![\"A](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/r9f.352.myftpupload.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/listen-ignore-277x300.jpg?resize=277%2C300\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Recently I shared an articl<\/a>e on Facebook by a Bernie-supporting Hillary skeptic who articulated his reasons for voting for her. He\u2019d decided the volatile political climate and the increasing unreliability of polls made it too risky–even in \u201csafe\u201d states–to stay home or to vote for a third-party candidate.<\/p>\n I had not heard this argument before, and wanted to inject this thoughtful piece into a discourse largely dominated by bashing from both sides of the political divide.<\/p>\n Right away a Facebook friend I haven\u2019t seen since college commented: \u201cDon’t you think that incessantly hectoring people might have the effect opposite to that desired?\u201d<\/p>\n I was taken aback. My posting rate on Facebook hardly qualifies as incessant. Besides, there was nothing remotely hectoring about this article. Still, there’s no denying that my motivation in sharing it was to persuade reluctant voters to choose Hillary.<\/p>\n I decided to engage with rather than ignore my friend. He immediately replied that he didn’t mean me personally, \u201cbut that the daily attacks on the folk who are not gung-ho for HRC, including the accusation that we are women-haters, are really counterproductive.\u201d He likened well-meaning attempts at political persuasion to the noxious proselytizing meant to convert people from one religion to another. Besides, it made him think that Hillary\u2019s supporters lacked the faith that she should and could win, and found their apocalyptic pronouncements about not voting for the Un-Trump unhelpful.<\/p>\n His response reminded me of a party I attended right before the 2004 election. Amid a dozen or so Chardonnay-sipping liberals eternally bitter over the selection of W four years earlier was one lone Nader supporter. Unrepentant, he planned to vote for Nader again.<\/p>\n \u201cHow COULD you?\u201d everyone exploded in unison. As we all moved in for the oh-so-persuasive kill, I could see this man\u2019s jaw tighten, his posture stiffen. You can probably guess who he voted for.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve learned a lot since that encounter\u2014if you want to preach outside the choir, it\u2019s better not to screech or beseech. Still, there are reasons to try. Or was my Facebook friend a case in point that such attempts invariably backfire?<\/p>\n Recently I\u2019ve had many conversations with my friend Linda (who also doesn\u2019t like Hillary but who will vote for her). She has been talking with her son and his friends, most of them young, fervent Bernie supporters who care deeply about racial justice. They now feel totally disillusioned by the political process, seeing little difference between the parties and no point in voting. Linda has a lot of empathy for this viewpoint, and mostly listens. But when she does talk, whatever she has to say doesn\u2019t only fall on deaf ears\u2014it closes those ears further.<\/p>\n Periodically I send things with a fresh or compelling perspective to Linda, saying, \u201cWhat about this? Could this help?\u201d One was a recent column<\/a> by Charles Blow. Linda was almost persuaded until the last paragraph:<\/p>\n Protest voting or not voting at all isn\u2019t principled. It\u2019s dumb, and childish, and self-immolating. I know you\u2019re young, but grow up!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n With those words, Blow blew it. Of course, Linda never forwarded the article to her son, and has wisely stopped talking to him\u00a0about the election altogether.<\/p>\n Years ago Republican pollster Frank Luntz quipped, “The trouble with Hillary is she reminds everyone of their first wife.” She also reminds people of their mothers. There are legitimate reasons to be skeptical of Hillary, but this unconscious association has gotten short shrift in understanding\u00a0the level of antipathy generated by the candidacy of\u00a0the first woman who has a shot at the presidency.\u00a0Often what mothers say, no matter how wise and well-intended, has the effect of generating resistance. You should listen to your mother, but do you really want to? Middle-aged mothers like me who are trying to persuade others, especially young people, may only be perpetuating the maternal nag problem.<\/p>\n Is it possible to change people\u2019s minds? We are now inundated with 24\/7 information and misinformation, and live in silos that reinforce our worldview while keeping out other perspectives. Social science research demonstrates that when people are shown evidence contradicting their firmly held beliefs, they don\u2019t reconsider; instead, they double down.<\/p>\n If one person\u2019s persuasion is another\u2019s hectoring, what\u2019s a mother to do? What\u2019s a concerned citizen to do?<\/p>\n *<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0Have you tried to influence anyone\u2019s vote in this election season? Has anyone tried to influence yours? What works and doesn\u2019t work?<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Recently I shared an article on Facebook by a Bernie-supporting Hillary skeptic who articulated his reasons for voting for her. He\u2019d decided the volatile political climate and the increasing unreliability of polls made it too risky–even in \u201csafe\u201d states–to stay … Continue reading