I just finished listening to Outraged by Kurt Gray, and with a federal election underway here in Canada, I couldn’t have picked a better—or more necessary—time to hear its message.

Like so many others, I’ve spent years entrenched in political discussions, often slipping into the same patterns: defending my stance, pointing out the flaws in the opposing side, and engaging in what I believed to be necessary debates. But looking back, how much of that actually made a difference? How many minds did I change? More importantly, how much did it cost me—my peace, my energy, my ability to connect with others beyond political lines?

Gray’s insights have given me a new perspective on how we engage with each other in these heated political times, especially online. Too often, conversations about politics become confrontational, devolving into an “us vs. them” mentality.

We treat political beliefs as mere opinions, but the truth is, they’re deeply tied to identity. When someone’s beliefs are attacked, it feels like they are being attacked.

And naturally, they respond defensively, just as we do when we feel personally attacked. The cycle repeats, and nothing truly changes—except perhaps the increasing hostility between us.

What if, instead of arguing, meme-sharing, and fact-bombing, we sought to understand each other? What if we asked, “Why do you feel this way?” instead of “How can you believe that?” What if, instead of condemning those who support politicians and parties we dislike, we tried to understand why they do? What experiences have shaped their perspectives? What does it mean for them and their families?

I’m not naïve. I know that understanding someone else’s perspective doesn’t mean we’ll suddenly agree. But that’s not the point.

The goal isn’t conversion—it’s connection.

It’s breaking the cycle of division. It’s about recognizing that those on the “other side” aren’t villains, and neither are we. We are all human, shaped by different experiences, emotions, and needs.

Simon Sinek’s Golden Circle suggests that people don’t make decisions based purely on logic, even though we like to believe we do. We make decisions based on feelings. So if we want to foster better political discourse, we need to acknowledge the human side of it. Instead of trying to prove others wrong, what if we shared why we believe what we do—not to persuade, but to be seen as human, just as we wish to see them as human? What if, instead of launching into statistics and counterarguments, we told personal stories that illustrate our values and experiences? What if we offered genuine insights into what shaped our beliefs, allowing others to see the emotions and lived realities behind our choices? When we communicate through personal narratives rather than combative rhetoric, we create space for dialogue rather than debate, for connection rather than division.

But what happens when we extend this approach and are met with hostility, dismissiveness, or outright attacks? The reality is, not everyone will be open to meaningful discourse, and some will remain entrenched in their positions, unwilling to engage in good faith, some with respond with personal attacks, insults and anger. Some will feel personally attacked no matter what you do  or say. In these moments, it’s important to remember that our goal isn’t to win an argument but to uphold our own integrity and peace of mind. If someone responds with hostility, we can choose to disengage with grace, reaffirming our own values without stooping to negativity. We can acknowledge their emotions without feeding into the cycle of outrage, responding with, “I hear that this is an important issue for you,” and leaving space for a more constructive conversation—if and when they are ready.

Sometimes, the best response is no response at all.

Protecting our own peace and choosing to engage only in conversations that foster understanding is a powerful stance in itself.

I don’t expect to change the world with this shift in perspective. I don’t even expect to change minds. But I do believe that if we approach political discussions with a mindset of understanding rather than combat, we might just make our world a little less divided. And maybe, just maybe, we can find a way to live more peacefully alongside those who think differently than we do. After all, isn’t that what democracy is really about?

 

Michelle Budiwski

 

Sources:

Gray, Kurt (2025). Outraged: why we fight about morality and politics and how to find common ground. New York: Pantheon Books.

Sinek, S. (2011). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. Penguin Books.