Time Under Tension: A Fitness Model for Training Political Discourse

Learn. Practice. Train.

To get better at anything, we must be willing to tolerate the discomfort of being bad at it–for a while. And the reward has to be worth the effort.

What reward will make it worth the effort for us to tolerate the discomfort of political discourse, in order to get better at it?
What other uncomfortable training can we compare it to?

“Agonist Supersets! The focus of this block is adding more intensity + time under tension to a specific muscle group. Lower body in A series, upper body in B series for TBS (total body strength) days. Two movments focusing on the same muscle group back to back. First movement more focused on neural engagement and higher movement complexity, the second movement for increased TUT and hypertrophy!”
–Ethos Training Systems, February 2025

Rear foot elevated split squat. 20# each hand. 6 reps x 4 sets.
Tempo: 2 count down, pause 1, up 1, repeat.

To pause for one second at the bottom of a rear foot elevated split squat can be uncomfortable. The longer I hold tension with the glute of the forward leg extended in that position, the more challenging it is to stand back up, especially by the 24th repetition. But the rewards are a stronger posterior chain, a more stable core, and confidence and ease getting up and down from the floor as I age.

Since there are only six reps per set in this block, I can lift heavier weights. I think this is the first time I have done this movement with 20 pounds in each hand. And the program builds in longer rest periods after heavy load sets. Consistent and disciplined repetition for neural pathway learning and muscle hypertrophy–I get better each time I train.

I so wish more of us would take this attitude toward our political conversations–see it as personal training to get better at it. What do I mean by ‘better’? I do not mean better at criticizing and shaming people who voted differently. I do not mean amplifying derisive words and ad hominem attacks on public figures. I do not mean aggressively debating ideology and attempting to convince someone their values and ideals are ‘wrongheaded’ or otherwise invalid.

By ‘get better’ at political discourse I mean asking more open and curious questions, listening to understand rather than to rebut, reject, or demean. I mean challenging our own convictions for consistency and integrity. I mean engaging in earnest, in the spirit of critical collaboration, to find common ground in shared goals, where we can stand and work together to make our systems better. Policies born from this laborious process last, rather than getting overturned from one administration to the next. It requires leaders as well as citizens to withstand the discomfort of disagreement and clash of ideology. It demands patience, diplomacy, professionalism, self-awareness, self-regulation, humility, honesty, and mutual respect.

Who looks at this list of requirements and thinks, “Sure, no problem, I’m very comfortable with that, sign me up.” More often I suspect a reaction along the lines of, “Are you kidding me? Like anybody (on the other side) will show up that way to me? Why would I bother doing it for them?”

And therein lies our impasse. Who will go first? Only those who can tolerate the discomfort–of vulnerability, uncertainty, and humility–with confidence. It will be those who have trained.

Time under tension: It builds muscle strength and stability, improves load tolerance, and allows us to lift heavy things with grace. We have to get in the gym, grip the weights, and submit ourselves to the struggle. And we have to do it consistently, with discipline. We must take time to rest and recover, between sets and sessions alike. We need coaches to monitor and correct form and position. And it always helps to have our friends doing it with us and cheering us on.

If we don’t feel like it and don’t do it, then muscles atrophy and risk of injury increases when weekend warrior mindset overtakes us. A healthcare system can get overburdened by people who fall and fracture hips due to frailty from lack of physical training. A society’s political system can be similarly overburdened, and thus vulnerable to nefarious actors, by a citizenry that fails at political discourse due to frailty in conversational exchange of ideas and difference of opinion.

So how do we train? Thankfully there are more and more resources to help us. My suggestions:

  1. Start within our own group. Find people willing to put down the ad hominem approach, who are willing to look at what we say and do with a critical eye, looking at it from ‘the opposition’s’ point of view, and seeing how our messages may be counterproductive.
  2. With these peers, practice engaging with ideas you disagree with. Role play the ‘other side.’ Research objective evidence that supports that point of view–avoid that group’s ad hominem attacks also; look for evidence that they also understand our point of view.
  3. Attend a Braver Angels workshop or event. Learn and practice the skills we need to engage calmly, openly, and with respect and curiosity in front.
  4. Follow groups like Builders and A Common America to see who among our elected officials, and those who might run, already practices non-adversarial discourse. Amplify them on your social media and to your peers.
  5. Finally, seek out people who voted differently from you, whom you respect and whose relationship you value. Get vulnerable. Tell them you want to get better at talking politics, that you want to connect more than divide our country. Be prepared for an incredulous and dismissive reaction. Decide how and whether you will persist. Comment here if you want a pep talk, I’m good at giving those! And then if they agree, practice all of the above and below with them! Go for it!

