This is a talk with Doug Teschner and Beth Malow—co-authors of the book Beyond the Politics of Contempt—about an aspect of bridge-building/depolarization-aimed work that rarely gets discussed: the backlash. We dig into the criticisms and skepticism that people on both “sides” throw at depolarization/bridge-building efforts—claims that it’s naive, weak, morally compromised, or even a form of complicity with the “bad guys.” We talk about why contempt can feel justified and righteous, how protest and resistance can unintentionally fuel us-vs-them cycles, and why simply “listening” is often seen as legitimizing harmful views. If you’ve ever thought “that empathetic bridge-building stuff all sounds nice, but now isn’t the time”—or if you’ve rolled your eyes at such work altogether—there’s a good chance this conversation addresses some objections you have.
Episode links:
- YouTube (includes video)
- Apple Podcasts
- Spotify
Related resources:
- Site for Doug and Beth’s book
- Their Together Now Substack
- See my own work on polarization: american-anger.com
TRANSCRIPT
(Transcripts are automatic and do contain errors.)
Doug: I do post about the book and some of our ideas in the book and the work of Braver Angels and yeah, I’ve had some family members come on and make some really nasty comments…
I had a comment that, uh. For instance, the other day that contempt is better than complicity. Mm-hmm. So the implication is that somehow, uh, it’s okay for me to have contempt, because otherwise I’m accepting what other people say is, you know, I’m giving into them…
That was from a talk I had with Doug Teschner and Beth Malow, co-authors of a book aimed at reducing toxic political polarization, which is titled Beyond the Politics of Contempt: Practical Steps to Build Positive Relationships in Divided Times. You can learn about their work at https://beyondthepoliticsofcontempt.com/ and they have a substack at TogetherNow.substack.com . You can read some reviews of their book on Amazon; it’s been getting a good number of sales and reviews. https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Politics-Contempt-Practical-Relationships-ebook/dp/B0FMYSXN1Z
If you didn’t know, I myself have written a couple books about polarization, which you can learn about at american-anger.com. That’s why I sometimes discuss polarization-related topics for this podcast.
For this talk with Doug and Beth about their book and work, I wanted to take an approach that might make it more engaging for some people. As someone who has talked about this topic a good amount, i’m always worried that people will think “i’ve already heard this before.” So for this talk, I focused on the pushback and criticism those of us doing this work can receive from people on both quote “sides”. And some of these criticisms we’ll talk about there’s a good chance you yourself have (believe me, even just a few years ago, I would have had many objections and criticisms of this work). So if you are skeptical or critical of this work, i hope you stick around and listen a bit. For example, if you’re someone very scared about what Trump’s doing and you think ‘I don’t see how I could be a part of this, with the fears and concerns I have,’ I think you’ll find some answers to that in this episode.
I’d also add that my own books on this topic are specifically focused on objections; I start my books with a list of objections that many people on both quote “sides” have; even as they may word those objections in very different ways.
A little bit about my guests:
Doug Teschner ran the Peace Corps in Ukraine and led a community education effort to end the Ebola epidemic in Guinea. As Braver Angels New England Regional Leader, he led the effort that led to the creation of a bipartisan caucus in the NH House of Representative where he previously served as a GOP legislator.
Beth Malow is a neurologist and science/health communicator working in public health and climate change and has given a TEDx talk, The Art of Communicating Science. Beth has appeared on NPR-1A, PBS Newshour, and other news outlets. She moderates workshops and debates for Braver Angels, the bipartisan non-profit grassroots organization focused on uniting Americans in our divided time.
Okay here’s the talk with Beth Malow and Doug Teschner, co-authors, along with Becky Robinson, of Beyond The Politics of Contempt.
Hi, Beth and Doug. Thanks for joining me.
Beth Malow: We’re happy to be here.
Doug Teschner: Delighted.
Zach Elwood: Yeah. So I thought, uh, you know, honestly, I, I think a lot of the talks about polarization can be a, a little boring and, uh, repetitive, especially as I’ve done a good amount of them for my own podcast. So I think my, my own audience can be.
A little bored of hearing about it. So I thought for this talk we could delve into something a little bit more, you know, controversial and exciting, and, and talk about the pushback and the skepticism that you and and I and others doing this work sometimes hear from people who are skeptical or outright hostile to the idea of reducing, uh, toxic polarization and, and contempt and such.
So, um. Maybe with that, uh, with that focus, we can start with, you know, how do, how do you all in, in a nutshell, if you were trying to describe what you were trying to get people to do at a practical level, um, in like a few sentences with your work, uh, what, how would you describe it? And, and maybe I’ll, I’ll go first real quick in a, in a real quick, high level.
