slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

We need to value problem solving over partisanship. There are lessons to be learned from international negotiations.

By Adam Hinds

America is dangerously divided. Instead of a national dialogue, a vicious partisanship tears our social fabric and impedes government's ability to get things done. It's time for a new approach.

Before becoming a state senator, I worked for the United Nations for 10 years on negotiations and conflict analysis -- first in Iraq, then in Jerusalem and Syria. Lessons from international negotiation help explain our own divisions and point to a way out.

How have we gotten to this frighteningly d******e point in our history? To start, major shifts in our political process, media and economy since the 1980s have encouraged division. Gerrymandering and massive increases in campaign contributions have incentivized partisan rhetoric. Social media amplifies these divisions. And as the U.S. economy has shifted away from manufacturing, working-class wages have stagnated.

Each change since the 1980s has heightened the feeling so many Americans have of being under attack -- the belief that other groups lack respect for your group and are indifferent to your needs. It feels like a duty to stand for your community when it seems under threat. As a result, we have reached a stalemate in politics and government.

From a conflict-resolution perspective, stalemates are not bad; they can open the way to engagement. But first each side must recognize that they cannot move beyond stalemate and reach their own goals without the other side's consent. We need a new approach to the political process, one that values problem solving over partisan combat. There are three simple steps we can each take to undercut division in our politics and conversations and find our way back to collaboration and progress.

First, people need to be heard, and they need to feel heard. A recent MIT study showed positive attitude changes on the part of a group holding one view of an issue toward a group holding an opposing view after members of the first group were given the opportunity to explain their cause to someone in the second. The opportunity to share one's story with those on the other side of an issue is critical, and posting online is not enough. Creating the opportunity for people to explain their stories and concerns -- through town hall meetings, deliberate conversations and in personal interactions -- is essential.

Second, we need to reach out to the other side of an issue. It's not easy: Part of the problem is that the changes of the last 30 years have created identity groups and intensified loyalty to existing ones. That can lead to dynamics such as boosted confidence in positions, dehumanizing of others, simplistic evaluations of complicated issues and more. But to truly get what your group needs and to produce results that will last, you need engagement that meets the underlying needs of all sides. Power -- defined as getting others to work with you for your needs -- grows from relating to each other and understanding the other side's underlying objectives. But you need to engage for that to happen.

Third, the goal should be to solve problems, not to win debates. When differences emerge, start by creating a process to identify the underlying needs and objectives of those on all sides of an issue. This means not automatically attacking the position of the other side without trying to understand their experience. The full range of local and national issues could benefit from this approach, from local projects to overcoming r****m.

Skeptics may label this approach to problem-solving politics as giving in, but it's much more likely to get you what you need in the long run. Problem-solving politics won't satisfy those who make a living -- or a political career -- out of insulting opponents. But for the rest of us, it will get to solutions that work by focusing on underlying needs.

It is time to demand that elected officials and thought leaders not play into the old divide-and-rule tactic. We have to remove social support for that approach and reward efforts to meet fundamental needs through problem-solving politics. This is how we can confront and address the conditions that have led to crippling partisan division and create a more productive government. We can create a style of politics and communication that sets an example for the world.

https://www.governing.com/gov-institute/voices/col-division-partisanship-problem-solving-politics.html

Wonttakeitanymore

First we must correct the 2020 e******n! Why weren’t you guys speaking this when we had a good president!

Liberty Tree

Democrats only want to work together when they are in control. Of course, their definition of working together is doing everything their way.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Unfortunately, solutions aren't nearly as lucrative as problems.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

A perfect example of Americas dysfunction.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

We first need to forgive them, it isn’t their fault, they are bombarded with f**e news, lies, suppositions, elite ideals that benefit only the elite , that they have taken up as reality. Airwaves that preach anti American sentiment should be heard in court.
Entertainment or not they are creating a dangerous precedent.
They have convinced these hooligans the world is their enemy of their Big Lie.
An example must be set for future behaviors. Like frog marching 45 into court.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Until we collectively deal with trust and honesty in our elected officials by holding them accountable to a high standard of t***h, then what is being proposed here is either a complete pipe dream, or a deflection on the part of the instigators.

We Americans have a Bill of Rights and a Constitution that recognizes each individual’s God-given rights.

All of the words in that last sentence have clear and absolute meanings.

The left is waging an all out war, based on thoroughly Marxist ideology, that disdains “moral” engagement as basically weak. They are in a no-holds barred, the end justifies the means, mode of attack against our tried and true US of A culture of freedom, liberty, self-responsibility and capitalism. Marxism is anything but tried and true. It is ultimately demoralizing and tyrannical and genocidal.

Until the l*****t Marxists are willing to discuss openly and honestly their true and actual goals of “fundamentally t***sforming” our America to socialism and a one world government, they simply cannot be trusted to engage in honest dialog.

Conservatives, although each of us morally imperfect as we may be, are at least open and honest with our goals, objectives and intentions: maintain our Constitution and Bill of Rights as the law, and moral compass, as the supreme law and guiding principles of our land.

But l*****t Marxist want us to submit to their subversion of our ideals based on their underhanded tactics of demeaning our whole culture beginning with the most clear and obvious foundation of all: the basic family unit of a man a woman and their naturally, biologically reproduced offspring, as if maintaining that ideal has now become immoral.

News flash: Conservatives ain’t buying it!

That is what is at issue dividing our nation. Like it or not, admit it or not.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Let’s start with the fundamentals and see who is being fed a lie.

How many people in world history have been born outside of the natural union of one man and one woman?

How many people would populate the next generation if everyone became homosexual overnight?

The former PROVES conclusively and scientifically the social benefit of recognizing by legal mandate the naturally obvious union of one man and one woman for the propagation of the species, and the basic foundational building block of all natural human society.

The latter PROVES conclusively and scientifically the sterile, and ultimately deleterious and destructive nature of homosexual unions.

Now, are you going to use propaganda or observable science to advance your l*****t agenda?

billy a Loc: South Florida

Hiya, Slat. I'm going to jump right in...Remember the old movie "The Day the Earth Stood Still" ? ALL of humanity faced annihilation if they/we diddn't stop fighting and raising hell. No questions, no excuses, just STOP IT !! It worked...in the movie. I'm an alcoholic, twenty-one years without a drink. The Fellowship I found saved my life. It is made up of LITERALLY every kind of people. We have some spicy debates, but they don't last long, because we depend on each other to stay away from a drink. To me and most others, to drink is to die. Desperation, and the shared threat of a lousy, miserable death keeps us together, like family. My point is, it IS possible for people to "get along", but it takes a hardy kick in the ass to make it happen. A limited nuclear war ? These UFOs we've been hearing about? Jesus Christ? I don't know, but this fragile twig is about to snap. God Bless the World.

Ricktloml

Compromise for a Democrat/C*******t is...you abandon your principles and give the Democrat/C*******t exactly what they want. It NEVER works with Democrat/C*******ts ceding any point. And it is because they have no desire to make America better...their goal is "fundamental t***sformation" into a c*******t state, where they hold the power and control.

ChJoe

That's a good question! The were totally obsessed with their h**e for Trump. They still are and he's not even president anymore.

ChJoe

He makes some good points but I think the greatest blame can be squarely placed upon the media who tries to sensationalize everything form a spring storm to politics.

Wonttakeitanymore

Exactly!

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Sadly, many from both parties feel that way. Former GOP Senatorial candidate Richard Mourdock lost his e******n in Indiana due in part to the following quote from him during the campaign..."I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view".

By definition, compromise consists of give & take by both sides.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Thanks for the nice 'jump in', Billy A.