Liberals Should Try Harder to Understand Their Adversaries

Even—or especially—in emotionally fraught times.

As someone whose social circles largely lean liberal, both in life and online, I have witnessed many visceral reactions to the scenes coming out of Minneapolis during the past several weeks, especially the two shootings of American citizens. In addition to general expressions of outrage over the shootings and ICE’s behavior, one recurring question keeps popping up: how can anyone defend this?

The more American life has become politically and culturally fragmented, the less people seem to understand their fellow citizens who see the world differently than they do. This has created “perception gaps” that lead people to misunderstand others’ motivations (and sometimes even ascribe views to them that they may not possess). It leaves many of us wondering how others could possibly believe what they believe.

When two groups in conflict fail to accurately assess why the other side believes the things it does, it inevitably prolongs—and often exacerbates—hostilities. It can also make it harder for a group to achieve its goals by limiting the reach of their appeal and boosting resentments on the other side.

At the moment, the Americans seeking major social and political reforms tend to be liberal-leaning. Among other things, they want a more humane immigration system and a check on what they see as creeping authoritarianism in the federal government. So, while much of this piece applies to people of all ideological persuasions, I want to focus on why it is prudent for liberals, specifically, to try to better understand their opponents—and why it may be difficult for them to achieve their desired reforms if they don’t.

How Liberals View Their Opponents

In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 election, there was a noticeable divergence in how left-of-center Americans reacted to Trump’s win. A large faction—perhaps a majority—fell into what one might call “resist” mode. “This is not normal” became a popular rallying cry. Those in this faction viewed Trump as an intellectually weak and morally reprehensible figure, and they believed his penchant for norm-breaking represented a threat to the republic—perceptions that weren’t without merit.

Many of these liberals also began to subscribe to a particular story about the election and what it meant: half of the country had voted for a man who was clearly a bad person and an ignoramus, judgments that by extension applied to those voters as well. Some members of this faction even seemed to take things a step further and assumed that, by definition, they were morally and intellectually superior to the other half of the country, a sentiment perhaps best encapsulated by the ubiquitous, self-assured lawn signs seen in many a liberal neighborhood.

This narrative obfuscated their ability to see a bigger, more nuanced picture of both that election and their fellow citizens. For starters, not even half of all voters that year supported Trump, let alone half of the country. Moreover, people who supported Trump that year had differing reasons for doing so, just as those who voted for Clinton did.

These liberals also tend to hold highly pessimistic views of Americans who don’t share their values or beliefs. A 2019 survey from the group More In Common found that partisans had stronger perception gaps, which cause people to see their opponents as more extreme than they many actually are. This in turn inculcates more hostile views about those on the other side. As the survey reported, “People with large perception gaps are more likely to describe their opponents as hateful, ignorant, and bigoted.”¹

Perception gaps have not only made it more difficult for partisans to understand or see the complexity in their adversaries, but they also convince people that they don’t have anything to learn from the other side—and that it’s perhaps not worth engaging with them at all. Recent polling has suggested that this attitude is stronger among Democrats, who are substantially less likely than Republicans to say they have a close friend in the other party and more likely to say it is acceptable to cut off contact with a family member who has opposing political views.

Is it any wonder, then, that so many people in this faction look at Trump’s presidency and exasperatedly, bewilderedly ask, “How could anyone believe such terrible things, or support such terrible people?”

It’s important to note that not all liberals went this route after 2016. Another faction took a moment to reflect on how they missed the major political currents in the country that led to Trump’s win. And though many were concerned by his behavior and his plans for the presidency, they also believed it was necessary for Democrats to figure out how their brand had become so toxic that people were willing to support a candidate like him—and why millions of people who had twice voted for Obama (a polar opposite president), including many working-class Americans (long the backbone of the party), had suddenly abandoned them.

It became common for those in this faction to diversify their information and media diets, engage more regularly with people of different ideological backgrounds, and try to better understand where the disconnects were. The idea was that to defeat Trump four years later, they needed to first grasp why and whom the party lost the first time. These liberals were likely to see their opponents more accurately—what their real motivations and beliefs were, and how they stood apart from others on that “side.”