Approach. I think what I’m trying to do is, is basically just get people to see how there is a self-reinforcing cycle of conflict going on and to even as they’re doing their activism and even as they’re being. Quite angry and pushing hard against various things. They don’t like to see how they can unintentionally feed into that toxic conflict cycle and try to try the best they can to avoid unnecessarily ramping up toxic conflict and contempt and such.
Because it’s a self-reinforcing cycle. So that’s kinda like the high level view. But I’m, and maybe I’ll kick that off and, and pass it to one of you to talk about, you know, what is it you want people to do with, you know, the, the work that the, the book that you’ve written and other, the similar work that you’re doing.
Beth Malow: Why don’t you, why don’t you get started and I’ll add,
Doug Teschner: um, you know, I think we’re trying to give people, when, when we really drill into it, we’re trying to give people some hope. You know, people, there’s a lot of despair, there’s a lot of anxiety, there’s a lot of, of, uh, anger. Uh, and, and, and, and what, what can people be do that’s gonna be constructive?
I mean, I think that’s when what we’re trying to do. So we’re trying to create a hopeful roadmap for Americans trying to make sense in this dark moment. And the goal was really to transform the politics of fear and contempt into the politics of hope. And, and we think of it as multiple levels. You know, we begin by, uh, thinking how to better our lives, which is kind of what, what, what you were referencing.
We talk a lot about relationships and bettering our relationships and our conversations over the holidays with local Fred and as well as our communities and, and our country, but we think it can start from the ground with our own little actions that can make a difference.
Beth Malow: Yeah. I, I just wanted to add and maybe elaborate on your specific questions, Zach, about the.
Idea that when we protest or uh, resist that it can add an element that of that anger and that contempt that can then cause others on the other side maybe to react and then you start getting into this us versus them. I, I, I definitely view myself as predominantly a bridge builder as, as does Doug, and I think that really motivated us to write this book.
However, I’ve learned through, um, my interactions with a lot of different people since the book came out. And being a liberal myself, um, leaning more to the left, I, I, I definitely see. The the anger, and I think it’s important for bridge builders like us to realize that it’s hard when people feel that the world is on fire, right?
That the world is burning down to. Understand the work we’re doing and, and, and embrace some of what Doug is saying and, and what you write about so eloquently in your book. And, and what I truly believe in my heart, which is that if we’re gonna get the fire to go out, if we’re gonna stop the fire, we need to start with hope.
We need to start with civility. We need to start with dignity and respect. Uh, so what I’ve tried to be do is become really curious, uh, and really try to listen, uh, and understand people who are really upset and really angry, and give them the same level of curiosity that I give some of my friends on the right, you know, who, uh, I sometimes feel, um.
Like I am, I’m really stepping out and, and being respectful of them, even if I don’t agree with their policies and, and just affording that to, to people on the left as well, because I think we’re all, as Doug says, we’re all looking for hope. We’re all trying to make this a better world. And when we get at our values.
We often find we have the same values. It’s just our ways of expressing them can be different. And, and, and Doug, I love how much you emphasized values in the, um, the first draft of the book. That, that truly made me wanna join you as a co-author.
Zach Elwood: Hmm. Yeah, I think, uh, oh, go ahead.
Doug Teschner: I would just add to that, that, you know, we are asking pe people to take a, take a look inside themselves and, and their own and take a look at your heart and, and, and, and it has to come now, start from there.
I mean, the, the, you know, we talk about the conflict entrepreneurs who are the people that are driving a lot of this division, but we don’t wanna be conflict enablers, which is to, to contribute to that. I think a lot of this that we talked about is, is how do we step back and, and, and take a little look at our own behavior and not, not only in terms of are we contributing, uh, but are we, how are we feeling about it?
You know, how are we, people get so caught up on their cell phones and doom scrolling and. Is this really working for people? So, so I, as I, as I, and we started off talk, writing the book making about how can we change our country, but, you know, how can we coverage people to be, uh, to, to get involved, uh, like we do with Braver Angels, the national organization that we’re involved with as volunteers, but we think it’s really has to start with a little stepping back.
A little, a little more, uh, what can we do to help you with, with Uncle Fred or with, or at Thanksgiving or the holiday dinner, or, or what can we do to make you feel a little better about yourself as you’re dealing with this, uh, uh, this challenging times in our country?
Zach Elwood: Yeah. I think, um, I, I was gonna ask you all, um, you know, I, I’ve gotten so much.
