Send us a text

Division sells, but it doesn’t solve much. We sat down—one progressive Christian, one conservative atheist—and stress-tested whether two people who disagree on faith and politics can talk through fear, foreign policy, and identity without turning each other into enemies. The short answer: yes, if we swap hot takes for honest motives and keep the relationship above the scoreboard.

We start with a spiral: news about Venezuela and saber-rattling around Greenland sparks late-night dread about drafts and war. From there we unpack how negotiation theater, “naked empire” rhetoric, and shifting justifications fuel anxiety, and why history makes it hard to pretend this is all new. We explore restraint in leadership, what bluster sometimes hides, and how much of our outrage is really about signaling who we are to our tribe rather than changing anything in the real world.

The heart of the conversation is cognitive, not partisan. We break down the dance between divergent thinking (opening possibilities, examining assumptions) and convergent thinking (deciding and acting). Wisdom requires both, whether you’re weighing environmental policy or parenting a teenager you fear is headed for pain. We borrow from stoicism to set a practice: prepare for what you control, stop rehearsing disaster, and guard your attention from feeds that mistake repetition for importance.

By the end, we offer a model for disagreement that keeps human dignity intact: name the actual outcome you want, surface everyone’s motives (including your own), and commit to one action in your control this week. If you’re tired of debates that win points but lose people, this one’s for you. If it resonates, subscribe, share with a friend who votes differently than you do, and leave a review telling us where you found common ground.

©NoahHeldmanMusic

https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com