Lou Kriesberg: Applying the Constructive Conflict approach to the American Right-Wing Populism Phenomenon

Newsletter 307 - December 18, 2024

Dec 18, 2024

Lou Kriesberg has been colleague and friend of ours since the very beginning of the Consortium — over 30 years ago. It was Lou who, with his 1989 book Intractable Conflicts and Their Transformation got us interested in intractable conflict in the first place. Lou contributed several of the early essays in the BI knowledge base, one on Identity, and another on constructive escalation and he's contributed so many blog posts and responses to our blog posts, I got inundated when I searched BI for his name (if you are interested, do that yourself!) Lou (along with Bruce Dayton) also first adopted the term "constructive conflict" in the title of their book Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution, which is now in its sixth edition and has been slightly renamed: Constructive Conflicts: From Emergence to Transformation. When we were trying to decide on a name for our 2020 initiative calling for more peace and conflicts scholars and practitioners to help ameliorate the metastasizing political conflicts of the time, we decided that the best name for what we were advocating was "constructive conflict." We wrote Lou and Bruce asking them if it was okay that we used the same term, and of course, gracious as they are, they said "yes."

So we were delighted when he sent us his latest, the text of a talk he gave at the Program for Advanced on Research on Conflict and Collaboration (PARCC), Syracuse University on December 4, 2024. (A video of the talk is available here, with password: =yd4?*&Z ). As you will see, Lou Is trying to think through the complex array of issues surrounding President Trump's re-election from a more progressive and left-leaning perspective. In coming issues we will offer alternative perspectives on this critical topic. We are posting the text below with light editing and reformatting, and follow Lou's thoughts with some more of our own, responding to and expanding upon what he said.

And I must finish this note by saying Lou remains one of our greatest heroes — still staying thoughtful and active in the field well into his 90s! (He is currently 98!) Go Lou!

Applying the Constructive Conflict approach to the American Right-Wing Populism Phenomenon

by Lou Kriesberg

A Brief History of Democracy in Recent Years

Beginning in the 1990s, more countries around the world began to establish democratic forms of government. That was prompted by the end of the Soviet Union and its domination of nearby countries. Democracy seemed to be an attractive alternative to move away from authoritarian regimes. People in many countries disliked a lack of civil rights. Furthermore, they saw that the oppressive regimes could be overturned. So the proportion of the world’s population living in democracies rose.

But that trend has turned downward in recent years. Some of the new democracies failed to manage economic difficulties and/or surges of immigration. Right-wing authoritarian governments took over, most notably in Hungary.

Trends in the U.S. That Are Driving the Support for Right-Wing Populism

Today, I want to note the developments in America that have made many Americans susceptible to right-wing populism. That should help understand what needs to be done to regain support for democracy here in the U.S. I see six trends and events that tend to undermine democracy.

Decline in trust of people in government and of others
Reduced associations -- Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" phenomenon.
Polarization in social relations
The use of social media which fostered isolation and misinformation
Covid added more isolation
Increasing income and wealth inequality and decreasing inter-generational class mobility

In addition to these trends, the Republican Party increasingly changed to become a vehicle for Trump’s triumph.

After the end of the 2nd World War, the Republican Party sought to end President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal
In 1947, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, which limited the rights of unions.
In 1964, Republicans ridiculed President Johnson’s War on Poverty, despite the fact that it cut poverty in half. (The percent of people in poverty was 21 at the outset. It was cut in half by Johnson's program and stayed around 11 percent.) But Republicans said "there is still poverty. Throwing money at poor people does not work."
In his inaugural address in 1981, Ronald Reagan said : "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
Also in the 1980s, the Republicans instituted "supply side economics," [which assumed that economic growth could be spurred by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade. The expectation was that consumers would benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices, and that employment would increase.]
In 1987, Reagan ended the Fairness Doctrine. That doctrine had required that radio and television stations provide free time for responses to controversial statements that were aired. That change allowed broadcasters such as Rush Limbaugh to air false information to mass audiences.
From 1995-1999, House leader Newt Gingrich refused to engage in any cooperation with Democrats.

[These changes made the Republican Party a fertile ground for Trump's arrival.]

Yet another driver of Trump's success was the resistance to and negative exploitation of the trends toward greater equality for African Americans, women, and LGBTQ people.

All of these factors combined to generate grievances among many people and, importantly, feelings of isolation.

Trump's Response

Trump responded by providing solidarity and escape from isolation. His rallies were fun! And feelings of distress could be soothed by yelling against others. He also offered sympathy for grievances and blamed Democrats for them. He promised he would fix his followers' grievances.

He also adopted many of the hallmarks of right wing populism.

Demonizing opponents
Resorting to threats of violence
Spreading Misinformation
Exhibiting and supporting misogyny
Exhibiting and supporting ethno-nationalism.
Promoting backlash against egalitarian progress
Finally, blaming Scapegoats (e.g. immigrants)

I will discuss some of these MAGA features when I discuss responding to the election. I will not discuss the election, except to say that it was was very close—many little reasons coincided to defeat Democrats. What I want to talk about is "what now"?

What Now?

