Acknowledging and understanding a point of view doesn’t automatically mean I fuck with it.

I remember being called a people pleaser after an interaction with the father of a friend’s partner because I wasn’t combative when they expressed conservative views on US politics. Admittedly, in this situation and at this stage of my life at 24, my appetite for causing friction was low.

My passive response, maybe seemingly agreeable, wasn’t in an attempt to keep the peace whilst maintaining an internal bubbling rage. Biting my lip not to lash out with a counter argument, that I would later unleash as successive messages in various side chats.

It was because I encountered a person who held views that were in stark contrast to mine, but not too dissimilar my dad’s.

On the surface and our perspectives are the polar opposite and grounds to challenge. Beneath that, I was connecting dots from my life that created space for how they landed here. It’s not blind faith or seeing the best in people, it’s a belief that people are inherently complicated.

Even contradictory, I’ve seen how the working class, unionists, historic Labor voters, get sucked in by the conservative narrative that hinges on a zero sum game. Not to say this was the take in this situation, but an acknowledgment that it’s not as simple as it seems.

I’ve heard the argument of “if they really believed in xyz, then they would never”, and what that argument often neglects is lived experience built up by class, education, gender and race to name a few, let alone the differing outcomes depending on the combinations.

People should know better.
People can’t default to ignorance.
People should make an active attempt to learn.

Works well in theory, but at the end of the day, you don’t know what you don’t know.

When you’re stretched to the brim doing the best with what you have – what that really translates to is shifting the responsibility and subsequent blame, on a person or demographic, that doesn’t have the knowledge, access or resources to breakdown or understand this internal bias or external tactical play.

Only concerned with how they can justify this position, rather than pulling apart why it appealed to them in the first place.

When I ran for State Government, during the pre-selection, I was at a political party event talking to someone about why I decided to put my hat in the ring. Another person joined the conversation just as I was discussing my work history with my career starting in property development, in their first minute into the chat they remarked, “a property developer in the Labor Party?”.

I found it more amusing than insulting, as it was an attempt to highlight a conflicting position. As opposed to realising that it was an office assistant role me and my asterisks for an ATAR took straight out of high school. It also exposed a lack of understanding between the difference of working in the industry and being a property developer, because the likelihood of me being the latter whilst being in a dive bar on a weeknight with a house red in hand with no friends or pursuit target is slim to none.

The scepticism around my motive to run weren’t isolated.

At another event in pre-selection phase, I was asked how I would respond to someone questioning my work experience as someone who spent the first nine years in property development. I replied with “it’s a privilege to be able to do work that you morally align with.” This wasn’t to reject or sully the formative parts of my career, as I was and still am grateful for those experiences, but it was more so to reinforce that it being able to pick and choose the work you do based on your beliefs is to be in a position of privilege and not endurance.

The difference is whether it comes from a place of genuine curiosity or an opportunistic moment to lecture disparity.

This approach took many forms during the campaign. I solidified my position on what I wanted to focus on, so during street stalls, door knocking and candidate forums, people would rightfully respond with their view.

As with all things, the intent determines the response. Some wanted to examine and open dialogue, others wanted the opportunity to preach – and I’d welcome both.

My aim wasn’t to win the hearts and minds of everyone I interacted with. My goal wasn’t to change deep seeded beliefs then and there. I’d hear them out, if it resonated, I’d offer an example or anecdote to demonstrate I understood their position and relay my view and leave it at that.

Pushing hard on a position someone already rejected just tells them you’re talking at them, not to them. Indicating an incapability or unwillingness to understand their perspective, as you’re too deep in your own beliefs.

It’s not all ‘hold space’ and ‘listen with love’ for me. I’m checking out when I realise someone is having a crack because it makes them feel bigger.

Not because I’m cowering or minimising myself, it’s because I refuse to waste my energy on responding to something that resembles beef in the comment section with a private profile, no picture and zero posts. That’s not a hard rule though, there’s a pettiness to me that gets air time if the stars align.