Last week, I wrote about The Weight of Our Words, and the importance of semantics, or ensuring that we place the appropriate context and gravity on the words we choose in advocacy. In that piece, I indicated that today I’d be writing about how to engage with those who we expect to oppose our issues.
Then on Tuesday, in a single 12 hour news cycle, we saw the pendulum swing fully from the sense of relief felt by many in the Derek Chauvin trial to the breaking story of a tragic, officer involved shooting here in Columbus, OH. The cases are as different as can be, and I’m going to choose to not dive into the specifics here. Those conversations are best held in person, where we can break bread together as fallible humans, ready to learn from one another.
And that’s what we should do on any issue. Hear me out.
A few weeks ago, I had an opportunity to have breakfast with an influential individual whose voice has been used to oppose some of my issues in the past. In coaching the volunteer advocate joining me for that meeting, I reinforced three simple truths about engaging with those who oppose us:
1. Start with common ground
2. For the duration of the meeting ignore the past, focus on the future
3. Even the smallest movement toward relationship is a win
There’s really something quite special about a breakfast meeting. At the beginning of your day, those meetings seem to allow a singular level of focus. Sharing a meal ahead of the stressors of a work day, all parties seem to come to the table a little more prepared to focus on relationship building. Something about the ambience and intimacy of a local diner draws you into talking about life before issues.
You can never write off an opponent on 100 percent of your issues. To do so would be a terrible mistake. Unfortunately, the ever intensifying move toward tribalism is causing many advocacy organizations, both formal and informal, to do just that. Instead of relationship building, too many are defaulting to litmus tests. Pure allegiance is valued over all. This is groupthink at its very worst.
The problem with litmus tests is that they assume perfectibility. Speaking only for myself, I’m all too aware of my inability to meet that standard. And if we’re waiting for others to reach it, we will be shutting them out of the possibility of any relationship with us or those we represent.
I’d challenge anyone to sit back and ask themselves if they’ve committed to the real work of advocacy. That real work is the long, arduous labor of relationship building. Those strategic partnerships don’t evolve overnight, and they demand we abandon our comfort zones more often than we care to admit. They also demand we continue to show up, even if we think the party across the table will never come around on our issue.
As our communities across the country continue to wrestle with the social issues of our time, it’s imperative we cast off the litmus tests that have torn us apart. You want to know how to win opponents to your side, and how to start bridging the gap? Break bread together. I recommend you start with breakfast.
Part of the Possible 