Pushback and just outright hostility doing this work. And I think, I think it is, it is important to delve into that. I think. I think sometimes it can, you know, by addressing that. Addressing that head on can be important, I think, because as you say, yeah, so many people do have these skepticisms because I think a lot of that skepticism and hostility is due to misunderstanding what the work is about, I think, um, and also just the fundamental aspects of how conflict works makes people skeptical of attempts to reduce the conflict.
But I, but I wanted to ask you both, uh, do, do you have stories that come to mind of, of, uh, instances where you got. Some hostility about this work and even places where you were surprised to find that pushback and hostility. Do you have any stories to share? Uh, maybe in person or just. Online comments or things like that that come to mind?
Beth Malow: I think Doug has some Facebook to share. I don’t know if you,
Doug Teschner: I’ve had, I’ve had, um, family on both sides of the issue and, and, and some of them have gone at each other. But, um, you know, and, and sometimes, sometimes I know, I, I think, I think politics on Facebook and social media. Mostly, uh, unwarranted and I really try to avoid it, but I do post about the book and some of our ideas in the book and the work of Brave Angels and yeah, I’ve had some family members come on and make some really nasty comments.
Um, and you know, I had a comment. I had a comment that, uh. For instance, the other day that, uh, con contempt is, uh, better than complicity. Mm-hmm. So the implication is that somehow, uh, it’s okay for me to have a lot, have a contempt, because otherwise I’m, I’m, I’m accepting what other people say is, is, you know, I’m, I’m giving into them.
And we’ve had a lot of conversations with people where, where they’re saying things like, um, I can’t talk to them because I don’t wanna. I, by talking to them, I’m gonna be somehow acknowledging that I, that they have the right facts.
Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Right. You’re, yeah, there’s, there’s a, there’s a sense that you’re.
Enabling or helping people in a way by engaging with them,
Doug Teschner: having a conversation with somebody, you’re actually enabling them.
Zach Elwood: Right?
Doug Teschner: And, and so this just pushes people away. And, and, and, and I, and I, you know, I think we’ve gotta create a climate where people feel. By doing that, aren’t you just reinforcing the problem?
Mm-hmm. Because you’re, you’re by, by pushing people away saying, I’m not gonna talk to you. Then, then they’re just, they’re just, you know, buying this, this, this, the idea that you, you, you’re shame, you’re treating them with shame, right. And, and
Zach Elwood: contempt leads to contempt. It’s a
Doug Teschner: Exactly, and, and, uh, now, but the, the, the key is how do we do it in a gentle way and how do we do it to win people over?
And how do we do it in a way that’s, that’s, um, uh, you know, how do you connect with people who are who, who feel this way? And, and you know, it’s just little conversations and, and, and, and, and you’re not gonna get to, you’re not gonna reach everybody, unfortunately. I mean, we talk about, uh, a lot in the, in the book about the Hidden Tribes report, uh, the exhaustive majority that talks about how they put people in different categories.
And this was done by a study, by, uh. Um, more in common
Beth Malow: Hawkins,
Stephen
Doug Teschner: Hawkins. Stephen Hawkins is the leader of this, of this study. And, and, um, you know, the, what, what happens is the people on the extremes are kind of dominating or the, when I say the extremes are the most, the most, the most passionate people about this are the ones that are driving the agenda.
But there’s a, a majority of the country that are kind of looking at this and seeing. You know, some know that something’s wrong, that something, this isn’t working very well. And so we have, we have to start with the exhaustive majority, kind of get them to, uh, to sort of rise up and say, wait a minute, we, we, we don’t want this.
And the people on the extremes are, are more challenging. I mean, there’s no question about it, but we, we still gotta work at it. But, you know, I just try to keep. I, I keep, I don’t see social media as a, as a very, very positive way to engage. So I don’t engage in those conversations, but I try to have a, a personal conversation when we’re, when we’re, uh, uh, in, especially in the same space, uh, with people as opposed to, uh, uh, any kind of, any social media isn’t gonna work.
I don’t think email would work very well. Maybe a phone conversation. But, uh, these, these conversations are hard and sometimes if people, people are just, are digging in it, it doesn’t create a lot of, uh, a lot of opening and you kind of have to accept that.
Beth Malow: Yeah. I wanted to add a story. Uh, it’s in our book.
It’s on page 42 and, um. I’ll, I’ll just, I won’t read the whole story, but I’ll just, I’ll just um, mention a few things. It starts with, after the 2024 election, many of my friends and family members could not understand how President Trump had won the election, especially the popular vote. They considered anyone who voted for him to be misguided at best, and I saw it differently with the economy and immigration and other issues playing an important role.