Why It’s Important to See One’s Opponents Clearly

Some partisans will inevitably wonder whether getting a more complete picture of their adversaries is really necessary. The people on “that side” took an action that led to the chaos and breakdown we’re seeing today. Who cares why they did it? It’s not our job to figure that out. If anything, a reasonable response is to call them out for what they have wrought on the rest of society.

But there are myriad reasons why developing a greater understanding of the other “side” benefits everyone. The first is simply that when people do this, they become likelier to acknowledge that most groups aren’t monoliths—or full of extremists. On the contrary, most people do not hold extreme views. Perhaps just as importantly, most genuinely believe that their views are morally good. Why else would they hold them? Just realizing this can help break down the barriers to talking across divides.

It’s also hard for people to make genuine progress on issues they care about if they can’t even comprehend why their opponents believe what they do or treat their views and concerns as legitimate. Consider the campaign to make same-sex marriage legal, which moved to the forefront of the culture wars as I came of age. I remember well the arguments on both sides of the debate as well as what people thought their opponents believed. Many liberals presumed conservatives who opposed gay marriage simply did so out of bigotry, making it easier to dismiss them altogether.

It’s no doubt true that some gay marriage opponents simply loathed the idea of same-sex relations. However, plenty more had objections that deserved to be addressed, including the fear that they might be coerced by law to support something that violated their conscience. As it became clear that some of these concerns were quite reasonable, gay marriage advocates addressed them head-on. Over time, a majority of even Republicans came to support gay marriage², and legal protections for same-sex couples were enshrined into law. Getting to this point, though, not only required activists to understand their opponents but to meet them where they were, treat their views as valid, and engage them in good faith.

There’s a lesson here for liberals who want to see movement in their direction on other issues, such as the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement. Rather than dismissing people who support these policies as irredeemably racist, xenophobic, or authoritarian, another option is to try to understand what is driving people’s concerns. Yes, some may simply harbor bigotry toward anyone who is not a white American. But many also have sincere reservations that liberals can engage with—and may even be open to changing their mind if they are treated with dignity and respect.

Finally, as the side that currently finds itself out of political power and struggling somewhat to regain it, it can’t hurt liberals to take a beat and reflect on whether their current tactics are working. The public is starting to turn on ICE, but that development has not translated into renewed support for the Democratic Party on immigration. The party’s loss of trust on these issues during the Biden years will take time to earn back, and it could ultimately inhibit their ability to win big this fall.

If Democrats want to win the power to check Trump on these issues, they will need to expand their coalition to compete in districts and states across the country where the electorates are more conservative than their median base voter. And this necessarily means they will need to win support from at least some people who voted for Trump.

How to Understand Liberals’ Opponents

Over the past couple of weeks, I came across two very insightful takes on how the left can think about its opponents on the right. The first comes courtesy of former Obama administration official Van Jones. While he has long operated as a partisan Democrat, Jones has lamented how divided the country has become, how estranged many Americans are from one another, and how this has destabilized our politics.

One culprit he has identified is the completely different frameworks that partisans use to process the world. Because liberals and conservatives live in different information ecosystems, are surrounded by different peer groups, and often hold different values, trying to understand people on the other “side” can be like trying to learn a new language.

This has led Americans to watch some of the same videos from Minneapolis and come to completely different conclusions. So, Jones outlined for each side what, exactly, the other believes. Here’s what he told liberals that conservatives are seeing and why it makes sense to them:

• ICE is law enforcement, and disobeying law enforcement is a serious violation—full stop.

• These arrests are needed for public safety. They are sweeping up violent criminals and drug traffickers. The U.S. must crack down on them or risk becoming like Europe, which is struggling with Islamic extremism.

• These protests aren’t acts of conscience but rather acts of obstruction. People physically interfering with law enforcement risk escalating danger for the agents on the scene.

• Lawsuits against ICE are a decision to choose chaos over order. When Democratic officeholders align with protesters, they undermine security to score political points.

Whether or not liberals agree with these sentiments, they are strongly held beliefs for many conservatives and stem from moral convictions about right and wrong. And if liberals hope to open discussions with people on the right and try to convince them to withdraw their support for Trump’s actions in Minnesota, it might be useful to start by acknowledging the validity of these concerns.³

Another way for liberals to understand their opponents is by looking at who, exactly, voted for Trump. Over this past weekend, More In Common published a new report that did just that. Titled “Beyond MAGA,” it looked at four different factions that made up Trump’s 2024 coalition. The banner takeaway from it: less than one-third of these voters are MAGA hardliners—a reminder that no group is a monolith!

