Simon Usborne’s article made me reflect deeply. Raised to enjoy debate, I often saw spirited discussions as invigorating—even at the risk of fraying friendships. At work, winning arguments was the priority, regardless of personal cost.
As a parent, I applied the same logic at home, especially with my teenage son. I thought I was helping him understand the world by calmly arguing every point. In reality, I was pushing him away.
The breakthrough came through non-violent resistance training inspired by Gandhi and Martin Luther King. I relearned the power of “striking while the iron is cold”—delaying reaction until cooler heads prevail. The result? Our relationship began to heal. Now we hug, talk calmly, and enjoy each other’s company. I’ve stopped trying to mold him and started embracing who he is.
Reclaiming Community Through Conversation
How daily human contact shapes perspective after retirement
Jack Nixon, Ellon, Aberdeenshire
Since retiring at 84, I’ve stayed connected with my town by recording every real conversation I have each day—“hello” doesn’t count. I average about 15 meaningful exchanges a day. These chats are rewarding and help me understand my community in a way reminiscent of the empathy Simon Usborne describes. I recommend it to others of my generation—it’s a simple but powerful habit.
Beyond Political Binaries
A juror reflects on common sense beyond the echo chamber
Tom Lavender, Whitley Bay, Tyne and Wear
Like many, I’ve become more polarised over the years—on Brexit, immigration, climate. I expected jury service to be another ideological battlefield. It wasn’t. My fellow jurors were thoughtful, balanced, and kind. This experience affirmed that most people live in the middle ground, far from the social media-driven extremes. Simon Usborne is right—focusing on shared values can build a society that works for everyone.
When Political Differences Become Moral Divides
Is preserving a relationship always the right choice?
DP Snyder, Hillsborough, North Carolina, US
I appreciate Simon Usborne’s zen-like approach, but what if the other person supports something morally indefensible?
READ MORE: Bill Shorten Slams Peter Dutton’s Work-from-Home Policy Backflip as Election Risk
In the US, the division between MAGA Republicans and those who value justice, diversity, and peace is stark. Can we maintain relationships with people whose beliefs might endanger us? It’s not just emotional—it’s practical. If detained for dissent, would they fight for us? Trust falters when we silence our truths to keep the peace.
Sometimes, Silence is the Best Strategy
Navigating political tension in a pro-Trump family
Michaline Morrison, Nooksack, Washington, US
I resonate with Simon Usborne’s point. I’m the oldest of four, and all my siblings—and our late parents—were pro-Trump. During the last election, our close caregiving arrangements forced constant contact, and I overheard countless pro-Trump comments.
I eventually voiced my views, but by then it was too late to change hearts—or ballots. After a painful online breakdown, I decided: no more politics. Now, when news breaks, I brace myself for their reactions—and I bite my tongue.
The Cost of Compromise
Is common ground always the right goal?
Paul Hoffman, East Greenwich, Rhode Island, US
Simon Usborne suggests seeking “common ground” and “understanding where people are coming from.” But I disagree. If someone’s core values clash with mine, deep connection is impossible. Trying to maintain harmony feels like surrender.
As Elie Wiesel said: “We must always take sides.” Silence supports the oppressor. There’s no moral value in “understanding” beliefs you find abhorrent. To me, Usborne’s approach—though well-meaning—is a cop-out.
