organized religion, long-term corporate culture, and neighborhoods where people once actually talked to each other.


Even when we want connection, we don’t know where to find it anymore.

A 2025 report from the Urban Institute put it bluntly: Americans now spend less time with other people than at any point in the last 60 years. Social connection is “in decline.”

Of course, politics feels toxic. We’re arguing with strangers, not neighbors. We are debating without relationships, without trust, without grace.
**

Source:

The Surprising Cure for Political Division

Bridging America’s political divide starts with purpose-driven communities that connect through shared passions to foster understanding, dialogue, and empathy.

www.psychologytoday.com

Now, here, in this forum, we may never meet a single other poster in person. However, I think that if we try to approach the problem in the same way, we could still get similar results. In other words, to try to see where we agree, not just where we disagree and to give others the benefit of the doubt instead of automatically believing that because they hold x or y believe that we don't agree with, they must automatically be someone to be looked down on or ignored.

 

[Yakuda]

I definitely think more of this is needed. Quoting part of it that I thought was quite interesting, followed by a bit of commentary...

**
A real example: How money brought two political opposites together

Before the last presidential election, I attended a personal finance conference. I spent time with a podcaster I admire—someone who sees the world the way I do when it comes to money, family, meaningful work, and the value of helping others. We were part of the same community of purpose.


When he casually mentioned he supported a presidential candidate I strongly opposed, I was stunned.

If the conversation had taken place online, I probably would have unfollowed him. If he’d been a stranger, I might have dismissed him as uninformed or malicious.

But he wasn’t a stranger. I knew him. I trusted who he was.


Instead of shutting down, we talked. Really talked.

Our conversation wasn’t tense. It wasn’t angry. It wasn’t about humiliating or converting the other person. We were curious. We tried to understand. And even though neither of us changed our mind, both of us walked away feeling respected and strangely optimistic.

There’s a name for what we created in that moment: Common ground.

Common ground doesn’t require agreement

It just requires humanity.

And yet, this type of connection is becoming rare. We’re more isolated than ever. Social media replaced social clubs. Streaming replaced community gatherings. Many of us left organized religion, long-term corporate culture, and neighborhoods where people once actually talked to each other.


Even when we want connection, we don’t know where to find it anymore.

A 2025 report from the Urban Institute put it bluntly: Americans now spend less time with other people than at any point in the last 60 years. Social connection is “in decline.”

Of course, politics feels toxic. We’re arguing with strangers, not neighbors. We are debating without relationships, without trust, without grace.
**

Source:

The Surprising Cure for Political Division

Bridging America’s political divide starts with purpose-driven communities that connect through shared passions to foster understanding, dialogue, and empathy.

www.psychologytoday.com

Now, here, in this forum, we may never meet a single other poster in person. However, I think that if we try to approach the problem in the same way, we could still get similar results. In other words, to try to see where we agree, not just where we disagree and to give others the benefit of the doubt instead of automatically believing that because they hold x or y believe that we don't agree with, they must automatically be someone to be looked down on or ignored.

Well when a candidate from one party calls supporters of the other party deplorable it's difficult to see the common ground. When you're called a fascist a Nazi a ____phobe or a _____ist it's even more difficult to see the commons ground.

When the gay "marriage" debate was raging I asked a leftist if I could be opposed to gay "marriage" and not be a homophobe I was told, "No". Where's the common ground there? Leftists rarely compromise and repubs usually cave. Sad but true

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I definitely think more of this is needed. Quoting part of it that I thought was quite interesting, followed by a bit of commentary...

**
A real example: How money brought two political opposites together

Before the last presidential election, I attended a personal finance conference. I spent time with a podcaster I admire—someone who sees the world the way I do when it comes to money, family, meaningful work, and the value of helping others. We were part of the same community of purpose.


When he casually mentioned he supported a presidential candidate I strongly opposed, I was stunned.

If the conversation had taken place online, I probably would have unfollowed him. If he’d been a stranger, I might have dismissed him as uninformed or malicious.

But he wasn’t a stranger. I knew him. I trusted who he was.


Instead of shutting down, we talked. Really talked.

Our conversation wasn’t tense. It wasn’t angry. It wasn’t about humiliating or converting the other person. We were curious. We tried to understand. And even though neither of us changed our mind, both of us walked away feeling respected and strangely optimistic.

There’s a name for what we created in that moment: Common ground.

Common ground doesn’t require agreement

It just requires humanity.

And yet, this type of connection is becoming rare. We’re more isolated than ever. Social media replaced social clubs. Streaming replaced community gatherings. Many of us left organized religion, long-term corporate culture, and neighborhoods where people once actually talked to each other.


Even when we want connection, we don’t know where to find it anymore.

A 2025 report from the Urban Institute put it bluntly: Americans now spend less time with other people than at any point in the last 60 years. Social connection is “in decline.”

