Podcast
Preparing for the Election Meltdown … or Not
Co-hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer weigh conflicting predictions for the 2026 midterms and explore how to safeguard a free and fair election.
Commentary
Ten ways to take down the political temperature
The intensification of political polarization in recent years has raised pressing concerns about the health of democratic discourse and the rise of political violence. Ash Center Senior Fellow Stephen Richer shares ten principles he believes provide a framework for fostering more constructive engagement: encouraging self-reflection, prioritizing substantive dialogue over hyperbole, and creating incentives that reward integrity and ideas rather than division.
Ten ways to take down the political temperature:
1) Self-assessment.
Ask yourself if you’re part of the problem. Be honest. Are you trying to raise people’s emotions for the purpose of getting more attention, more donations, more clicks, even if it generates more anger and hate? Are you fairly and honestly presenting the viewpoints of your opposition?
2) Totality of the person.
Is politics the lens through which you assess a person’s worth? I’ll politely suggest that “Republican or Democrat?” or “Trump supporter or Trump hater?” are incomplete measurements of a person’s value and character and shouldn’t be the primary measurement.
3) Social media disclosure.
It’s well known that some social media companies use algorithms that promote hate and incendiary language. We should push for the disclosure of social media algorithms, and then you should assess if you want to use a social media platform that promotes hate.
4) Focus on good.
Center your political conversations on why your ideas are good, or why your legislation works, or why your political party will bring prosperity to America. Spend less time on why competing ideas, people, and parties are bad.
5) Change political incentives.
Relatedly, try to reward politicians who stand on the strength of their character and ideas rather than those who focus on the alleged bad of competing politicians. Reward politicians who begin their speeches with “here’s how I will be great,” instead of “here are the people responsible for all of society’s ills.”
6) Social media diet.
We know that political commentary on social media is much more extreme and polarized than political discussion in person. Limit your online time. And limit whom you follow online. On Twitter, avoid the “For You” tab and create lists of measured, responsible political accounts to follow. Make in-person events your primary political outlet. Yes, I appreciate the irony of posting this online.
7) Morality or policy difference?
If you disagree with somebody over a political topic ask yourself if what you disagree about is a matter of morality or a matter of policy. If it’s a matter of policy, recognize that, and accept that policy differences are normal and OK.
8) Existential elections.
Resist systems and debates that present the election or the legislative battle in apocalyptic terms, e.g., “if Sam doesn’t win this city council seat, then our city will immediately be in squalor and ruin.” Promote system reforms that lessen the importance of each individual election. We shouldn’t be in a world in which because one candidate got 2% more of the vote, the voices of 49% of the population are squashed.
9) Avoid hyperbole.
Only call somebody a criminal if he’s been charged and convicted with a crime. Only call somebody a terrorist if he uses fear or violence as a means of political persuasion. Don’t ever say we should “lynch” somebody (as was prominently said about me).
10) Ask about motives.
Motives matter a lot. If you disagree with somebody, ask yourself about that person’s motives. If that person’s motives are worthwhile (e.g. he wants to make America a better place), but you just disagree about how to get there, then you’ll have a lot more patience for that person.
Stephen Richer, Senior Practice Fellow in American Democracy, is the former elected Maricopa County Recorder, responsible for voter registration, early voting administration, and public recordings in Maricopa County, Arizona, the fourth largest county in the United States.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent the positions of the Ash Center or its affiliates.
More from this Program
Podcast
Inside Trump’s White House
White House reporter Annie Linskey offers a closer look at how the Trump White House makes decisions and what recent actions reveal about its strategy.
Podcast
So, Is It Fascism?
Jonathan Rauch joins the podcast to discuss why he now believes “fascism” accurately describes Trump’s governing style.
Podcast
Preparing for the Election Meltdown … or Not
Co-hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer weigh conflicting predictions for the 2026 midterms and explore how to safeguard a free and fair election.
Feature
Supply Skeptics or Abundance Acolytes? Mayoral Views on the Housing Crisis
Economists and policy analysts broadly agree that more housing needs to be built in order to reduce costs in America’s most expensive cities. Using a novel survey of mayors of mid-sized and large cities to explore mayors’ views on the roots of America’s housing crisis and what solutions they believe will most effectively address their constituents’ housing challenges, the authors summarize mayors’ attitudes and perceptions on key issues related to expanding the housing supply, reporting how well these views correlate with mayors’ assessments of their own cities’ supply needs.
Podcast
Inside Trump’s White House
White House reporter Annie Linskey offers a closer look at how the Trump White House makes decisions and what recent actions reveal about its strategy.