View or listen to the author’s recording of this article on YouTube.
The political polarization in the United States remains jarring. The uptick in violence from actors on both sides of the political aisle has been further proof of this, along with the celebratory responses towards that violence by a vocal minority. In the fall of 2025, the United States experienced the longest federal government shutdown in its history of 42 days due to legislators’ inability to find compromise. Some more hyperbolic commentators have been suggesting that the United States is on the path to Civil War or governmental collapse.
This is why it might be surprising to many that across the United States there has been a major change in public policy. It has been bipartisan and has unified states from deep blue California to deep red Tennessee. As of writing, at least 32 states have adopted some form of these laws, which have transformed the nation’s schools and the life of young people around the country. These policies are, to put it generically, phone-free schools. They have taken off in large part due to the thought and advocacy of social psychologist Dr. Jonathan Haidt. His books The Coddling of the American Mind (2018) and The Anxious Generation (2024) have contributed significantly to the success of these initiatives.
It is certainly surprising that such a massive change in public policy has occurred in such a divided time. If our nation is so polarized, and each political party has been operating out of a win at all costs mindset, how is it possible that such a seemingly controversial initiative could pass in such ideologically diverse places? The United States has often prioritized liberty over safety (ex. gun control, vaccine mandates, etc.). Why has this measure to keep kids safe been so widely successful when many could have been aggressively opposed due to limits on individual liberty? What can be learned from Haidt’s seemingly miraculous efforts of effectively lobbying in our divided nation?
Haidt’s success lies in his refusal to speak at his audience. Instead, he dialogues with different groups, recognizing and appealing to their distinct values. Regarding phone policies, he framed a message that advocates for minimizing the harm screens do to youth, while simultaneously encouraging greater freedom in the real world. He advocates for giving children a fair chance to genuinely play, as past generations have had. He has advocated for minimizing the sordid parts of the internet that degrade the human person. This messaging has elements that each political ideology can appreciate in some way.
There might still be a wide range of opinions on phone-free schools, yet what is more important is Haidt’s approach which has proven more effective. This flexibility of adapting the delivery of the message without compromising the truth is a significant part of the Ignatian ‘way of proceeding’. Since the early days of the Society of Jesus, Jesuits have used the language and culture of the places we live to genuinely share the faith in a way that it can be received. If early Jesuits had only used the language of Europe, the message might not have resonated in Japan or India as St. Francis Xavier was able to do so successfully. Today, we should all ideally be able to communicate with those in front of us as they are, not as we would like them to be.
This approach should not just be relegated to members of the Society of Jesus, but rather it is the responsibility of all people of good will to listen to the person they are conversing with in order to meet them where they are. Imagine if a liturgical group wanted to promote the extraordinary form of the Mass. It might be more effective to use terms of how emotionally meaningful this is to some people as opposed to arguing in favor of the past tradition of the Church. Imagine if you wanted to argue in favor of veganism to those in a food desert. Instead of talking about the care or harm of animals, argue for the liberty to choose affordable healthy foods. Imagine if instead of denouncing ICE because of its harm to our immigrant brothers and sisters, the focus was creating a fairer process so that those who come to the US in a lawful way have nothing to fear. Simply by changing the framework from the language and values in our own echo chambers, and using the values of others who we have genuinely encountered, we might actually change minds or have our own minds changed.
These types of dialogue must be done in love and trust. If we do not use others’ language but rather insist upon our own values, we accidentally communicate the message of conditional love. Rather, we must work with others in the same way that God works with each of us. God chooses not to redeem the world through the trumpet blast of an angel, but rather God chooses to become exactly like us, by living life as we do. God took on our flesh, received a physical heart like ours, was born as a baby like all of us once were. The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes St. Athanasius saying “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” If we enter into the experiences of others, it is more transformative than if we stay in the language we are comfortable with.
The United States remains divided, but there is hope for a reconciled future in our politics. May we all look to listen, encounter, and love. May we meet individuals where they are and on their own terms. When we do this, we may either open our hearts to change our own views or open the hearts of others to change their views, all for the greater glory of God.
—
Photo: “Aécio Neves − Café da Manhã e Conversa com Operários − 28 08 2014” by Aécio Neves, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)
.jpg){kind=link}