Skip guarded debating by appreciating how we experience our needs differently. Both liberals and conservatives experience an opposing priority of needs. Political difference only exist because of a difference in politicized needs no debate can change.

​

Conflict orientation

We each have a set way to deal or cope with conflicts. Whether with a coworker or with a spouse or with a classmate, or with whomever, you either stay guarded or remain open when confronted by an opposing stance. You either stay guarded to prioritize avoidance of its discomfort or you remain open to addressing underlying needs to resolve the conflict.

 

Unfortunately, popular politics privileges a stay-guarded approach more than enabling a remain-open approach. Such popular politics easily sinks into divisive politics that can keep us trapped in pain of our unresolved politicized needs.

 

Divisive politics

Most of us react to conflict in this conventional remain-guarded way. In the name of debate, we oppose each other. We insist the other side pay attention to our conflict-affected need. We rarely if ever offer to first pay attention to their conflict-affected needs.

 

This selfish approach understandably provokes each other’s defensiveness. Instead of pursuing a solution to the conflict, we easily reinforce it. And perpetuate our political differences. Then typically reinforces the conflict in the name of seeking relief.

 

Such a win-lose approach to political conflict rarely resolves politicized needs. The intent is less to resolve needs and more to relieve discomfort of one’s unresolved needs. The intent is more to ease the winner’s discomfort at the losing side’s expense.

 

Everyone’s level of functioning easily goes down or is kept low. We stay trapped in a grinding pain of our unresolved politicized needs. And prematurely blame each other. This easily benefits elites at the people’s expense.

 

Harmonizing alternative

Need-response may inspire you to respond to conflict in a transconventional selfless way. Instead of demanding respect for your side’s affected needs, you set the higher standard to first respect their conflict-affected needs.

 

By taking this initiative, you take the higher moral ground. You present a model of need-responsiveness for others to take, as the standard for resolving all conflicts.

 

• Instead of provoking mutual defensiveness that keeps each other closed off from each other, you welcome them to engage you and your needs.

 

• Instead of seeking relief for the winning side, you pursue whatever it takes for all sides to more freely identify and address their affected needs.

 

• Instead of habitually avoiding discomfort, you embrace any pain briefly to work through the problem, which more effectively lets you remove the cause of your pain.

 

• Instead of the usual win-lose approach, you create the foundation for a win-win solution.

​

• Instead of shutting down meaningful dialogue, you negotiate how public policies best address each side's affected needs.

 

• Instead of opposing each other, you oppose anything that gets in the way of each side resolving their needs.

 

• Instead of evoking anger or rage or hate, you spread more need-respecting love.

 

You will then find everyone’s level of pain rapidly decline. And their level of functioning finally rising. Why debate flexible public policies when you could first relate to each other’s inflexible needs?

 

If you want the other side to understand you, first understand them. Replace debating with relating.