And when I tried to explain to my friends on the left that some of the people I talked with who voted for Trump were actually thoughtful, kind and respectful. I didn’t get anger, but what I got was this, it’s wonderful that you’re so nice, right? Right. That you’re naive, you’re nice. And there are moral issues at play here.
You know, we’re on a higher moral ground. And it was very painful for me, uh, because I really did and do feel that, uh, people have different opinions and, uh, the higher moral ground has always, I’ve always struggled with it. I’m Jewish and I’ve had Jewish friends say to me, well, this is just like the 1930s with the rise of Hitler.
And it’s really been hard for me, uh, with my friends. To counteract that. Um, but what I’m trying to do as a true bridge builder, I really wanna, wanna step up to that, um, that distinction is, is try to cross a bridge and talk to my friends on the left and try to understand where they’re coming from and sometimes.
If I can listen to them and use the same skills that I used with people on the right it, I do break through and then I agree with Doug. Like then I’ll invoke, for example, the conflict entrepreneurs and say, look, it’s not that everyone on the right or everyone voted for Trump or whatever is necessarily divisive.
Some people just. Had other reasons and, um, just trying to let people also see how easy it is for people on the right and on the left to be dated by the conflict entrepreneurs and social media. I mean, I I not only hear it on, um, conservative talk shows, but on liberal talk shows as well. Um, I, I hear these.
Uh, I mean, I’ll just start getting riled up myself, right? Mm-hmm. When I listen yeah. To some of these shows, and it’s not on one side or on the other. It’s, it’s truly on both sides. And, um, it’s, uh, it’s not everyone, but it’s, it’s enough that people, uh, get baited by it.
Doug Teschner: Yeah, we people in categories, us versus them.
Beth Malow: Mm-hmm.
Doug Teschner: But we don’t even know what them is, you know? I mean, humans are, is people, individuals. You know, we make assumptions about people, we make assumptions about how they voted. And, you know, everybody has a story to tell. You know, it’s quick. We’re all quick to make assumptions. Somebody walks in the room and you look at, you sort of look ’em over how they’re dressed, whatever.
You kind of, it, it’s natural, but I think, I think for all of us to be really, and I, I try to be really, uh, aware. Of when I’m making a lot of assumptions. I is this, is this, is this really fair to, to other people? Are they, what, what are the assumptions they’re making about me? And, and, and so this us versus them and, and, and if we can’t talk to them.
How are we even gonna know what they believe? You know, people are so siloed nowadays or, and sorted and geo geographically, and, and even though we have a lot of Facebook friends, they all think like us, you know, or, or there’s more and more of that and, and, and, um, so people are really in bubbles and it’s, it’s very concerning.
Uh, when we, we find ourselves in this kind of, uh, a, uh, mentality. And then as, as Beth said, we’ve gotta do a little pushback on our own side a little bit, which this is, this is kind of critical that, that, you know, if you don’t stay in your own lane and you start questioning some of what you, you, your people believe that, that you can end up sort of out in the middle with no, with no, uh, no, no alliances at that.
And it’s, it’s kind of a scary. I
Beth Malow: touch on one more thing if I can, Zach, which is that that different set of facts that, that Doug alluded to. ’cause this comes up a lot when we talk about the book, when we do our workshops with braver Angels, is people say, I get it. I wanna speak to people on the other side.
I understand the importance of speaking to my sister, whatever. Um, but how do I talk to people who are operating with a completely different set of facts? And one of the things that Doug and I have, have started talking about is well dig deeper, right? Dig deeper into the values. Uh, for example, Doug and I were, um, you know, we were, I was doing, actually, I was doing a workshop on COVID during COVID.
I, I brought people who believed in the public health response and that it was generally good. With people who were questioning it. And, um, you know, we on the public health side had a whole list of, of recommendations about vaccines and masking and whatever, and on the app. On the questioner side, they really wanted to talk about Iber, ivermectin and, and, and other therapies.
And what we ended up doing that was very powerful is talking about what we wanted for our communities and. Some of us wanted to eradicate as much COVID as possible so people wouldn’t get sick, particularly elderly people. Um, but the questioners also cared about the community. They cared about the schools being open.
They cared about the, the businesses being open, that the community continued to be healthy, uh, especially if there were relatively low rates of COVID in that community. And it, it really hit me hard that. You know, we, we might question each other’s facts, right? They may question our facts on vaccines. We may question their facts on Ivermectin, but we agreed on the value of the community and the health of the community.
