Politics are a highly divisive talking point among families, especially during November when everyone gathers for Thanksgiving. Many people struggle with discussing politics among relatives due to conflicting views, leading to fierce arguments and strained relationships. How should one approach these conversations?

Braver Angels, a New York State nonprofit dedicated to bridging political division, provided solutions to this predicament at its “Family & Politics” workshop in the Walker Valley Schoolhouse Community Center on Saturday, November 8. During the workshop, participants considered the challenges surrounding political differences, learned about communication skills for engaging in political conversations, and practiced said skills in group exercises.

Braver Angel Vahe Keukjian led Saturday’s workshop, presenting a slideshow with extensive information and instructing attendees on various exercises. He opened the session with a question: Why should families discuss politics and their opposing views? Many attendees asserted that families should provide a safe space for political conversations, allowing relatives to find common ground and better understand each other’s viewpoints. Some also mentioned that political discussions are an important aspect of democracy, expanding people’s minds with different perspectives.

Following this, Keukjian listed the six different roles that people often take up during political conversations. These included the following:

• The gladiator, who initiates debates against relatives with opposing views. They are very headstrong and seek to assert their beliefs onto others.
• The defender, who responds to relatives with counterattacks. They typically talk after others and misrepresent their relatives’ position.
• The sniper, who enjoys throwing “digs” at relatives during conversations. They attempt to get a rise out of their relatives, then back out from the discussion.
• The peacekeeper, who attempts to prevent all political discussions. They will interrupt relatives and steer the conversation away to a different topic.
• The bystander, who does not participate in any political discussions. They can be seen with their head down, looking at their phone, or engrossed with an activity.
• The engager, who strives to have respectful conversations regardless of political differences. Saturday’s workshop aimed to create more engagers.

After establishing these roles, Keukjian stated that one should not try to influence their relatives’ political views directly, lest it lead to resistance and animosity. He explained that relatives are separate individuals with their own beliefs, and they will not immediately change said beliefs just because someone may not agree with them. Keukjian added that adults can maintain mature conversations with their relatives, and suggested that they could prepare and practice responses ahead of time if necessary.

When talking with challenging family members, especially gladiators, Keukjian recommended LAPP: listen to understand, acknowledge or agree, pivot, and perspective. As an example, imagine Speaker A and Speaker B having a discussion about geese. Here is how Speaker B would apply LAPP to this conversation:

• Speaker A expresses their disdain for geese, calling them noisy and aggressive animals that leave messes in their local park. Speaker B simply listens to them without interrupting them or arguing back. While listening, Speaker B also tries to find things in Speaker A’s statement to agree with.
• After Speaker A finishes talking, Speaker B acknowledges Speaker A’s point of view, and agrees that geese can be hostile animals if provoked.
• Speaker B then pivots the conversation and asks if they could share their perspective on geese, to which Speaker A permits. If Speaker A declined to hear out Speaker B, the conversation would have ended there.
• Speaker B provides their viewpoint on geese using I-statements, explaining how the birds are interesting and funny animals that serve important roles in their local ecosystems. If Speaker A were to interrupt the conversation with a rebuttal, Speaker B would repeat the three previous steps of LAPP. Once finished, Speaker B can exit the conversation with brief and constructive exchanges, making sure not to criticize Speaker A’s stance.

Later in the workshop, Keukjian provided additional strategies and skills. If someone is in the political minority during a family gathering, they could avoid engagement altogether, engage respectfully, or test the water by giving their opinion. If they choose to engage, they should maintain their composure, avoid taking bait, speak up productively, withdraw from conversations, without creating drama, and prevent future tension between relatives.

For more information on Braver Angels and its services, visit its website at braverangels.org.