Relational Politics: A Different Way of Doing This

I had an AHA! moment yesterday.

I realized there has been a pattern running through my campaign that I didn't consciously put there. When I decided to run for County Board, I didn't sit down and create a philosophy for how I wanted to campaign. I didn't develop a strategy or decide I was going to test some new approach to political engagement. Honestly, it happened pretty organically.

I've just been approaching people the way I've learned to approach relationships. And suddenly, I could see it:

Connection before persuasion.

Curiosity before assumption.

Relationship before outcome.

The phrase Relational Politics came to mind, and it felt like a good and honest way to describe what I've been doing. Not something I've invented or a new political theory I'm claiming as my own. Just a way of putting words around something that has been happening naturally throughout this campaign.

And once I saw it, I realized that much of it probably comes from something that has been shaping me for nearly a decade.

The Imago influence

I've been part of the Imago community professionally for nearly ten years. It started as part of my work, but somewhere along the way, the principles of Imago became deeply ingrained in my life.

Imago Relationship Theory was developed by Harville Hendrix, Ph.D., and Helen LaKelly Hunt, Ph.D. Many people know Imago through Imago Relationship Therapy and its work with couples, but its ideas about relationships, connection, communication and conflict have applications far beyond a therapist's office.

Over the years, Imago has shaped my own relationships, my communication style and the way I try to move through the world. It has taught me to slow down when I want to react, to listen differently, and to get curious when it would be easier to assume I already understand. It has inspired me to keep working toward a better version of myself and, just as importantly, to try to model the kind of relationship I hope to create with others.

One of the things Imago emphasizes is safety. Genuine connection is difficult when we don't feel safe. It's hard to be honest when we expect to be attacked, hard to be curious when we're busy defending ourselves, and hard to really listen when we're already preparing our rebuttal.

One of the tools used in Imago is an intentional dialogue process centered around mirroring, validation and empathy. At its simplest, we're trying to really hear another person, understand their experience and let them know that we understand.

Because people want to feel heard. Not necessarily agreed with. Heard.

"You make sense."

I think validation is one of the most powerful and most misunderstood parts of this. Sometimes validation can be as simple as saying, "You make sense."

That doesn't mean "You're right." It doesn't mean "I agree with you." And it doesn't mean I've abandoned my own beliefs, values or perspective.

It means that given what you've experienced, what you believe, what you value, what you're afraid of or what you've lived through, I can understand how you arrived where you are.

I can understand how you got there without arriving at the same place myself.

Think about how different some of our political conversations might feel if that were the goal. Not convincing someone. Not winning. Not waiting for the flaw in their argument so we can pounce on it. Just trying, for a moment, to understand how another human being came to see the world the way they do.

Understanding doesn't require agreement. Empathy doesn't require agreement. Curiosity doesn't require us to surrender our convictions. But all three can make connection possible.

We are all in relationship

In the Imago community, we often talk about changing the world "one relationship at a time." I've always loved that idea, but over the years my understanding of "relationship" has become much broader than the one we have with a spouse or partner.

We're in relationship with our children, parents, friends, coworkers and neighbors. We're in relationship with the person behind us in line at the grocery store, the parent sitting next to us at a hockey game and the people we encounter throughout our communities. Some of those relationships last decades. Some last a few minutes. Some only seconds.

Every interaction is an opportunity to decide how we're going to relate to another human being. And whether we like it or not, we're also in relationship with people whose politics may be very different from our own.

Human beings need connection. We need to belong. We need to be seen and heard, and we need to know that we matter to other people. That's part of why I find the level of division and disconnection in our politics so troubling.

Difference itself isn't the problem. Neither is disagreement. We can disagree passionately about things that matter deeply to us and still recognize one another's humanity.

The damage happens when disagreement turns into contempt. When curiosity gets replaced by assumption. When we stop seeing a neighbor and start seeing only a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, someone on "our side" or "their side." Labels may tell us something about a person, but they can never tell us everything about a person.

