Why dialogue matters — especially in the Trump Era

If President Donald Trump’s survival tactics depend upon dividing the country into warring camps, does this mean his opponents have an interest in bringing the country together around shared purposes?

If the answer is “yes,” then those seeking to replace Trumpism with something better have to discover ways of engaging with voters whose choices in the last election differed from their own.

The most important political fight this year is about flipping control of at least one house of Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats, and in lower-turnout mid-term elections, the emphasis is more on getting core supporters to the polls than on altering anyone’s thinking.

Standing firm, rallying the faithful and putting persuasion on hold seems a more effective way to stop the GOP from holding its majorities and continuing to enable a dangerous president.

A “reach out to your adversaries” approach also seems soft and squishy in a confrontation involving a president who violates every rule, tells every lie and stoops as low as necessary to maintain his hold on power.

But even taking these objections into account, there are still moral reasons for combining unrelenting opposition to abuses with efforts to reunite the country.

The most practical consideration is that key Senate races and at least some competitive House contests are being fought in Trump territory. In states such as West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota and Missouri, losing the votes of all who voted for Trump is not an option for Democrats who want to win.

Candidates in these places can try to run as Trump-Lite. Or they can move the conversation forward by paying attention to those Trump voters who are uneasy because their concerns are not being addressed by Republicans, including the president.

Being slightly Trumpist is hardly inspiring. Dealing with discontents that Trump has exploited but not alleviated is promising.

His foes need to notice exit-poll lessons that a significant share of his 2016 backers were not at all enthusiastic about Trump himself, or his views. Calculations based on the exit poll suggest that roughly one Trump voter in six saw both Trump and Hillary Clinton in an unfavorable light.

A strategy of outreach would also illuminate what punditry’s focus on the abstract categories of “left,” “right” and “center” obscures: On a long list of issues related to economic justice and government’s role fostering a more decent society, substantial majorities take broadly progressive positions.

For example, by a margin of 69 percent to 28 percent, according to a New York Times/Survey Monkey poll last month, Americans said they would favor increasing teachers’ salaries even if it meant raising taxes. Among usually antitax Republicans, 56 percent agreed. The education issue is one reason Democrats have been gaining in some deeply red states.

A Pew Research survey last year found 60 percent said the federal government was responsible for ensuring health care for all Americans; only 39 percent disagreed. No wonder so many Democrats are running on the health care issue.

We are fighting the president because we believe in a government that answers to the aspirations of the vast majority. Creating that majority requires winning new allies by respecting those whose minds we seek to change.