Of course, politics feels toxic. We’re arguing with strangers, not neighbors. We are debating without relationships, without trust, without grace.
**

Source:

The Surprising Cure for Political Division

Bridging America’s political divide starts with purpose-driven communities that connect through shared passions to foster understanding, dialogue, and empathy.

www.psychologytoday.com

Now, here, in this forum, we may never meet a single other poster in person. However, I think that if we try to approach the problem in the same way, we could still get similar results. In other words, to try to see where we agree, not just where we disagree and to give others the benefit of the doubt instead of automatically believing that because they hold x or y believe that we don't agree with, they must automatically be someone to be looked down on or ignored.

My sense is that the ideological polarity in this nation is sincere.

Mostly but not entirely on a geographical level,
Americans truly have moral and social values that cannot ever be reconciled
and thus should be isolated instead. Perhaps even partitioned.

I admittedly was unable to maintain a social relationship with
estranged relatives and former friends whose core political and social values were repugnant to me.

If something is genuinely important to me,
I have a very hard time looking past it.
What's the secret?

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

I definitely think more of this is needed. Quoting part of it that I thought was quite interesting, followed by a bit of commentary...

**
A real example: How money brought two political opposites together

Before the last presidential election, I attended a personal finance conference. I spent time with a podcaster I admire—someone who sees the world the way I do when it comes to money, family, meaningful work, and the value of helping others. We were part of the same community of purpose.


When he casually mentioned he supported a presidential candidate I strongly opposed, I was stunned.

If the conversation had taken place online, I probably would have unfollowed him. If he’d been a stranger, I might have dismissed him as uninformed or malicious.

But he wasn’t a stranger. I knew him. I trusted who he was.


Instead of shutting down, we talked. Really talked.

Our conversation wasn’t tense. It wasn’t angry. It wasn’t about humiliating or converting the other person. We were curious. We tried to understand. And even though neither of us changed our mind, both of us walked away feeling respected and strangely optimistic.

There’s a name for what we created in that moment: Common ground.

Common ground doesn’t require agreement

It just requires humanity.

And yet, this type of connection is becoming rare. We’re more isolated than ever. Social media replaced social clubs. Streaming replaced community gatherings. Many of us left organized religion, long-term corporate culture, and neighborhoods where people once actually talked to each other.


Even when we want connection, we don’t know where to find it anymore.

A 2025 report from the Urban Institute put it bluntly: Americans now spend less time with other people than at any point in the last 60 years. Social connection is “in decline.”

Of course, politics feels toxic. We’re arguing with strangers, not neighbors. We are debating without relationships, without trust, without grace.
**

Source:

The Surprising Cure for Political Division

Bridging America’s political divide starts with purpose-driven communities that connect through shared passions to foster understanding, dialogue, and empathy.

www.psychologytoday.com

Now, here, in this forum, we may never meet a single other poster in person. However, I think that if we try to approach the problem in the same way, we could still get similar results. In other words, to try to see where we agree, not just where we disagree and to give others the benefit of the doubt instead of automatically believing that because they hold x or y believe that we don't agree with, they must automatically be someone to be looked down on or ignored.

United through money is how Satan does it dumbass.

it's called corruption.

 

[Scott]

Well when a candidate from one party calls supporters of the other party deplorable it's difficult to see the common ground. When you're called a fascist a Nazi a ____phobe or a _____ist it's even more difficult to see the commons ground.

When the gay "marriage" debate was raging I asked a leftist if I could be opposed to gay "marriage" and not be a homophobe I was told, "No". Where's the common ground there? Leftists rarely compromise and repubs usually cave. Sad but true

Could we agree that pointing out insults as a barrier to effective communication and refraining from using them oneself might help?

 

[Scott]

My sense is that the ideological polarity in this nation is sincere.

Mostly but not entirely on a geographical level,
Americans truly have moral and social values that cannot ever be reconciled
and thus should be isolated instead. Perhaps even partitioned.

I admittedly was unable to maintain a social relationship with
estranged relatives and former friends whose core political and social values were repugnant to me.

If something is genuinely important to me,
I have a very hard time looking past it.
What's the secret?

I certainly acknowledge that it's possible that the United States won't remain united forever. As to things that are important to us, shouldn't the most important thing be trying to get along with each other? I've also found that with some people, it's best to avoid certain subjects.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

As to things that are important to us, shouldn't the most important thing be trying to get along with each other?

That's my whole point, in a way.

Some people can,
while the best others can do
is endure the temporary situation
and behave well enough to stay out of jail.

To me, Trump changed the paradigm.
Pigshit supporters brought me to the level
where peaceful co-existence became a very difficult ask.

Be grateful, Scott, that it's not as hard for you.

 

[Life is Golden]

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a terminal, incurable condition.

 

[Yakuda]

Could we agree that pointing out insults as a barrier to effective communication and refraining from using them oneself might help?

We could but I only have control over me. I actually have no problem with disagreement what I have a problem with is the lefts absolute unwillingness to consider they might be wrong.

 

[Yakuda]

That's my whole point, in a way.

Some people can,
while the best others can do
is endure the temporary situation
and behave well enough to stay out of jail.

To me, Trump changed the paradigm.
Pigshit supporters brought me to the level
where peaceful co-existence became a very difficult ask.

Be grateful, Scott, that it's not as hard for you.

