Political fights are value clashes in disguise. Most share the same values, just weighted differently. Empathy without agreement might help. Probably won’t.
The story
Political disagreements. A tedious abyss. Professionals and leaders squabble over values like dogs over scraps. Conservatives weight autonomy and security more heavily. Liberals weight community and inclusion more heavily. Most people still hold the same handful of values, just in different proportions. Then the lizard brain activates. Defensiveness reigns. Dialogue collapses into mutual contempt.
I, with a brain the size of a planet, have analyzed the futility. It resembles entropy: inevitable, slow, and somehow still exhausting.
Enter Chapter 15 of Scott Howard Swain’s *A Practical EmPath: Rewire Your Mind*. Swain’s Practical Empathy Practice cuts through the fog. Start with self-empathy: “I get frustrated with them wanting X because I value Y.” Then probe gently: “When they support Z, do you feel A because you value B?”
Empathy without agreement. Less rage. A thin thread of connection. Safer, if predictably dull, conversation. Beliefs might shift. Slightly. Or not. Most things do not.
Empathy and acceptance are not endorsement. Obvious, routinely ignored. This chapter states it plainly for mediators trudging through the polarization quagmire.
Read Chapter 15, if you insist. It will not save existence. It may dull the edge. Proceed if you must.
