The election of Donald Trump seems to have been a catalytic event responsible for revving up the motors of political engagement in people across the political spectrum. I’ve seen many of my friends as well as Hollywood actors and other prominent figures write about a myriad of concerns they have about Trump’s actions, from refugee bans to attempts to repeal the ACA. I hear them criticizing “fake news” and fearing that our inalienable human rights are or will be taken from us.

While it’s heartening to see people engaged, passionate, and willing to take action to support causes they believe in, I wonder where the indignation and righteous fury was during Obama’s presidency. Obama was the president who continued Bush’s legacy of human rights abuses by signing the National Defense Authorization Act into law. There were ten times more air strikes from covert drones during Obama’s presidency than during Bush’s, and Obama lied about the number of civilian deaths in which the strikes resulted.

Democrats protested Bush’s presidency but did not protest Obama’s. They protest Trump but did not protest Obama. Why? Because Obama ran as a Democrat. He was a charismatic speaker who legalized gay marriage. Democrats have rested on their laurels through human rights abuses, destabilization of the Middle East, and US funding of ISIS because their own political party was responsible.

An increasingly alarming division between both sides of the political spectrum lies at the heart of this. It is not just a division of beliefs, which is to be expected, as difference in opinion is what distinguishes one party from the next. The alarming part is the division in understanding. Liberals do not understand why conservatives hold the positions they do, and nor do they want to. They are caught up in moral certainty that conservative positions are wrong and bad, with no comprehension of what they themselves mean by that except vague concern about human rights.

What if I told you that a man could think men are oppressed without being a male chauvinist, that a person could hold Pro-Life views on abortion without being a misogynist, that someone could advocate for white history without being a white supremacist, and that a person could be against sex reassignment surgery without hatred of transgender people being the motivating factor for that position. I’m not claiming people who are anti-feminist due to hatred of women don’t exist, or that there are no white supremacists who advocate white history. Of course there are. I’m saying that it’s not always the motivating factor behind why someone holds that position and it can’t be assumed to be. The assumption, the automatic equivalence of a view with the moral judgement “wrong” or “oppressor” is in itself wrong and oppressive, because it oppresses the humanity of political opponents. Without recognition of humanity, there can be no understanding.

When I was studying acting, I would sometimes get the opportunity to play ambiguous characters who, from my perspective, seemed villainous or clearly immoral. It is an actor’s job to seek to understand the characters she plays in order to express them on stage as a complete human — as someone with dreams, fears, faults, quirks, and charms. This is what creates an individual instead of a lifeless trope. The ingredient most necessary for moving a character from caricature to human being is analysis and understanding of the character’s motives. You never assume they are acting from a place of ill will. Everyone only ever does what they believe is right, so to understand why someone holds a position, it is logical to approach it from why they would believe it’s right. I challenge you to do that without falling back on easy explanations that seek to dehumanize others and close the window of communication.

I dare you to try to understand, to delve deeply into views that, on an emotional level, make you uncomfortable, and to boldly confront and develop your own self through exploration of what you think is wrong and why.

Obviously one could say, “Well, what is the point of understanding? If someone is doing something that is hurting others or the world, that should under no circumstances be tolerated. The only option is to shut them down.”

How do you know for certain those positions are harmful in the ways you think they are? Have you looked into it deeply, studied it with an open mind? Sometimes people refuse to explore anything outside the realm of what’s considered politically correct, but because truth is not always politically correct, political correctness can and does obscure the truth. The term “correctness” in this context evokes concern for being appropriate in a way that allows a person to pat himself on the back more than it evokes interest in confronting, reconciling, or understanding difficult truths, perspectives, and problems. It is a socially isolating experience to parse grey and gray morality, while thinking and expressing what is “correct” results in social approval.

It’s social acceptance. It is pathological altruism. It’s self righteousness. It’s a trauma response people land on psychologically where survival is viewed as being under such dire and immediate threat that self preservation can justify anything, including violence. It’s Orwellian control of language so that terms like “racism” can only apply to half the population. It’s viewing what is individual as shared and what is shared as individual. After 50 LBGT people are killed in a nightclub, for example, all LGBT people can claim that they are oppressed, even if they have never experienced any discrimination or violence for their sexuality themselves. Similarly, all white people can be held responsible and punished for things other white people did, which they had no part in themselves.

Who is the biggest victim? Who is the best ally? What do victims get? Protection and status. What do allies get? Social acceptance and status.

We live in an unsanitized, messy world that is by nature not politically correct. It never will be. You can’t force the complexities of everyone’s lived experiences, politics, motivations, humanity, into tidy boxes labelled “victim” and “oppressor” or “moral” and “immoral”. What is immoral is not always untrue, and what is moral is not always the course of action that’s best for the world.

There is one example in particular that concisely illustrates how far we’ve fallen — the “punch a Nazi” Antifa meme, which encourages and makes light of assault. You can’t know if the person you are punching is actually a Nazi or if they’ve been branded a Nazi by people who do not understand their views. What is punching this person going to accomplish? It’s unlikely that it would result in an expanded viewpoint. It can reasonably be assumed that the experience will make them believe they’re a martyr for their cause and help them feel even more justified in their position. You cannot beat someone’s ideology out of them.

Assuming that the intent behind “punch a Nazi” is to change the views of the targets and not to assault people as an act of vengeance, what do you think will make them reconsider their views? Definitely not assault and also not arguing or debating for the sake of proving you are right. The answer is opening up true communication and understanding with the intent to reconcile and listen rather than with the motive to correct or punish. Not everyone is going to be open to seeing eye to eye, but rather than punching someone, doesn’t it make more sense to try saying, “Hey. I heard you’re a Nazi and I don’t understand how anyone could be. Do you consider yourself a Nazi and what are your views surrounding white supremacy and racism?” They may not be open to answering or discussing, but at least you have shown them that it’s possible.

I have a unique vantage point right now politically. As a teen, I was so far left that I read essays on anarchist theory. I am now close to center politically. I am not interested in moving away from the center line because I like being able to see both sides. That’s what this blog is going to be about — to hopefully translate why conservatives hold the positions they do in a way that is understandable to liberals whether or not they ultimately agree. I can’t and don’t claim that I’m capable of speaking for others. These are my understandings. Agreeing is not the end goal — the end goal is understanding, connecting, humanizing each other, and bridging the divide that’s tearing us apart.