It is astounding that aside from young first time voters, most of the 20 million extra people who had never voted before turned out to be heard because the stakes felt too high not to use their precious right this time round.
In historic numbers, they campaigned fiercely, mailed their ballot or queued for hours to use their sharpies. And whether they wanted to put someone in, or else keep someone in or out of the White House, they did so so because their hopes, fears and values were on the line. As Simon Sinek argues, what we do is dictated by why we do it.
The thing is we vote with our minds and bodies all the time. At best, our thoughts and actions are dictated by our highest aspirations - at worst, by our deepest fears or basest interests. This includes our professional decisions, as well as the daily personal choices we make. The stronger the emotional appeal, the more likely the facts are trumped.
Across any spectrum of opinion, it’s easy to demonise the other’s unjust views, dismiss emotional outbursts or ridicule contentious denials of our own reality. Easier still when surrounded by those who agree with us - or don’t feel it in their interest to disagree. As political positions become increasingly entrenched in the US, or indeed anywhere in our own lives where polarised views exist, the task of breaking communication deadlock becomes even harder.
The answer, however unpalatable, is to acknowledge how things look from ‘the other’s’ side of the valley - however illegitimate those views may seem. This does not mean to agree, but to listen – and allow the other party to feel heard. Whilst this may sound like a policy of appeasement, it does not have to be, nor does it equate to conceding.
However galling, experienced negotiators know that attentive listening is the stronger and mature option – in this instance, the only one that keeps the door open to reassuring a divided country, further separated and fuelled by yet to be substantiated claims.
In any leadership situation, political, professional or personal, taking the initiative to understand and acknowledge opposing emotions, as well as commonalities feeds more positive outcomes.
Most of us would argue that only psychopaths deliberately feed division, whilst we would distance our own behaviours from such accusations. Yet perhaps we unwittingly perpetuate the same mistake when we only see the world from our own experience, or through the prism of our own sense of righteousness.
All of this is certainly not to condone serious acts of hatred or injustice, but rather to find ways in our daily lives to avoid stoking communication fires. When we come across those we don’t agree with, particularly those we vehemently disagree with, we can decide to let them feel heard. In doing so, not only can we pave the way to frame our views whilst acknowledging theirs, we can promote the possibility of dialogue and hope.
In any case, respect is never a radical idea.