Recently, I came across the following YouTube video that has stayed with me—not because of the political topic at hand, but because of the human interaction it revealed. In the clip, a young man was attending a protest somewhere in the United States, likely New York City, and calmly interviewing participants about why they were there.
What unfolded was unsettling. Several protestors responded with hostility, but one man in particular fixated on the interviewer’s race. This protestor—who did not know the interviewer personally—began hurling accusations, calling him an “occupier,” blaming him for historical injustices, and insisting he “go back to Europe.” His tone escalated from heated to aggressive, and the verbal attacks were laced with profanities and personal insults.
The interviewer, to his credit, kept his composure. Eventually, he walked away unharmed—but the hostility on display was distressing to witness. And it left me wondering: Why did this exchange spiral so quickly into personal attacks? Why was the protestor so focused on stereotyping the man before him based solely on skin color, rather than engaging with the actual questions?
So much venom and vitriol. Intimidating, Name Calling, Unbridaled Self Expression are losing strategies for getting more of what you want.
Relational vs. Non-Relational Communication Styles
From a relational skills perspective, what we saw in this video was a textbook example of non-relational communication—relying on what Terry Real calls The Five Losing Strategies:
- Needing to be right
- Controlling
- Unbridled self-expression
- Retaliation
- Withdrawal
In this case, the protestor defaulted to needing to be right, controlling the interaction, expressing unfiltered anger, and retaliating against someone he perceived as an opponent. These strategies don’t lead to connection or persuasion—they lead to escalation, resentment, and disconnection.
By contrast, a relational approach focuses on respect, curiosity, and boundaries. It’s possible to disagree passionately without resorting to personal attacks or hostile stereotyping. Relational engagement keeps the conversation about the political discourse and civility, not about tearing down the other person.
Left vs. Right: Political Discourse and Emotional Regulation
In my observation—and I acknowledge this will not align with everyone’s experience—there’s a troubling pattern in how public discourse plays out across the political spectrum. Many individuals who identify with the progressive left seem quicker to escalate into personal hostility when challenged, while many on the political right tend to remain more measured, even when passionately defending their views.
Why might this be? One possible explanation lies in moral grounding. People on the political right often come from more religious, conservative, and traditional frameworks that emphasize moral absolutes, personal responsibility, and civility. These values can serve as an anchor when emotions run high, fostering more emotional regulation in politics and a relational posture in debate.
By contrast, progressive ideology often embraces moral relativism—valuing lived experience and subjective truths over fixed principles. While this can be a strength in certain contexts, it can also erode the guardrails that help keep conversations respectful when disagreement turns sharp. Without those guardrails, frustration can more easily morph into hostility.
The Cost of Non-Relational Politics
When political dialogue turns personal, we all lose. Non-relational behavior not only damages individual interactions—it deepens political polarization. We stop listening, stop learning, and retreat into echo chambers where hostility toward “the other side” is normalized.
From a relationship skills perspective, the antidote is both simple and difficult: we must replace the losing strategies with relational ones—speaking with respect, listening with curiosity, owning our part, and seeking solutions instead of victories.
Moving From Non-Relational to Relational as a Society
If we want our political and social discourse to heal, we need to:
- Model relational behavior publicly. Stay calm, even when provoked. Refuse to retaliate with personal attacks.
- Teach emotional regulation. This should be part of civic education as much as history and government.
- Acknowledge common humanity. Recognize that even ideological opponents have valid experiences and concerns.
- Anchor in moral principles. Whether rooted in faith, philosophy, or civic virtue, shared ethical boundaries keep discussions constructive.
The young man in the video demonstrated remarkable composure under fire. If more of us—left, right, and in between—chose relational strategies over non-relational communication, our debates might be sharper in content but softer in tone. That’s not just good manners. It’s the foundation of a functional, connected society.