And that’s, I, again, if I break through to someone, that’s the kind of, um, story I try to share. Um, but breaking through to folks is, to me, the hardest part, right? Is, is really getting them to. There’s such a barrier with the, as I said, the higher moral ground and the If I, if, if I listen, even if I don’t agree, I’m somehow giving weight to anti-democratic norms and I we’re still struggling with that, how to break through that.
Zach Elwood: Yeah. The, uh, speaking of the, I mean, I think one of the most common reactions, um, negative reactions from people who are skeptical of this work is, you know, what do you said about saying that? Well, that’s all nice and, and stuff, but it’s naive of you to work on that. Right? I, I mean, I get that a lot. I get, I get that from friends and family.
Um, they don’t, even, the ones that don’t outright say it, I can tell that’s how they feel. Right? ’cause I know that they. Don’t really care about the work or they, you know, kind of dismiss it. Uh, so I think, but, but I think it is, IM, and I think it is important because, you know, toxic conflict inherently comes with more people scoffing at such work, right?
That’s the nature of how conflict works. But I, and I think it’s important to make people see or try to get them to see that. Maybe I’m not, maybe we’re not being the naive ones. Maybe. Maybe you scoffing at it is, is the naive thing that maybe you’re not looking at the conflict from a holistic enough perspective to see that this is such a common human dynamic and to see that there are many ways that toxic conflict makes us so many of us act in ways that amplify the conflict.
I think people that are naive when they scoff at or act in, uh, conflict amplifying ways that they would judge other people for, you know, hypocritical ways. Mm-hmm. I think many people are being. Naive themselves because they’re just not seeing like, Hey, maybe you don’t have to act in those ways. Maybe you can pursue your goals without acting in those ways that, you know, insult and throw contempt at a wide range of people and so on and so on.
These kinds of things. So I think, I think it is important to, and I, and I, and I think that’s, uh, I think trying to get that message out is a big part of this because just, you know, it’s understandable as you said it, it’s completely understandable why people. Our skeptical of this work, it feels very, it can feel very, you know, milk toast and weak when we’re, when we have so much emotions and, and we’re upset about so many things.
But I think getting, trying to get people to question like, Hey, maybe, maybe you’re, you’re the one being naive at not in trying to embrace this work and. And, and maybe there’s a reason me and many other people Yeah. Like yourself, see this as the most important work and to try to see how these ideas can live alongside activism and things like that.
So yeah, I think, I think it is very important to, you know, and, and I think, yeah, we, we, we often get that reaction. It’s like, Hey, that’s very nice of you. You’re such a nice person. But, you know, go away with that for now. We, and I, yeah. One specific message stands out that I put in the book was. You know, somebody saying like, I think we can reserve trying, you know, we can wait on trying to reduce contempt until after we defeat Trump.
And you know, right. It’s like, but, but that’s exactly the kind of mentality on both sides that just. Amplify the toxicity and get us to more extreme us versus them approaches and so on and on. Yeah.
Beth Malow: Yeah. No, I, I agree. And um, there was something I clipped in your book that I just wanted to say. I really felt like you hit the nail on the head with this particular issue.
Um, you wrote on page 32, if you’re trying to reduce polarization, you’re wrongly and naively. Valuing civility and unity more than morality and justice. And when I read that I was like, that’s it. You know? That’s the key thing. Um. The other thing you wrote right after that though, really gave me a lot of pause, which is ’cause it reflects me in a way.
Working on reducing polarization is a mark of privilege. Some of us have to fight hard against ideas and people who threaten us and. And in some ways I am very advantaged. I, um, I’m working part-time, I’m a physician, but I’m not like where I was 10 years ago with my grants, where my grants, my, my National Institutes of Health grants might have been canceled by the new, um, administration.
Uh, I am, um, I’m in a, in a much. Better place. I’m, I’m living in New England right now. I’m living in a blue state. I used to live in Tennessee, which is red State. I’m just in a different place and I realize that I just have to keep reminding myself that it’s not as easy for everyone to embrace the idea, Zach, that we are putting forward and you’re putting forward about being bridge building and.
And I’ve wondered if I can ask you a question. I mean, is there an emotional side to this that you’ve thought about how you can break through? Because I mean, we can give people skills, we can talk about values, we can talk about conversations where they listen to others and then they state you state your own opinion.
Right? I mean, there’s lots of steps. Um, the step that has been the hardest for us. Has been overcoming that, that emotion and that anger, and I’ve just wondered if you’ve had any insights into that. Well,
Zach Elwood: well, I think, uh, I mean, I think practically in a, in a practical sense, people that have that objection, like it’s a mark of privilege or, you know, we really need to work on these things and it’s a, it’s a market privilege to be able to work on the bridge building.