Do you know why peaceful co-existence became a very difficult ask for you? Because you have no grasp of the concept that you might be wrong and you utterly refuse to self examine your position and your motives. You make assumptions about people and refuse to consider that you could be wrong. But that's your failing not others.

 

[Yakuda]

I certainly acknowledge that it's possible that the United States won't remain united forever. As to things that are important to us, shouldn't the most important thing be trying to get along with each other? I've also found that with some people, it's best to avoid certain subjects.

No the most important thing is to be willing to compromise. Thats how things get done. You give up something and I give you something but it should all be in the service of a more important purpose. As I said though the left rarely compromises and the right usually caves to the left. I think that's why the left HATES trump as much as they do and why even some on the right hate him as well. He doesn't care what the left thinks or wants because for too long thats what's guided this country to where it is. The left won on every major issue then trump came along and in essence said, fuck that. That's how we got here. Now it's personal

 

[Scott]

That's my whole point, in a way.

Some people can,
while the best others can do
is endure the temporary situation
and behave well enough to stay out of jail.

To me, Trump changed the paradigm.
Pigshit supporters brought me to the level
where peaceful co-existence became a very difficult ask.

Be grateful, Scott, that it's not as hard for you.

Are you suggesting it's not as hard for me because I'm Canadian or because I'm something of a political hybrid (or both)?

 

[Scott]

We could but I only have control over me. I actually have no problem with disagreement what I have a problem with is the lefts absolute unwillingness to consider they might be wrong.

I'm actually ok with people being unwilling to consider they might be wrong, as long as they're polite about it.

 

[Scott]

That's my whole point, in a way.

Some people can,
while the best others can do
is endure the temporary situation
and behave well enough to stay out of jail.

To me, Trump changed the paradigm.
Pigshit supporters brought me to the level
where peaceful co-existence became a very difficult ask.

Be grateful, Scott, that it's not as hard for you.

Do you know why peaceful co-existence became a very difficult ask for you? Because you have no grasp of the concept that you might be wrong and you utterly refuse to self examine your position and your motives. You make assumptions about people and refuse to consider that you could be wrong. But that's your failing not others.

I'm beginning to wonder if political hybrids are the only ones that can navigate between both sides. And honestly, political hybrids seem to be a pretty rare breed.

 

[Scott]

I certainly acknowledge that it's possible that the United States won't remain united forever. As to things that are important to us, shouldn't the most important thing be trying to get along with each other? I've also found that with some people, it's best to avoid certain subjects.

No the most important thing is to be willing to compromise. Thats how things get done. You give up something and I give you something but it should all be in the service of a more important purpose. As I said though the left rarely compromises and the right usually caves to the left. I think that's why the left HATES trump as much as they do and why even some on the right hate him as well. He doesn't care what the left thinks or wants because for too long thats what's guided this country to where it is. The left won on every major issue then trump came along and in essence said, fuck that. That's how we got here. Now it's personal

The issue of Trump is a pretty big one. As you know, I was all for his appointment of RFK Jr. and I think Tulsi Gabbard is probably still doing a good job too. That doesn't mean I agree with -everything- that RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard have done, just that I think that on the whole, they've done good work.

I'm not exactly thrilled with -other- things that Trump and his Administration have done, but then, I'm a political hybrid, so I think that stands to reason.

 

[Yakuda]

I'm actually ok with people being unwilling to consider they might be wrong, as long as they're polite about it.

Thats fine but that kind of contradicts your OP doesn't it if the point is to find common ground. Like the example I gave you about gay "marriage". If that person's not willing to consider they are wrong about disagreeing = homophobia now do we find common ground no matter how polite they are?

 

[Yakuda]

I'm beginning to wonder if political hybrids are the only ones that can navigate between both sides. And honestly, political hybrids seem to be a pretty rare breed.

No I don't agree. In my opinion this is about willingness not ability.

 

[Yakuda]

The issue of Trump is a pretty big one. As you know, I was all for his appointment of RFK Jr. and I think Tulsi Gabbard is probably still doing a good job too. That doesn't mean I agree with -everything- that RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard have done, just that I think that on the whole, they've done good work.

I'm not exactly thrilled with -other- things that Trump and his Administration have done, but then, I'm a political hybrid, so I think that stands to reason.

I don't agree withe everything trump does same as RFK Jr and Tulsi but I agree in general they are doing a fine job and I liked their appointments. I'm not a hybrid but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to consider alternative POVs

 

[Scott]

I'm actually ok with people being unwilling to consider they might be wrong, as long as they're polite about it.

Thats fine but that kind of contradicts your OP doesn't it if the point is to find common ground.

Finding common ground isn't about agreeing on everything, it's about agreeing on -some- things.

Like the example I gave you about gay "marriage". If that person's not willing to consider they are wrong about disagreeing = homophobia now do we find common ground no matter how polite they are?

I think as long as people aren't forced to marry in a way that's contrary to their nature, things should be good there.

 

[Scott]

I'm beginning to wonder if political hybrids are the only ones that can navigate between both sides. And honestly, political hybrids seem to be a pretty rare breed.

No I don't agree. In my opinion this is about willingness not ability.

Willingness to do what?