A large proportion of the population support MAGA. But I think, MAGA is not a majority of the voters. And Trump is a powerful dictator now. I want to discuss two related kinds of responses to counter right wing populist actions. The first is to resist Trump and MAGA's thoughts and actions. The other is to promote actions that foster democracy.

I will discuss resistance first and then discuss how to foster democracy.

Resistance

Resistance can be done by individuals or organizations expressing opposition to the implementation of MAGA policies. It can take different forms by different people. At a minimal level, people can express their disapproval of MAGA assertions and actions. Or resistance may rise to interfering in the execution of MAGA policies — such as occurred in Trump's last term when he tried to forbid entry to this country of people from predominantly Muslim countries who had authorized permission to enter.

We may see such resistance again. Many people are shocked at Trump’s dictatorial conduct. More will discover what the election was about. Opponents of Trump who differed in how to fight him may now rally together. So some of his actions may be vulnerable to citizen resistance. This may be be the case, for instance, with his efforts to bring about massive deportations.

In our federal system, governors have considerable power in their states. Some Governors have already indicated that resistance would occur on some matters—deportations being one of them. This is evident for Gavin Newsom of California, Jay Inslee of Washington, and Jared Polis of Colorado (among others).

Another important arena of concern that might lead to resistance is the response to global warming. Trump, in his denial of evidence and desire for money for friends, is likely to attempt to block efforts to slow and/or adapt to global warming. Many people and many organizations will resist Trump on this matter. They will lobby Congress.

There are many organizations, locally and nationally, that mobilize people for such political actions. Notably, Indivisible is a major national organization that mobilizes people to resist extreme right-wing policies and support progressive democratic policies. It was funded in 2016 with the leadership of Ezra Levin and his wife Leah Greenberg, both former congressional staffers. We have a chapter here in central New York.

Fostering Democracy

The other kind of response to right-wing populism is to foster strategies that advance democracy and that deal with the underlying sources fueling right-wing populism. These are more progressive ways of countering the trends that spurred MAGA.

One driver of right-wing populism is the prejudice that many people have about some ethnicity in the diverse United States. An important and common feature of MAGA is fostering dangerous nationalism, or better called "nativism" or "ethno-nationalism." That can be attractive to people who feel grievances from declines in their status, class, or power ranking. For example, that can be seen in the promotion of White Nationalism in the United States. It can also provide antisemitic scapegoating attitudes and behaviors. Some Whites emphasize their White identity and form groups which conduct demonstrations and even threaten African Americans, Jews and others they believe to be non-White. As a consequence, some "lone wolves" or mentally disturbed persons use readily available weapons and commit mass murders.

That can be addressed using the constructive-conflict approach. Attention should be given to ascertaining what the opponent’s interests and priorities are. Furthermore, possible shared identities with the opposing side, or elements in it, should be sought. Then, given that analysis, we can note how constructive conflict policies might alleviate or transform destructive right-wing conduct. For example, in 2019, Whites and African Americans in Evanston, a suburb of Chicago, Illinois, began a process to end structural racism and pay reparations to African Americans who suffered losses due to prior discriminatory residential practices. Other cities are undertaking similar practices.

Similarly, immigrants have become more prevalent in many countries in recent years where they were and are viewed as non-White "burdens." Indeed, in many countries, objections to immigrants and immigration became a major feature of right-wing politics. Policies to manage good entry and settlement of immigrants can help alleviate disruption and maximize collective benefits.

Misogyny is another common element in right-wing populism. It may provide solace to some men for declines in their class, status, or power ranks. Men who have grievances related to perceived lowered status may find solace in and be susceptible to right-wing populist misogyny.

But, the increased status of women and their associated autonomy and entry into new spheres of work could be experienced positively by men. After all, they can share in the pleasures of their mother, wife, sister or daughter. Moreover, men can experience the pleasures of a less rigid male gender role.

Nevertheless, the shifting of gender roles can also be experienced by some men as a troublesome disruption of their expectations. Misogyny may be a response. Here, new policies may be helpful. Arrangements for better childcare, for instance, and funds and more flexibility in schedules can help diminish fears about shifting gender roles.

Pursuing a Conflict-Resolution Approach

The many dire consequences of right-wing populist actions are being directly and indirectly countered in the United States. For example, the destructive conflict style of Donald Trump and his MAGA followers has generated extreme polarization and is widely deplored. Consequently, some people attempt to overcome the unseemly hostility. Conflict resolution practices and the constructive conflict approach have been tried, unsuccessfully and successfully.

For example, in the June 16th New York Times there is an article about attempts to create settings to overcome the polarization. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the MacArthur Foundation, the Emerson Collective, and others formed “Trust for Civic Life.” It will award its first $8 million to 20 groups judged to be most promising in rebuilding civic life and reinforcing democracy.