I think it kind of. Is actually a cover for them not agreeing with the work, because I think if they actually agreed with the work and saw it as valuable, then you wouldn’t reach for these, you know, reasons. Mm-hmm. To dislike it because, you know, I, I mean there’s, there’s plenty of, I’ve talked to plenty of people who are passionate about views on the left, passionate about views on the right, who believe in this work.
So it’s not as if these things can’t live alongside each other. And I think. I think a lot of times that’s covering up hostility to the work and just saying like, oh, it’s a market privilege. Whereas like, well, but do you agree that it’s a good idea or not? So, and I think, I think that everybody should agree it’s a good idea and let you know, with the exception of people who actually want to make the conflict more, more toxic, which those people exist too, but I think people that genuinely want to achieve their goals.
Not, you know, not amplify toxic conflict, should see this work as good. So I think, I think a lot of times, I would say for people that throw out the privilege, uh, comment, uh, I would ask, well, do you, do you think it’s good or not? Like, am I persuading you it’s a good idea or not? Are you persuaded or not?
’cause that’s really the important thing. ’cause then it’s like, well, okay, maybe if you don’t wanna work on it, at least you can be supportive of people that do work on it. Right. So, and I think that there was a good book too about, um. This book, I don’t know if you’ve heard of it. It was called, um, the perils of Privilege about the, the unpaper persuasiveness of, of, of, uh, frequently using the privilege mark to try to, you know, throw shade at, at various things people are doing, which is a, some often just a shield for like, I don’t like the work you’re doing.
And then be, um, not a persuasive approach because I mean, you can be a, you can be, be a very, uh, you know. If you can be someone who’s struggling with all sorts of things and still do this work, right? Like there’s, there’s nothing That’s a good point. They’re, they’re not, yeah. We shouldn’t see these things as like blockers to other, but I think that’s, that’s what toxic conflict does to us.
It makes us think like, well, trying to reduce polarization cannot live alongside my passion or even my anger, even my. Contempt. But I think it’s important to get people to see, like these things can live alongside each other and I think actually make political activism more persuasive and more effective.
Yeah,
Beth Malow: I agree. It’s like Dale Carnegie, right? I always tell people how to win friends and influence people. If you, and Doug says this too, if somebody thinks you’re treating them with contempt or, or thinks you feel they’re stupid or not a patriot or deplorable, or whatever. They’re not gonna listen to you.
So, um, really connecting with people, listening to them, um, getting beyond that I am, I’m acknowledging, um, things that are not moral, whatever, you know, just listening to them, connecting with them, and then being able to share with them what you think, whether it’s bridge building is important, or some of the policies that the left feels the right.
Needs to, um, be educated on is, is so important.
Doug Teschner: Yeah, I’d add that, you know, I mean, contempt and when I would, I would say to a relative that what, is that where you want to be? Is that where you want to be? Is contempt, is that who you want to be? And so the, this, we talk a lot about values and stepping back on our values and or, or we got this system where I can treat people with kindness if they’re us.
But I treat people with, with contempt who are uh, who are them. But I think a big part of this is we really need to step back and look at the, look what’s driving this. Look at the factors. We, we spend some time in our book talking about the factors that are driving the polarization. And, and you know, a lot of it is so, uh, social media algorithms and the conflict entrepreneurs.
And by the way, we used, uh, we, we wanted to make our book really user friendly and. You read and we added graphics like, uh, we have a, we have a crocodile trying to eat the American flag as an example of a, of a conflict entrepreneur. And they’re not doing it. They’re not doing it for the country. People are doing it to divide us and, and for their own power and their own benefit.
And a lot of this is foreign powers. I mean, this is, so, I think people are gonna really step back and say, wait a minute. Am I being manipulated here? Am I, am I really, am I really, am I behaving in a certain way that’s being driven by other people or am I reacting, and this is how the social media algorithms work.
They’re playing on people’s fears, they’re playing on, they’re trying to reinforce a lot of bad behavior. So I think it has to, it has to start with a little stepping back. Yes, we can teach people skills about how to engage with difficult conversations. But it has to start with your own, your own, looking at your own heart and your own values and, and, and embracing, uh, listening skills which have kind of fallen out of vogue.