Once we think the label tells us everything we need to know, we stop asking questions. We stop wondering what experiences shaped someone's beliefs, what they're afraid of, what they're hoping for, or what matters most to them.

We stop being curious. And without curiosity, connection becomes awfully difficult.

And apparently, I've been campaigning this way

This is the part that hit me yesterday.

I didn't consciously bring Imago into my campaign. I didn't decide my professional world was going to become a political strategy. I just started meeting people and talking to them, and apparently I brought nearly ten years of this way of thinking along with me.

I've tried to approach conversations with curiosity rather than assuming I know what someone thinks because of the letter next to their name. I've talked with people who almost certainly won't agree with me on everything. I've listened to concerns without immediately trying to convince someone that my answer is the right one. I've tried to create enough safety for people to tell me what they actually think, even when they suspect I might disagree.

And I've noticed something remarkably simple: People respond to being treated like people instead of votes.

That shouldn't feel revolutionary. But in politics, sometimes it does.

It also helped me understand why "A neighbor, not a politician" has felt so natural to me throughout this campaign. I'm not interested in approaching my neighbors primarily as voters I need to acquire or persuade.

I'd rather invite people to know me, and I want to know them. Then we can figure out where we agree, where we disagree and what we might be able to accomplish together.

Relational Politics

So, for lack of a better term, I've started thinking of this as Relational Politics. Right now, the best way I know to describe it is through three ideas:

Connection before persuasion. 

Before I try to change someone's mind, can I first encounter the person? Can we begin by recognizing that the human being in front of us has a life every bit as complicated as our own?

Curiosity before assumption. 

Instead of deciding why someone believes what they believe, can I ask? What happened in your life that shaped this view? What are you worried about? What do you wish people understood? What matters to you?

Relationship before outcome. 

Can the way we treat one another matter even when neither of us changes our mind? Can we disagree without making an enemy? If I'm elected, can I vote differently than you wanted me to vote and still look you in the eye, explain why, listen to your disappointment and remain your neighbor?

I think we can.

And I want to be clear about what I don't mean by any of this. Relational Politics isn't about being agreeable. It isn't about avoiding difficult conversations, pretending differences don't matter, or believing that every disagreement has a compromise waiting somewhere in the middle.

Sometimes there are fundamental disagreements. Sometimes leadership means saying no. Sometimes our values require us to challenge something. Sometimes the decision I believe is right will make someone unhappy.

Curiosity doesn't require me to surrender my convictions. Empathy doesn't require agreement. Validation doesn't require capitulation.

I can understand you and still disagree with you.

I can listen deeply and still vote no. I can recognize that your position makes sense from where you're standing and still come to a different conclusion from where I'm standing.

And maybe, if we've created enough safety and trust between us, we can survive that disagreement without deciding that either of us is the enemy.

Maybe this is bigger than a campaign

I'm still thinking through all of this. That's part of why I'm writing about it.

Yesterday, I simply recognized something that had been happening organically and found language that helped me understand it. But the more I've thought about it, the more I realize this isn't really about campaigning.

It's about how we relate to one another.

What if the next time someone says something that immediately puts us on the defensive, we get curious before making an assumption? What if we ask one more question? What if we listen long enough to understand not just what someone believes, but why?

What if sometimes, even in profound disagreement, we can look at another person and genuinely say: You make sense.

Not "You're right."

Not "You've convinced me."

Just: I hear you. I understand a little more about how you got here. You make sense.

Maybe that doesn't change anyone's vote.

But maybe it changes the conversation.

Maybe it changes the relationship.

And if changing the way we relate to one another really can change the world, politics seems like a pretty good place to practice.

---

Imago Relationship Theory and the Imago community are referenced here solely as influences on my personal perspective and approach. Nothing in this post should be understood as an endorsement of my candidacy by any Imago organization or entity.