If metaphors like “walls” can drive a political campaign, I nominate “bridges” for the next Presidential race. And if the public consensus is that our nation is too polarized, the next two years should be about bridging the poles with connecting discourse.

On the dawning of the New Year, Lindsey Graham (R, South Carolina), the current spin doctor for Donald Trump, asked us to consider “the Wall” as a metaphor for border security, rather than a physical object. Notwithstanding his spin on the President’s inflexibility, the actual power of “the wall” as a metaphor or a symbol is undeniable. A vocal minority of Americans stand behind the campaign slogan “Build that Wall,” and would consider the President a coward to compromise on the issue. More than border security, the metaphorical wall evokes a kind of gated community for the “us” to be protected from the “them.”  The “them” could include the diverse, clamoring urban population, the intellectual elite promoting climate science, the gay/transgender citizens blurring traditional gender distinctions, the indigent who can not afford medical care, the news media that insists on naming the blatant lies of daily political discourse, not to mention immigrants assimilating into our economy and politics.

If this sounds like a partisan complaint, it would be fair to add that there is a corresponding distrust of rich white men, of evangelical churches, and of employees of Wall Street, erecting a barrier of blame around their strongholds. Americans are fond of naming their opponents as stereotypes, then walling them off from constructive exchange.

Time to turn walls into bridges. A political slogan or an actual change in how we talk to each other? Can we change the discourse of Presidential campaigns, of inter-racial debate, of Facebook friends so that walls are broken down and bridges built? We just have to break some very bad habits, all of them related to how we listen.

1.  Stop naming people with terms we dislike: liberal, redneck, the one percent, intellectual, anti-intellectual, “Trumpers,”  “Clinton mob,” etc. I blame talk radio for stirring up this ugly discourse.
2. Stop using “Yes, but . . .” arguments. Trying to make our opponents guilty of the same offenses our political heroes have committed is not an argument. It is the old ruse of accusing your siblings for something you have been caught doing. Let the truth stand by itself for a while rather than shifting the attention to someone you don’t like.
3. Stop dodging questions addressing uncomfortable issues. If someone asks an honest question, they deserve an honest response, even if it is “I don’t know.” Politicians have taught us the art of circling around questions and answering questions no one asked. It is disrespectful and cowardly.
4. Employ the “I;” fire the “You.” We can avoid pontificating or accusing by beginning our claims with “I think.” If we allow our opinions to be opinions, not angry assertions, we are less likely to get ugly pushback. The same might be said of the accusatory “you,” which is another way of assessing blame or categorizing our opponents.
5. Call out all of these “walling out”  behaviors when they rise up in public discourse. Too many of us are accustomed to unfair discourse tactics, so we should be reminded when we are building walls instead of bridges, as we take out our bricks and mortar.
6. Advocate “cooling off” periods to take down the walls.  Arguments quickly degenerate to “did” /”did not” quarrels. Refuse to keep these arguments alive by calling time and backing off. Facebook could definitely benefit by agreeing to truces instead of raising the temperature of the discourse.
7. Imagine why your adversaries think they way they do. “Imagining” bridges, but “analyzing” walls out.  “Imagining” suggests we empathize with the other, rather than plotting a strategy to attack their weaknesses. The goal is to humanize our adversaries, rather than labeling them.
8. Devise contracts for connecting with intractable opponents. Maybe avoid political conversations completely, but a better rule is to limit your exchanges on the same topic like a formal debate: (1) claim (2) rebuttal (3) limited number of counter-statements. Maybe you each get to make three points, then shut up. Like the solid lines on the road crossing the bridge, good contracts make safe traveling.
9. Refuse to support politicians who prefer walls to bridges. It is time we hold even our political allies to standards of discourse, so that debate keeps our bridges open for traffic. Loyalty to our partisans is no defense for their personal and political assaults.
10. If the above rules are untenable, then draft your own. Respect any rules that make bridges, instead of walls. We shouldn’t build walls about the rules of discourse. We can learn from each other.

We might easily claim that the “Build that wall” slogan set the tone for the last three years of public discourse. It would explain the potential power of metaphors, how they could control us. Would that the”bridge” metaphor could control the next two years, and that we would refuse to participate in whatever creates walls. Currently it is not our nature to prefer bridges, but they are more than physical infrastructure.  Our invisible bridges of discourse might be necessary even to rebuild the physical infrastructure that is decaying in plain sight.

First, repair the less visible infrastructure that keeps us from hearing and respecting each other.