Main idea: Using an observation that Clinton supporters’ thinking tends to focus primarily on personal attributes of the candidates and that Sanders supporters’ thinking tends to focus primarily on policy issues, I conclude that they could work better with each other by taking that into account as they talk to each other.
* * *
Empathy is, among other things, the ability to see the world—at least momentarily—from the perspective of another without judging that perspective to be ‘bad’ or ‘flawed.’
When you agree with someone, it’s easy to see what they see and withhold negativity. But when we disagree, empathy takes effort and practice.
In this presidential election year, I get twenty opportunities every day to both practice and observe empathy. My friends include both Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters, and—you may have noticed—tensions are high between them just now.
Disclosure: I voted for Sanders. But for several reasons, I didn’t think that working for him in Wisconsin would be the most effective use of my energies. I was right; he won the primary here without my help. So as far as the presidential race goes, I’ve been in observation mode pretty much all along.
My conclusions: Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters share almost all the same foundational civic values—freedom, justice, a nation that pulls together and works cooperatively to achieve equal opportunity and shared prosperity for all.
But they have come to support different candidates because of where they look to find evidence of those values in the candidates.
My sister and brother-in-law provide a clear illustration. He supports Sanders, she Clinton. I asked them at lunch the other day to give me three reasons why they initially decided to support their candidate.
Their answers won’t surprise you. As you read their answers below, appreciate and accept the fact that each is sincere: These truly are the factors that were decisive for them. Notice they both have their facts straight. Notice the absence of conflict in their core values. But notice that they look at different things to find those values in the candidates.
My brother-in-law said he was drawn to Sanders by: 1) Regulation of the financial industry. He believes that Wall Street is causing most of the biggest problems hurting Americans right now, and believes that we need to regulate their conduct more effectively. Sander’s positions on Wall Street regulation precisely agree with his own. 2) Use of America’s military force. He believes America’s foreign policy has been too reliant for too long on military power, and that creates more terrorists than it stops, costs us too much money, and is immoral. He likes Sanders’ positions on military policy. 3) College expenses. Sanders won him over with his early, clear, and strong focus on higher-education debt as a significant factor limiting opportunity for an entire generation of Americans, and his bold proposals to address it.
My sister-in-law said she was drawn to Clinton by: 1) Her experience. She has worked in many jobs, at very high levels, for a very long time. That amount of experience gives Clinton the most impressive resume of any presidential candidate ever. 2) Her ability to weather storms of criticism. She has endured years of the most vitriolic and relentless criticism that any public figure has ever had to endure—some of which could have sent her to prison had her accusers prevailed—and she just kept going. Didn’t crumble. Didn’t surrender. 3) Her gender. Having a woman in the White House will be of benefit to the entire nation because it will provide undeniable proof that women can do anything. That will help millions of American women achieve their individual potentials, and that will help the entire nation.
Do you see what I see? The Sanders voter looks at policy positions for evidence of a candidate’s value. The Clinton voter looks at personal attributes.
For months, I’ve been analyzing the posts that roll by on my Facebook feed. There have been hundreds, because my Facebook friends are very civic-minded. Nearly every pro-Sanders/anti-Clinton comment has a policy focus. Nearly every pro-Clinton/anti-Sanders comment has a person focus.
Most of the exceptions come when they are heavy into debate mode, grabbing any argument that might stick.
What breaks my heart is when I see attempts at reaching across the divide that fail because the participants neither perceive nor address other perspective.
For example, one exchange I’ve encountered several times is when a Sanders supporter asks something like “Please, Clinton supporter, tell me how she’d make a good president. If you can do that, I’ll be willing to do this ‘unity’ thing. Make your case.”
Nine times out of ten, the Clinton supporter responds with a string of ‘person’ arguments, perhaps along the lines of: “Clinton’s experience with weathering horrible personal attacks makes her more likely to win in November, despite what the polls now say. The Republicans will call Sanders a “Socialist,” and voters don’t like socialists…” and so forth.
The Sanders supporter then claims he or she hasn’t heard a single argument in favor of Clinton, which makes the Clinton supporter perceive the Sanders supporter as pig-headed. But the Sanders supporter truly did not hear any relevant arguments—because those ‘person’ arguments are not important or persuasive to a voter who focuses primarily on policy.
I haven’t got a solution—just a suggestion that we all try to be as non-judgmentally alert as we can to each other’s values and perspectives. That won’t be wasted effort. As I’ve written in this blog before, I don’t think any of us ever changes another’s mind anyway—at least not directly and immediately, and particularly not in a single conversation.
Changes of minds happen in the shower, or when chopping vegetables, when we are alone with our thoughts, reviewing the conversations we’ve had or the new information that has come our way.
In any single conversation, if we do no more than successfully connect with each other—that is, if we come to understand the other’s point of view and succeed in expressing our own in a way that can be understood by the other–we will have given each other the raw materials that enable us to reach consensus over time.