A Question of Respect: Bringing Us Together in a Deeply Divided Nation

by Ed Goeas, Celinda Lake

Life in America has become fractured—in public and private—across ever-widening fault lines of anger and incivility.  The intensity of disagreement between Americans threatens the nation’s well-being, presenting itself as disrespectful and distrusting in politics, culture, and conversations. Confusion, frustration, and hatred permeate politics, social media interactions, and cable news. The dysfunction and distrust also appear on the streets and at dinner tables. There is an urgent need for Americans to come together. But how? Pollsters and political strategists Ed Goeas, Republican, and Celinda Lake, Democrat, have worked together on their groundbreaking joint Battleground Poll for more than thirty years and have a shared stethoscope to the pulse of the American public. In their highly respected and widely quoted Battleground Polls, they ask questions and elicit responses that tell us what people think and feel about the most pressing issues of the day.  While they often use relevant poll results in this book to illustrate their arguments, A Question of Respect is not about polling—nor does it contain a magic antidote for America's woes. Instead, it’s a political resource that depicts a compelling case for how the nation reached this moment and, more importantly, where it needs to go and what it might take. Though Ed is a Republican and Celinda is a Democrat, they have reached across the great divide to make the case that the only way for America to claw its way out of this mess is through mutual respect. They posit that respect is the foundation upon which we can again trust one another as Americans. 

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction

238 pages, Paperback

Published November 29, 2022

Reviews

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

My attention was drawn to this book when I heard the authors on a podcast and was impressed with what they had to say. Those first impressions were continued in this book. This was not the first book I've read about healing our political divide, but it did have new things to say. There were many ideas I've already mulled over but with nuance I hadn't considered. I learned that I'm a solutions-oriented voter, not an ideological voter (pg.42). I was intrigued by the interpretation that most people are concerned with where they are in the line more than which side of the line they are on... that the majority feel that they are at the back of the line and that people at the front of the line (or in power) are cheating them out of their rightful place in line. I can see how people in very different circumstances are being led to believe this.

The second half of the book was the most interesting to me personally and had more solutions than the first half, but I'm not going to delve into that here. Overall this was a hopeful book and we could all use more hope right now.

[Kamy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read dozens of books in this genre of "bridging differences", and this book ranks among the better ones. Ed Goeas is a partisan Republican. Celinda Lake is a partisan Democrat. The two of them are friends and colleagues. They co-wrote the book. They're also both wildly accomplished political campaigners, pollsters, and advisors. Their takes on civility, respect, and political solutions to polarization come from experience and wisdom. While the authors seem unaware of the great body of work in the bridging differences field and at times seem naive about the practicality of their proposals, their earnest appeal for unity and respect comes from the heart and is well supported with data. I'm a fan of both authors and greatly appreciate hearing their insights on what it takes to bring people together.

[Kirsten Tautfest · Rating 2 out of 5]

barely scratched the surface

[Ed Schneider · Rating 5 out of 5]

In full disclosure, I know the authors of this book, especially Celinda Lake. Celinda, along with Ed Goeas, represent a long tradition. Media outlets often pair a Democrat with a Republican to at least achieve balance. Often this pairing is front and center on news programs, especially on election night. While this tradition goes back at least fifty years with the NBC's pairing of Peter Hart and Bob Teeter, Ed and Celinda have attempted a rarer feat, writing a book together. That's harder than putting together a joint questionnaire or just showing up together for a broadcast event. They had to work through hard issues, even if they were friends.

In this book we learn they had both gone through a conversion. Ed grew up in a Democratic household only to convert in college to become a leading Republican. Celinda grew up in a Republican household and also converted in college to become a leading Democrat. They maintain their differences but have figured out how to work together for a some thirty years on a joint project, The Battleground Polls. Nice work if you pull that off. Most people can't.

And that's the point. If you respect the other person you can overcome differences. But in today's highly polarized world respect is neither obvious nor common. The authors rely on their years of evidence collected in their Battleground polls to show how polarization has grown to characterize the modern electorate. And the authors describe the institutional forces that have pushed us more and more into separate camps. They both point to the evils of social networks and how their algorithms encourage silo-ing our attention. They cite how our primaries have empowered more fringe elements who rarely respect their opponents. They are exasperated by our electoral financing system which allows more fringe but monied participants to undercut candidates who attempt to seek the middle and, course, attempt to show some respect to the other side. They describe the evils of gerrymandering but I wish they had explored more its impacts. They could have described how the decreasing number of competitive districts, and states, have made it less and less rational for many to even vote. Their vote, the minority in a non-competitive district, will never count or change anything, so why vote. While the authors decry the disappearance of moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats they don't see, at least in their text, the impact of the 1960s Voting Rights Act and eventually Newt Gingrich. Others see those as the source of today's polarization.

The author's differences are respectfully presented in their alternative approaches to resolving some of the issues driving polarization. Predictably one favors public funding and the other wants to remove all limits on campaign contributions. They share a goal, but disagree on how to get there. They respectfully see where the other is coming from and where they want to go.

The major thing they agree on is that young people are the solution. They both see how less polarized young people are. They cite their work with students at Georgetown as sources of hope. I hope they're right.