Dear Friend:

There is more hope in your situation than you may be seeing just now. I see it in your recognition of how valuable these old friends are despite your irritation at their politics. As CS Lewis reminded us, the only eternal things you meet in daily life are other people. To take his point one step further, God designs our relationships to be eternal – and, “The Good Life” notwithstanding, gives us eternity to take the infinite variety of our relationship to their infinite potentials. (Don’t get me started on how “The Good Life” TV series ends, especially if you haven’t watched it.)

On one hand, this is consolation for the relationships already broken. There is hope for reconciliation – a certainty of it if (as Lewis might put it) you and all those alienated friends choose God as the direction of their lives. Their flaws (or yours) will not prevent sharing eternity together, thanks to God’s grace.

On the other hand, this can be taken as motivation and encouragement to invest time and energy in these relationships now. God intends for you and them eventually to have relationships closer and richer than any you have now, or ever have had. That is the design, the necessary implication of God’s promise of eternal life together. And it is the certainty, given eternal life. So why not start fixing things now?

Is it worth your time to try? Well, we are all finite beings. So not all the good things we should do will get done. But consider how wonderful it would be to resurrect friendships, and how such an event would be an encouragement, consolation, and strength to you and your friends, and all who are watching you or them. Healing relationships now enhances the odds of everyone having the opportunity to explore them to their infinite potentials later.

So where do you start? The Civility Reading Group just read a fascinating essay by David French on this very topic. French suggests that trying to talk a person out of a conspiracy theory is very difficult. People get drawn into those things partly because they have followed a trail of claims they treat as facts, but also because they find themselves joining other people who welcome them and give them a vivid identity and sense of purpose.

Using your understanding of the facts to undermine theirs is very difficult. On their way into their conspiracy-theory camp, people usually decide mainstream sources of information are untrustworthy. Bombarding them with mainstream information is more likely to backfire than succeed, since it labels you as a helpless dupe of what they see as mainstream information manipulators.

To look at this from another angle: the problem isn’t the disagreement you have with them so much as it is the difficulty of finding a place to stand with them where you can trust each other. If someone doesn’t trust National Public Radio, citing NPR to them has no probative value and only makes them mistrust you a little more. Isn’t it the same for you when they cite sources you find untrustworthy?

And what if you did deliver the perfect argument? French suggests a little thought experiment.

Let’s suppose that you forward to your Aunt Edna the absolutely perfect fact check—in 900 words, her commitment to “stop the steal” crumbles into ash. Where does that leave her in her friendships? Where does that leave her in her sense of political purpose? Does it leave her disconnected from her friends in her Bible study? Does it impact her relationship with her husband? What about the online community that’s embraced her and helped her through the loneliness of the pandemic?

All of those consequences are exactly why most of the conspiracy-committed are beyond the reach of even the most potent acts of persuasion.

French suggests letting up on the political argumentation, and focusing on being a warm, helpful, loving friend. Engage with them on topics and in places where they can see you (and you them) apart from your politics. Create a space of mutual trust, probably a safe distance away from politics, and expand it.

If politics does come up, use it as a trust-building opportunity. Listen. (Here I am drawing on many sources, but most recently Tanya Israel’s Beyond Your Bubble: How to Connect Across the Political Divide.) I happen to know you’ve heard this before from me: listen until you can make their case for them to their satisfaction. It would be wonderful if you could actually make their case to their satisfaction to defend them from some angry person who hold your views.

When they say “yes, that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to tell you,” thank them for helping you understand. Then you can say “Even though I see better now the strong reasons X, Y, and Z, behind your position, I still disagree with it.” If they are interested in hearing your position, you can share it. By then you should be able to do so without attacking them as bad people – and hopefully without them feeling attacked.

It might be useful at some point, after trust has been re-established and survived an exchange of views, to make a list with your friend of the ways you agree, and the ways you disagree, and why. Then, if you can say “I am thankful to have a friend like you who disagrees with me and is still my friend, because I think disagreements are a gift,” that would be a beautiful outcome.

This approach is not a panacea. It doesn’t tell you what to do if your friend is actually hurting people by acting out their views. But for now, I hope this gives you a place to start.

Thanks for your question. Write again whenever you like.

-- Professor Civility