Instead of arguing with his uncle’s opposing views, he chose curiosity over judgment. The resulting conversation led to unexpected common ground and showed how political divides can be bridged.
The story
I was at a family reunion last weekend when my uncle Dave started ranting about a policy I strongly disagree with. My first instinct? Roll my eyes and launch into why he was wrong.
Instead, I took a breath and remembered what I’ve been practicing. “Tell me more about why you feel that way,” I said.
The conversation that followed wasn’t perfect. But for the first time in years, we actually listened to each other. We found common ground on wanting better education for kids, even though our approaches differed.
When writing Chapter 15 of my book, I kept thinking about conversations like these. The truth is, we don’t need to choose between our values and civil discourse. Political differences don’t have to ruin relationships.
The key? Curiosity over judgment. Questions over accusations. And remembering that behind every political stance is a human being with experiences that shaped their view.
It’s not about compromising what matters to you. It’s about approaching differences with enough grace that actual communication becomes possible.
The most powerful moment that day with my uncle wasn’t when we agreed [which was rare], but when he said, “I’ve never heard it explained that way before.”
Recent Comments