Start by recognizing what the other side values. Conservatives care deeply about fairness and liberty, just like progressives do. But they understand these concepts differently. Find those shared values, then build your bridge from there.
Emma Chen suggests these translation principles:
- Recognize the legitimate moral concerns of the other side, even when you disagree with their conclusions. When discussing January 6, conservatives should acknowledge concerns about democratic processes. When discussing Black Lives Matter, progressives should acknowledge concerns about public safety and social cohesion.
- Frame arguments in terms the other side values. Progressives can discuss racial justice in terms of America living up to its founding ideals—ideas many conservatives cherish. Conservatives can discuss traditional values in terms of creating stable communities where all people can thrive—goals many progressives share.
- Avoid hot-button terms that trigger defensive reactions. “Defund the police” might make sense to progressives familiar with academic discussions of public safety, but it sounds alarming to many others. Similarly, dismissing racial justice concerns as “identity politics” might resonate with conservatives concerned about national unity, but it feels dismissive to those experiencing discrimination.
Translation in Action
A progressive discussing January 6 might say to a conservative friend:
I know you value constitutional processes and the peaceful transfer of power. That’s why I was troubled by what happened—not because I think everyone there was a bad person, but because I believe they were misled about election fraud in ways that threatened the very constitutional system they thought they were defending.
A conservative discussing Black Lives Matter might say to a progressive friend:
I believe in equal justice under law and oppose any abuse of police power. That’s why I’m concerned about some BLM messaging—not because I don’t care about Black lives, but because I worry that undermining policing will hurt the very communities that most need protection from crime, including many Black communities.
These approaches don’t guarantee agreement. But they create openings for actual conversation rather than mutual denunciation.
Margaret Wilson, who facilitates conversations between politically diverse groups in Tennessee, shares this success story:
We had a session where a BLM activist explained police reform in terms of accountability and good governance—values conservatives in the room strongly held. You could see the light bulbs going on. They still had questions and concerns, but they were engaging with the ideas rather than rejecting them outright.
Similarly, Wilson recalls a veteran explaining his concerns about immigration policy in terms of helping existing communities absorb change at a sustainable pace—a progressive value of care and inclusion applied differently.
Building Citizen-to-Citizen Connections
Political leaders and media figures often have incentives to inflame divisions rather than heal them. This means the work of translation often falls to ordinary citizens connecting person-to-person.
James Harris, who runs community conversations in a politically diverse Michigan suburb, suggests:
Find people who disagree with you but whom you respect for other reasons—maybe fellow parents from your kids’ school, or coworkers, or members of your faith community. Start conversations there, where you already have some basis for trust.
Harris emphasizes that the goal isn’t to win arguments but to understand different perspectives:
Ask sincere questions. Listen to the answers. Look for the legitimate concerns behind positions you disagree with. Share your own reasoning rather than just your conclusions.
These citizen connections humanize political opponents. It’s harder to demonize “the other side” when you regularly have coffee with someone from that side and know them as a complex individual rather than a caricature.