I mean, we listened to, to reply, not to understand which, and that was one of the se the seven gr categories from Stephen Covey’s great book, uh, and of, of, of success. Successful people listen to understand, not to engage. So listening skills. Humility, humility. I mean, whoever talks about that anymore, being a little, you know, and, and, and curiosity.
Being curious and not furious as be says. So the, these are things we kind of, we, we kind of walk through the book and show people where they can, where they, how they can move and how they can embrace things and how they can feel better about themselves. ’cause that is a big part of this. And feel better about those, those difficult conversations at, at the holiday gathering.
Zach Elwood: I was gonna, uh, another, I think another area of skepticism that comes up, pushback from people on the right and the left is this feeling like, uh, well, what, what do you, what do you mean? Uh, you know, our side has contributed. It’s all the other side’s fault. Like, what do, what do I or people on, you know, my side of the divide.
We, we haven’t really contributed to this, to this problem at all. That, you know, I, I think you, you and i’s, uh, work is aimed at a more liberal, you know, uh, anti-Trump audience. I think it, it kind of goes in that, uh, those realms. And so the main, I’ve heard it on both sides, but the main, uh, pushback I’ve heard is from more liberal people who say like, well, what do you mean, you know, liberals have contributed and, and I think people that are curious.
About that. Well, first I’ll just open up to you. Do you, do you often hear that, uh, that kind of, uh, pushback or skepticism from people as, as a blocker to, you know, absorbing these kinds of ideas?
Doug Teschner: Well, sure. But you know, how do we help people to, to get there where they’re doing a little self-examination? I mean, we, we, we use the term conflict enablers, you know, are, are, are, are you, you might not be a conflict entrepreneur making money conflict, but are you an enabler?
I use somebody, uh, who’s like, who’s like, if, if, if you see some um, nasty post on on Facebook, you uh, repost it as opposed to, you know, are you, are you feeding the beast? And I think that this is where we’ve all gotta step back and encourage, we’re trying to, you know, edge people over towards thinking about it.
And again, you know, how we say it and how we do it. Is, is is not telling people they’re wrong. It’s has, it has to kind of come from the heart and how we care about people. And, and, uh, you know, we, we, we, we have a lot of quote in the books and, and, and, and I like, I like some from, uh, one of my favorites from Abraham Lincoln.
I, I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better. And, and, and, and there’s another great one from Lincoln. Uh, he has a right to criticize who has a heart to help. I love that quote. He has a right to criticize who has a heart to help. We’re so critical of other people, but are we doing it with a heart to help?
Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.
Doug Teschner: I, I think that that’s an area that can really, you know, to, to work and help people to, to take that within themselves and ask that kind of, those kind of questions.
Zach Elwood: Yeah. Yeah. I
was
Zach Elwood: just gonna, oh, go ahead.
Beth Malow: Um, I was just gonna say one thing about activism, though I do believe. Through the work we’ve done and the people we’ve come into contact with, that activism can be a very powerful, positive force.
I think if you can take the contempt out and you can add just a smidgen of bridge building or at least respect for those who are doing the bridge building. We don’t all have to be bridge builders. Uh, I think that activism does have a role and I just wanted to get that in here on this podcast. Um, I’m watching, for example, Ken Burns the American Revolution.
Now it’s a great series and you realize how. Activism played a role in the formation of our country and how powerful that was. And I just think that, um, it’s important to respect activists and when we do that, I think we can also get through to them and say, Hey, you know. Don’t demonize the other side. I, I think, as you said earlier, Zach, two things can exist at the same time.
Um, one can be an activist and a bridge builder, or at least can be an activist who tolerates bridge builders, uh, in our world. That’s all.
Doug Teschner: Yeah. Also, you wanna bring people to your side, right? Don’t you wanna bring, what don’t you wanna expand you by when you push people away,
Beth Malow: right?
Doug Teschner: It just reinforces it by engaging with people.
You can, you, you, you might, you might win ’em over, you might not.
Zach Elwood: You need a bigger tent to be effective, basically. Like, yeah,
Beth Malow: exactly. Exactly.
Zach Elwood: Um, yeah, I did want to throw in Yeah. ’cause we’re coming up on the time. Yeah. But I, I wanted to throw in like a big objection. I think people listening to this, uh, if, if people skeptical of this have gotten this far, I think a big, uh.
A big objection they’ll hear they’ll have is they’ll hear like, well, but I really do think people like Trump or other people, you know, various specific people, I do have. Great contempt and judgment for them. I don’t need to get to know them. I think they’re very bad and that’s a common source of obstacles to getting people to absorb this too.
