Ronald Reagan center director on how to talk politics with family
Fred Ryan cites polling on broken relationships and says civil disagreement takes preparation, respect and evidence.
By Daniel Okafor · Business Editor
3 min read
Ronald Reagan center director Fred Ryan says Americans need better ways to talk politics with family as polling shows political conflict is straining personal relationships. Writing in Fortune, Ryan pointed to a YouGov poll finding that more than one-third of Americans are estranged from a relative, and to a study in PNAS Nexus finding that one-third of Americans have seen a relationship end over political disagreements.
Ryan argued that disagreement should not be avoided, but handled with discipline. He said civil discourse is a skill that can be practiced, and he cited a new civility handbook from the Reagan Foundation as a framework for political conversations with relatives, friends and neighbors.
How can you talk politics with family without losing them?
Ryan’s first recommendation is to prepare before a difficult conversation begins. He said people should enter disagreements with intellectual humility: the awareness that their information may be limited, incomplete or out of date.
That does not require giving up firm beliefs, Ryan wrote. He advised people to identify their core convictions in advance, including the values they want to defend and the lines their conscience will not let them cross. In his view, civil disagreement allows strong views as long as they are expressed honestly and respectfully.
What civil discourse means in practice
Ryan described civil discourse as a way of arguing about ideas without attacking the person who holds them. He said productive disagreement depends on respecting the other person’s dignity, regardless of background or beliefs.
He also urged people to start with common ground before turning to political disputes. According to Ryan, shared interests such as food, music, sports, art and family can remind participants that a relationship is larger than a single argument.
Listening is another central part of the approach, Ryan wrote. He advised people to restate the other person’s point before answering, so misunderstandings can be corrected before they grow into a larger conflict.
What to do when a political argument gets tense
Ryan said hard conversations can break down, and he recommended separating facts from opinions when that happens. Claims should be tested against evidence, including verifiable facts and reasoning that can be challenged, he wrote.
When a conversation reaches an impasse, Ryan advised people to rely on the relationship itself. In some cases, he said, that means ending the discussion for the day so another conversation remains possible; in others, it means continuing because the relationship can withstand the disagreement.
Ryan’s broader argument is that disagreement is a regular part of human life because people hold different views, preferences and values. He warned that undisciplined conflict can produce resentment and damaged relationships, while disciplined disagreement can support stronger communication.
The YouGov poll cited by Ryan is available here, and the PNAS Nexus study is available here. The Reagan Foundation’s civility handbook is listed here.
This story draws on original reporting from Fortune.