In any conversation, aim to ask questions at least twice as often as you make statements. This is an uncomfortable, challenging, humbling, and extremely effective way to get better at engaging anyone in conversation. But they can’t just be any questions. The best questions–the ones that make us pause, resist our canned and offhand responses–are open and honest–see tips below. And the intention must be earnest–the goal must be to connect and understand, never to one-up or ‘win’.

Time under tension in political discourse builds the muscles of engagement. It improves our tolerance of intra- and interpersonal discomfort. It gives us the ability to think in curious rather than adversarial ways. It makes us stronger citizens, neighbors, friends, and family members who can withstand disagreement and conflict with resilience.

I’m considering how I will spend my time, energy, and resources this year. Work will be busier. Daughter will launch to college. I will continue to write. And now I hear the call of advocacy getting louder. I have a few ideas about the whats and hows; the Why remains steadfast: to foster the healthiest relationships among all whose lives I touch.

Exciting times, friends! Scary for so many, I know.

How will we all help?

https://healingcircleslangley.org/2016/10/asking-open-honest-questions/

Bit Post: Because Love

Thank you for indulging, my friends. I posted this impromptu on my Instagram today, and wanted to save it to the blog, too. Still thinking about how we choose to show up to ourselves, one another, and the world at large. Let’s be intentional, yes?

—————————————————–

Many thanks to Holy Moly 💫[Sarah]💫 

on @ajthisway’s Patreon for referencing this quote which I had never heard before. 

How simple and profound! I think a lot about courage right now—what it takes and will continue to take for us to stand up for what we believe, for one another, for all of humanity. And this is really the foundation, isn’t it?  

When we are sure of being loved, especially by the people who matter most, we can do fucking anything. 

The only way out is through. The best way through is together…

If we can muster the courage to connect across difference, then *together* we can work out whatever conflicts confront us. 

And if it’s love that gives us courage (I believe it is), then we definitely need to love one another more. 🥰🥰🙌🏼🥰🤲🏼🥰🙏🏼

We Choose Our Stance

December 2023, before addressing members of the Judiciary on health and wellness

Tomorrow a new presidential administration takes office in the United States.
Wherever you are, whomever you’re with, whatever you’re doing, please be kind–everywhere and every day–but especially here, tomorrow.

I can’t say how long it took me to feel mostly back to normal after November 5, but it was sometime after completing 30 blog posts about the election and political discourse. Regular life resumed and my attention drifted away from politics… until now. I have continued to consume news sparsely, and with critical eye and ear. Still, like many of my progressive friends, I anticipate the next four years with tension and severe concern. I remember the last Trump administration as chaotic and disruptive–an intrusion on my daily life and consciousness–and I expect the next four years to echo that experience. I hold anticipatory stress and fatigue. I know many readers do not necessarily feel the same; I ask you to please hold space, empathy, and compassion for those of us who dread, regardless of how you judge us and the alarm we feel.

That said, I also feel a tremendous sense of opportunity and possibility. We–progressives, conservatives, and everyone else–get another chance to navigate together the unique jungle of a Trump presidency. I feel confident we can count on unprecedented words and actions, regularly occurring shock and dismay, and escalating emotion and rhetoric. To be clear, I expect this from both ends of the political spectrum, not just the people in office and their affiliates. We are humans, susceptible to triggers that provoke the worst in ourselves as well as one another–that trait knows no political identity.

So how do we choose to show up?

These images come to my mind:

https://thekaratekid.fandom.com/wiki/Crane_Kick?file=Daniel_vs_johny.png
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGJX4XukJEA
https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2019/08/15/reagan-and-gorbachevs-tantalising-nuclear-talks-in-reykjavik

Adversarial energy.

It’s a fight, we say. They are our political opponents. Everything is on the line–the economy, our personal safety, our civil rights, democracy itself–our very way of life (and consider that had the election gone the other way, these fears would be the same, just expressed by a different subset of people). Transitions of government should not feel this existentially threatening. And here we are.

How much agency do we each, as individuals, recognize and claim, to influence and impact this sense of adversarial doom and conflict? How much do I, one person, believe I can change how we all do the next four years?