Further Thoughts from Guy and Heidi

We want to start where Lou ended: "It feels better to hope and to act," rather than despair. We agree completely and would go one step farther to say that hope and action reinforce one another and that they are both essential to helping democracy through its current difficulties. We have often written that democracy is "not a spectator sport." But too many of us engage in it as if it were. We follow and root for "our team," and if we get involved at all, it is through an occasional donation and by voting every few years, little more. Some of us may try to influence others on social media by sharing what we've learned about some key issue — usually from sources that we find credible even though others, and especially those on the other side, may see as partisan and biased. If we want to save American democracy, then we need to get out of our silos, start learning about the issues from all sides' points of view, and then choose one or two issues we really care about and start working on them. As we do this, we need to consider the views of those who have different opinions and honestly try to understand and evaluate the merits of their arguments. Don't just assume that their objections are without merit.

For some, this work may, indeed, take the form of "resistance" to Trump administration proposals or policies that they think are especially dangerous. We think that Lou would agree with us in adding that any resistance must be respectful and nonviolent. Disrespect and violence only begets greater polarization, hatred, fear, and more violence. It also legitimizes harsher and more repressive responses.

We very strongly agree with Lou's calls for responding to Trump's authoritarian tendencies by working to strengthen democracy. A first step in doing that, however, is to follow the rule of law ourselves. We all must work to respect and uphold the Constitution, to strengthen our system of checks and balances, and to follow the law if we decide to challenge the incoming president. In doing this, we also need to forsake the use of tactics that violate the spirit and letter of the law (even when those tactics might be quite promising). If Trump's opponents act in unlawful ways, it is likely that those actions will make it easier for for the new President to violate laws in ways that strengthen his position. This could easily result in a spiral of escalating lawlessness that does enormous damage to democratic institutions.

We also believe that opponents of Trump and his MAGA policies should refrain from being focused on bringing about his failure. It is very tempting to do — indeed, Trump tried hard to cause Biden to fail, and House Speaker Mitch McConnell vowed that his goal in Obama's first term was to assure that Obama was a one-term President.

But the world has simply become to dangerous a place to think like that. President Trump is going to be our President during extremely perilous times. Democracy is teetering around the globe. A loose alliance of aggressive authoritarian regimes are threatening us in ways that many regard as a potential precursor to World War III. Extremely destructive conflicts are proceeding unchecked in Europe and the Middle East. AI and social media are diminishing our ability to think or form meaningful relationships. Climate change is, indeed, threatening major population centers. Terror is on the rise (and, shockingly to us, is widely supported in Western Democracies).

We need to figure out how those on the left can work with Trump and MAGA to moderate their most extreme policies, gain some credibility, and start working together to tackle some of these existential threats to the well being of everyone in the United States, and indeed, the world. Like it or not, a number of currently unforeseen crises are going to force us to depend upon one another to protect our most vital interests. We desperately need to avoid the kind of political dysfunction that plagued Israel before October 7 (dysfunction that doubtless contributed to Israel's susceptibility to that attack).

Are we dreaming? Maybe. But we think that Trump and his MAGA supporters have some legitimate points, but they are being pushed "off the rails" by the highly disrespectful, even hateful, and sometimes unlawful statements and behaviors of the left. (Who, of course, are being pushed off the rails by similar actions on the right.) It is a "positive feedback" system of continuing escalation and polarization.

If we are going to avoid apocalypse, the Center Left, Center, and Center Right need to come together using our's and Lou's constructive conflict strategies and begin to work through some of our many problems. If we can demonstrate some success, maybes candidates who take a more moderate approach can get a foothold in the 2026 or 2028 elections. But there is lots of work to do before then.

If you don't know what to do, we recommend reading one or both of the books Lou lists above. And in a month or two, we will be deploying our own Guide to Constructive Conflict on BI, which will be a compilation of all of the BI materials with a focus on how we can diminish hyper-polarization, and start working together constructively to strengthen democracy and solve our many social, political, economic, and environmental problems. So stay tuned for that!!

Please Contribute Your Ideas To This Discussion!

In order to prevent bots, spammers, and other malicious content, we are asking contributors to send their contributions to us directly. If your idea is short, with simple formatting, you can put it directly in the contact box. However, the contact form does not allow attachments. So if you are contributing a longer article, with formatting beyond simple paragraphs, just send us a note using the contact box, and we'll respond via an email to which you can reply with your attachment. This is a bit of a hassle, we know, but it has kept our site (and our inbox) clean. And if you are wondering, we do publish essays that disagree with or are critical of us. We want a robust exchange of views.

About the MBI Newsletters

BI sends out newsletter 2-3 times a week. Two of these are substantive articles. Once a week or so we compile a list of the most interesting reading we have found related to our topics of interest: intractable conflict, hyper-polarization, and democracy, and we share them in a "Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links” newsletter. These links include articles sent by readers, information about our colleagues’ activities, and news and opinion pieces that we have found to be of particular interest. Each Newsletter will be posted on BI, and sent out by email through Substack to subscribers. You can sign up to receive your copy here and find the latest newsletter here or on our BI Newsletter page, which also provides access to all the past newsletters, going back to 2017.

NOTE! If you signed up for this Newsletter and don't see it in your inbox, it might be going to one of your other emails folder (such as promotions, social, or spam). Check there or search for beyondintractability@substack.com and if you still can't find it, first go to our Substack help page, and if that doesn't help, please contact us.

If you like what you read here, please ....

Beyond Intractability