What would have made the Boebert-Omar call a positive experience?

By David Meyers // Fulcrum

Last week, GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert made Islamaphobic remarks suggesting a Democratic colleague, Rep. Ilhan Omar, might be a terrorist. When the two spoke Monday, the conversation quickly devolved and the war of words continued as each later told her side of the story.

But perhaps their conversation could have been more positive, more productive, if the two lawmakers had the benefit of counsel from experts in civic discourse and bridge building.

The Fulcrum reached out to such professionals to see how they would have guided the conversation.

Boebert had already raised the ire of many on the left by referring to Omar as part of the “jihad squad,” a play on the self-styled “squad” of House progressives who include Omar, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes and others.

But over the weekend, things escalated following the release of a video in which Boebert recounted getting in an elevator with Omar.

“I look to my left, and there she is. Ilhan Omar. And I said, ‘Well, she doesn’t have a backpack, we should be fine,'” said Boebert, who aded that it was “not my first ‘jihad squad’ moment.”

The two spoke on Monday, but the conversation grew heated and ended abruptly.

But experts in civil discourse believe a different approach could have led to a more positive outcome. Four such people shared their thoughts with The Fulcrum.

Carolyn Lukensmeyer, former executive director, National Institute for Civil Discourse:

“Unfortunately, this phone call was doomed from the outset as the intent of both parties was clearly to get the other party to change their behavior. In an already polarized, divisive situation that intent is unachievable and will predictably escalate the situation.

“For two people who are already at such deep odds, the only approach that might work would be genuine curiosity that would lead to understanding more about what has brought the other person to hold their views. What in their life experience leads them to believe what they believe. So the goal would be mutual understanding rather than behavior change.

“Again, the possibility of this in such a public process where insults have been shared before is highly unlikely.”