The other three factions of his coalition included:

• Anti-woke conservatives (21 percent), who are relatively well-off, politically engaged, and deeply frustrated by the perceived takeover of schools, culture, and institutions by the progressive left.

• Mainline Republicans (30 percent), middle-of-the-road conservatives who play by the rules and expect others to do the same. Most do not follow politics closely. For them, Trump’s strength is that he advances familiar conservative priorities: securing the border, keeping the economy strong, and preserving a sense of cultural stability.

• Reluctant Right (20 percent), the most ambivalent cohort of Trump’s coalition and the group most likely to have voted for Trump transactionally: the businessman who was “less bad” than the alternative. Many feel disconnected from national politics and believe politicians (including sometimes Republicans) do not share their priorities.

This means that fully seven-in-ten 2024 Trump voters are not committed supporters, and some don’t even like him that much. They have been willing to stick with him for myriad reasons, including because they have viewed the alternatives as worse (at least to this point). But these are the kinds of people who could be gettable if liberals are willing to engage, and there are clear openings for agreement.

For instance, in contrast to the first two groups, a plurality of Mainline Republicans and a majority of the Reluctant Right agree with the statement, “The government should not deport anyone without a hearing before a judge so that people who have a genuine right to be in the US don’t get mistakenly deported.” And roughly the same shares of Trump voters (71 percent) and voters overall (72 percent) reported having a “very warm feeling” toward legal immigrants.

It really may not be as hard as liberals believe to find points of connection with people who supported Trump. But it starts with showing a willingness to engage in good faith, meet people where the are, and look for areas of compromise. The north star for those who want to dilute Trump’s power should be doing what it takes to win converts.

What Won’t Work to Persuade One’s Opponents

The late journalist Mark Shields once memorably said, “In politics, as in religion, you can either spend your time hunting for heretics or looking for converts.” Assuming liberals are more keen on winning new converts than not, let’s consider three things that are less likely to work in pursuit of that end:

• Shaming or condescending. “It’s okay to admit you were wrong. You can come to the virtuous, enlightened side anytime you like.” Many liberals have shared similar sentiments this week. But though the frustration is understandable, lines like this are dripping contempt and condescension and will likely cause people to tune out before a conversation can even start.

• Name-calling. “If you support ICE, you are a fascist.” Those who are honest with themselves would probably acknowledge that taunting, mocking, and leveling epithets at people on the other side of a debate is perhaps the least effective way to get them to listen, let alone change their mind.

• Using the wrong moral framework. This one may be less obvious, but people are more willing to hear counterarguments to their views if they are made using their preferred moral framework. While liberals are accustomed to arguments for immigration that center on human rights and diversity, these are less likely to resonate with conservatives, who often favor order and rules. If liberals desire to break through to them, re-sharing social media posts that present the liberal argument for a specific policy or viewpoint is unlikely to work. Instead, they would do well to learn how to code-switch.

---

It’s hard in the heat of the moment of conflict to put oneself in the shoes of one’s adversary—or to even desire to do so. Overtures in that vein can feel pointless or aggravating: “Now isn’t the time to look for reconciliation with the other side; it’s time to stand up and be counted.” This is not an unreasonable view. Humans also have strong incentives to form solidarity with those who already think like them. The warm embrace of like-minded people, especially at a time when one feels under siege by those in another tribe, is a comforting thought.

At the same time, political polarization has made American politics feel totally ineffective, creating periods of either intractable stalemates or total domination by one party over the other. Neither is serving the republic well. At some point, the exhausted majority, including many liberals and conservatives, must decide to try another way for the sake of the country.

One place to start is by simply seeing one’s political adversaries for who they are, not who cable news, social media algorithms, or even our peers tell us they are. This of course won’t mean an end to all of our divisions. But it may least offer a window for our political tribes to engage with each other once more and begin the process of fixing what ails our great country.

1. To be sure, this phenomenon was true across both Democrats and Republicans.

2. Of course, this support has regressed recently—a topic for another day.

3. Similarly, Jones delineated for conservatives the good-faith reasons why liberals believe what they do about the events in Minneapolis.