“‘What can I do, I’m only one person?’ said seven billion people.”

I think I/we can do a lot.

First, assess our sense of threat and challenge.
These are distinct yet overlapping stress states, with divergent physiologic responses and consequences. In threat we feel fearful and anxious. Heart rate, blood pressure and blood sugar rise, pupils dilate; gut and immune function shut down. It’s fight or flight, live or die. Threat sensation makes us reactive and impulsive; cognition and judgment play minimal if any role in our thoughts and actions here. Challenge, in contrast, is a state of paradoxically calm activation. I think of it as how elite athletes feel before competition, or how I feel before giving a meaningful presentation. We anticipate with excitement and look forward; we lean in. Cardiovascular, endocrine, cognitive, digestive, and immune functions all remain unimpaired. We are alert and open of mind and perception. We feel stable, strong, flexible, agile, and resilient.
In most stress situations we feel both threat and challenge; the key is to recognize the ratio. If we feel more threatened than challenged, what do we need to modify that balance?
In my experience as student, athlete, physician, parent, friend, speaker, writer, and citizen, the better I recognize where my agency lies, the more my stress scale tips solidly toward challenge. With agency comes empowerment; both victim and perpetrator energy yield to creator vitality and vision. I see how I can help invent a better outcome and future rather than succumbing to or wielding war for it.

Second, decide how we want to show up.
Calm. Commited. Respectful. Mature. Professional. Fully in our integrity. Humane.
Present. Curious. Open. Seeking connection. Humble. Generous. Kind.
What happens when we encounter someone who emits these energies? It’s nonverbal and often ineffable; we feel it, even if we don’t recognize it consciously. Then we mirror it–especially, I think, if that person has status or authority over us (think boss, teacher, parent).
If I choose a fighting stance or the hard and unyielding posture of enemy, how does that immediately affect my counterpart’s nervous system, thus determining how they show up to me? I think we can all recall scenarios of internal fight or flight sensation that either escalated or diffused based on the vibrations and actions of those with power over us.
If you have any influence, any status, any power–potential or real–over anyone, please consider how your energy affects those around you.
And I would argue strongly that we all have this power, know it, like it, want it or not.

Today, this image represents the stance I choose, the energies above that I aspire to effuse:

https://www.iemoji.com/view/emoji/2500/smileys-people/palms-up-together#google_vignette

It feels vulnerable, no question.
But make no mistake, it is not weak.

I Never Thought of It That Way by Mónica Guzmán

Pam Kirst over at Catching My Drift and I have started reading/listening to Mónica Guzmán‘s I Never Thought Of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times, or INTOIT(W) (pronounced ‘intuit’), as she refers to it. It’s a book of attitudes, skills, and practices, not unlike my favorite book ever, The Art of Possibility. “INTOIT” is the catch phrase that reminds us how to show up in these ‘dangerously divided times’ to de-escalate and diffuse antagonism, to cultivate, maintain, and strengthen our connections. This book and its author speak directly to my personal activist heart–it’s about talking to people, Hallelujah! And let us be clear–respectfully, Mónica–curiosity in political conversations (or any conversations of conflict) is not fearless; it is courageous. It requires self-awareness, self-regulation, and both objectively and subjectively effective communication skills, executed despite that threat stress sensation.
Later this winter, Pam and I may discuss our reflections of the book live on Instagram. Stay tuned!

Chapters of I Never Thought of It That Way
Chapters of I Never Thought of It That Way

What are the values we perceive as violated by those in power? What values did our advocates violate, in our ‘opponents” perspective?

What do we not know?

What assumptions do we make about our ‘adversaries’, and how do they impair understanding, stoke division, and thus perpetuate conflict?

What do we need to influence others to show up more curious, open, humble, generous, and collaborative?
I think we need to be these things ourselves first.
Like I said, vulnerable.
And thus courageous.

Brave. Curious. Humble.
Strong. Stable. Generous. Kind.
Committed. Discerning.
Do no harm. Take no shit. So maybe 🤲 and also 💪 and 🖖.

My stance may change over time, depending on how I can manage my own state of alarm and distress. It’s possible to be respectful and kind playing contact sports. I commit to practicing and training the attitudes and skills that help me show up to any encounter in ways that align with my values of Agape love and connection, so I may have the fewest relational regrets at the end of my life.
I intend to lead by imperfect and dedicated example.

What stance do you choose?