Brad’s really into politics.
And this is unfortunate because I, on the other hand, am not. I actually have a fairly strong dislike for politics because it’s all about arguing and debating and tearing down other people. And that’s just the candidates.
Voters are more volatile than ever before. People are protesting. People are getting hurt. Flags are getting stomped on. Even in civilized circles of friends, conversations are quick to become angry, insulting and personal.
This does not bode well with me, the peace junkie. I usually try to avoid the subject altogether and try to walk away from discussions every chance I get.
But alas, I live with Mr. Smith who wants to go to Washington. Occasionally Brad will say, “I should get involved in politics. I would be a great politician. Maybe I should run for president.”
And I’m quick to remind him how I would immediately torpedo his campaign if he ever threw his hat in the ring. I have promised him that I would cause the most obscene scandals I could think of just to disqualify him from running because his wife is such a lunatic.
(The bottom line is, the First Lady can’t wear jeans every day or cuss or mess up in ANY way EVER or do anything fun without everybody judging her. So I figure I just go ahead and take myself out of the running before the first Staton 2020 signs get made. Makes sense, right?)
I don’t have the stomach for politics. I don’t handle mean well. I never dealt with mean girls growing up. Never really experienced true meanness until my 30s. And I DON’T LIKE IT. Politics makes people mean.
So since I won’t support my husband’s White House dreams, I figure I should not give him a hard time about getting into things as much as he can from the safety of our home. Which means lots of yelling people on my TV.
Chris Matthews, Megyn Kelly, Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski and Brian Williams have become my new roommates. And of course, Trump is on TV every time you turn around so I get plenty of him, believe me. It kind of makes me want to build a wall. In front of all the TVs in the house. (And make Brad pay for it.)
But I have to admit, the most palatable political discourse to me is Morning Joe. I like Joe and Mika. I like their chemistry. They disagree without being disagreeable. So they’re usually on in the background while I’m putting my makeup on in the morning.
A few weeks ago, Brad left Joe and Mika on when he went to work and I decided to let them keep me company. They were interviewing a couple of campaign experts and what they were saying stopped me mid-mascara. I sat down on the couch, hit rewind and watched with great interest.
These two professional campaigners were talking about ‘political canvassing.’ After a number of studies, research was showing that minds were changed and decisions were made in face-to-face conversations, two-way conversations, as opposed to a candidate giving a speech or a supporter waxing political to a group.
“There’s a much broader swath of voters who are undecided and persuadable. So micro-targeting can easily lead us to make a mistake and spend almost all of our time just talking to people who agree with us. The truth is a much larger number of people would be willing to agree with us if we just take the time to talk with them.” They said face-to-face conversation builds more lasting support than other campaign tactics.
Two-way conversations. Face to face. What a novel idea.
We’ve all heard all the stats and studies about what a lonely, disconnected society we are, despite all our gadgets that are supposed to connect us. ‘Phubbing’ is the new #1 relationship killer. And it seems that the main way to ‘discuss’ controversial issues these days is angry blogs and Facebook rants. One-sided.
(Yes, you can comment on blogs and Facebook. But when it comes down to it, the original author of the post has all the power and can remove your comments, if he/she doesn’t like them. And for heaven’s sake, if you value your REAL friends at all, do NOT debate issues on Facebook. No telling how many true friendships have been damaged or ended because of battles fought via keyboard behind the shield of a screen.)
I saw a beautiful example of this on the Tuesday after the terrorist shootings at the multi-church prayer service held at First Baptist Orlando. Face-to-face conversations forced by the tragedy revealed surprising truths. While still disagreeing with the homosexual lifestyle, Christians expressed their love and support of the LGBT community. There were hugs, tears and prayers shared between two groups who had previously felt mutually rejected by each other.
The best way to maintain prejudice and assume the worst of another person is to avoid a face-to-face conversation. Because once you start talking, the other person starts to look like a human being and less like the unknown to be feared or rejected. Misunderstandings are explained, positions are clarified and often things end on a positive note, even if it’s just agreeing to disagree.
It takes a lot for me to purposely walk into a conversation with disagreement or misunderstanding as a starting point. Like in politics, conflict and confrontation are NOT my cup of Diet Coke.
But I will say, in recent years I’ve gotten better at confronting a deteriorating relationship with a face-to-face conversation for the purpose of saving it. Several times it has worked. A few times, it hasn’t. And I mean REALLY hasn’t. And for those times, I think the breakdown was this:
Just because you’re sitting across the table from someone talking about something doesn’t necessarily make it a truly two-way conversation. Both sides must get to speak. But far more importantly, both sides must truly LISTEN.
Listening to someone’s point of view just so you can poke holes in it does not count. Putting on your listening face while inwardly preparing your next argument does not count. Looking at someone while they’re talking is not the same as listening.
During my coaching training, a lot of time was spent on the skill of listening. The teachers regularly reminded us that while people were coming to us for ‘answers’ or a plan, what the client was saying was always much more important than what we were saying. And the most powerful way to help someone make changes is to start by listening to UNDERSTAND, not just listening to FIX.
Before that, I thought I was a good listener. But that training showed me that I regularly listen to fix, listen while building a plan of action, listen while coming up with the next thing to say. Listening to understand takes a lot longer, but can help you get to a better result and produce lasting change.
Jesus understood the value of face-to-face conversations. While He regularly preached to large groups, just as often He sought to connect with others personally and individually.
And while fully knowing their thoughts, their hearts and the situation even better than they did, He engaged. He didn’t just make proclamations about their lives and move on. He let them speak. And He listened.
He’s still listening.
Most of us struggle with the idea of prayer being a two-sided conversation. We often feel like we’re just throwing words out into the air, never really sure if they reach the ear of God or if they make any difference. And most of us certainly don’t ‘hear’ Him respond.
Sometimes He does respond in ways we can perceive and it actually FEELS like the real relationship that it is. But even when we can’t hear Him, we can know that He is ALWAYS listening, ALWAYS understanding and ALWAYS loving.
The professional campaign strategists on Morning Joe that day had an agenda, to convince the undecided voters to vote for their candidate.
I would say it’s nearly (if not completely) impossible to approach a situation with no agenda. Our life experiences, our wants and needs, our personalities, everything about us is moving us toward one desired outcome or another.
But what if our agenda was TO UNDERSTAND?
Maybe if we were interviewed we would say, “There’s a large population who are undecided about Jesus and potentially open to hearing about His love for them. So micro-targeting can easily lead us to make a mistake and spend almost all of our time just talking to people who already believe. The truth is a much larger number of people would be willing to accept Him if we just take the time to talk with them.”
If you want to connect with someone, if you truly want to engage them, deepen and/or protect the relationship, close your laptop, put down your phone, get off your soapbox and/or high horse and sit down face to face for a conversation. A two-way conversation where both people get to speak and both people intentionally listen.
As the country continues to be polarized by politics, terrorism and disaster, there are increasingly more and more opportunities to express differing opinions with grace and respect.
Another common question in coaching is, “In this situation, what would success look like?”
I bet most of us would say a ‘successful’ conversation would be converting the other person to our point of view.
But maybe in times of crisis, we need to lower the bar. Maybe the only indicator of the success of a face-to-face conversation is the status of the relationship when the conversation is over.
In these heated days, I need to apply extra grace to conflict, assume the best from ‘the other’ and have a conversation whenever possible. Not with the goal of convincing, but with the goal of connecting.
That is truly ‘the most excellent way.’