But I think, I think the way to overcome that is to see that like even if you think specific leaders and activists are, are very bad and harmful, I think it’s important to see that. More us versus them. Approaches are a product of this increasing contempt and polarization. So I think it, it helps to see, like say you think Trump is a very toxic person, us versus them person as I do, I also think he’s.
Been, uh, you know, people take the worst case interpretations of various things he says and all these things. I, I think it’s important to see that people that you see as taking highly us versus them, high animosity approaches are more of the product of a very polarized system, a as, and see them less as the cause of it.
Because a system is very complex, so, you know, a system. Like, say, say if Trump suddenly took, uh, you know, low animosity approaches, it, it would help. But I, I also think the system is such that it would lead to, you know, all the contempt in the system and, and us versus them thinking would lead to more support for, you know, people who took highly us versus approaches.
And the system is very complex. It manifests in different ways on different sides. There’s different factors in the groups and et cetera. So I think getting people to see that. Even if you, you know, your dislike or, you know, judgment of one person or specific people on the other side doesn’t mean that all those people on the other side are like that.
’cause groups are very, not the, not the same. We know that they’re not the same, even though our minds make us think that they’re all like that. Right. So I, I think getting people to see the complexity is very important. ’cause I think that’s like one of the number one obstacles is like, well you’re telling me to listen to the other side.
I don’t wanna listen to Trump, or I don’t, I don’t wanna listen to. You know, Kamala Harris or whatever it is, you know, there’s these obstacles that they’re like, well, I’m not doing that, so I’m not gonna listen to your, your ideas. Right.
Beth Malow: Amanda Ripley wrote a wonderful book called High Conflict that I’m sure you’re familiar with, and, um, she has a technique for reducing polarization, uh, called um, complicating the Narrative and introducing Nuance.
And Zach, when you speak, it reminds me of that. And just being able to stay. It’s, it’s much more complex than we think. I’ve had people tell me that Trump is a product of the conflict rather than Trump causing the conflict. And I, I can see that, uh, going back to the roots of polarization, it’s been going on a long, long, a lot longer than Trump, you know, being president.
So, uh, yeah, I, and it’s worth throwing in
Zach Elwood: there too, that, you know. For people that are Trump’s supporters or Trump voters. It’s like that the, what we say can be true. And also there are very rational reasons why people, you know, voted for Trump because they’re upset about things on the left. Right? So e even if we’re talking about one specific area, it’s not to say that that, you know, Trump was elected only because of polarization.
There there are like rational things people are upset about. So Exactly. Just to say like there’s all sorts of ways people can interpret. Anything we say. To kind of like, you know, want to disengage or not pay attention to these polarization ideas, but we hope that people listening will be curious enough to go down the rabbit hole a little bit more and
Beth Malow: look at these ideas more.
A lot of times people, right, a lot of times people vote against what they believe rather than for what they believe. So just feeling, that’s what I tell other people, like when you, they vote against what they’re, what they dislike.
Zach Elwood: Yeah.
Beth Malow: When you talk to your relative, you may actually be preventing, you may be getting what you want.
In the end by damping down some of the hate and animosity toward the left, you know, because you are trying to connect with people. So, um, yeah, we have a lot of reasons why being a bridge builder is a positive thing. Uh, we just have to crack that, that, you know, anger and frustration and, and we’re still working on, get the message out there.
Work in progress. Yeah.
Zach Elwood: Well, I want to thank you both. I know we’re getting near the top of the. Hour there. Is there anything you all wanted to share?
Beth Malow: Yeah, I just wanted to throw out, and then maybe Doug has something to add, is we do have a substack, um, which is together now. Do substack.com. It’s also called together Across Differences, and these ideas continue to evolve.
Uh, I’m gonna be posting, for example, a. Uh, article on the intersection of Bridge Building and activism, uh, very soon. And we’ve, we also have guessed. Um, you know, we’d, we’d be happy to have you, Zach, post. Uh, we have lots of, um, different ways that people can absorb the material in our book beyond the politics of contempt, uh, in, um, in their lives.
We encourage everybody to look at that substack together across differences.
Doug Teschner: Yeah. I, I just, I, I thank I thank you a lot, Zach. I appreciate your book and, and, uh, that we both came down on contempt and so kind of a key word, which I think is really important. Mm-hmm. You know, we wanna give people hope. We’re, we’re trying to make, we’re trying to make our vote.
Our book, very practical and very easy to read. Send questions that you can reflect on. And, uh, we encourage you to, uh, you know, connect with us, connect with the, uh, substack, and, and have a little more hope in, in, in your life. And, uh, we hope that, uh, we hope that, that we can offer that.