The “Utah way” is something Utahns hear about a lot from their politicians. It’s used to signify that the state does politics differently. That it's more civil and collaborative than the rest of the country.
And for Tami Pyfer, who leads the Utah Project of the national Dignity Index, it’s always been aspirational and there have been times when it worked.
“Bringing people together, people that disagreed, having some pretty landmark legislation passed because we brought people together, and we like to look at that and say, ‘That's the Utah way.’”
Perhaps the best example was in 2011. That’s when the Legislature passed, and then Gov. Gary Herbert signed, immigration laws that were seen as grand compromises, especially in a Republican-heavy state like Utah.
Even with the state’s successes, Pyfer cautioned it has never been perfect.
“I think we mistakenly think it happens like that all the time, that every bill and every initiative and every referendum happens that way, and that's where we're wrong.”
But this year is different.
From controversial legislation on transgender bathroom access and diversity programs in schools to court decisions on abortion and redistricting, the state has had a politically polarized year.
“It could be that I've missed it, or it's not coming to mind because of the examples of it not happening are so prevalent,” she said. “I think the Utah way needs a good shot of hope and a shot of determination.”
Apparently, so does the country.
Recent data from Vanderbilt University shows Americans are becoming more polarized.
And the heat of this election season isn’t helping. “I believe that people feel like their voices are not being heard. I feel like my voice sometimes is not being heard, and that shouldn't be the Utah way. And so I think we have work to do.”
She pointed to the discourse around the proposed constitutional amendment to alter how ballot initiatives work in Utah — and the fight over whether the move will even be put to voters in November.
“If [the Utah way] had been working, voices would have been heard and the legislature would have taken more time on this,” she said.
“Instead of having three minutes for, I don't know, a half a dozen people to speak in a committee meeting, it would have been ‘whoa, whoa, whoa, let's step back here. We're going to meet for the next six months about this. We're going to look at what we have, what we need. I'm going to bring in people that disagree with me.’”
Political polarization and contempt is something University of Utah Impact Scholar and author Arthur Brooks dedicates a lot of time to. His 2019 book Love Your Enemies explores ways for people to see those they disagree with as equals, and not as “others.”
During a Sept. 13 book club event with Salt Lake County Mayor Jenny Wilson, Brooks said turning the tide toward understanding does not mean we all need to agree.
“The competition of ideas is fundamental to a free society,” he said. “I want lots and lots of competition in economics and in politics and in ideas. Competition. And that means disagreement.”
Where people often get hung up, Brooks said, is when two basic human emotions — anger and disgust — combine to create contempt for those they disagree with.
“Whether we actually feel it or not, we've gotten into the habit of discourse, of rolling our eyes and being dismissive and sarcastic about other people, which indicates this noxious, complex emotion that mixes those two things together to great deleterious impact — and to the great detriment of our country.”
The key to overcoming that, he said, is to seek out opportunities to persuade and not insult or threaten.
“Nobody has ever been hated into agreement,” he said.
“Never in history have you been able to insult somebody or threaten somebody to the point where they actually agree with you more. You will never be successful if you're using your values as a weapon, only ever as a gift.”
Pyfer and the Dignity Index recently scored the presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. On a scale of 1 to 8, with contempt being the lowest and dignity the highest, no portion of the debate scored higher than a 5 between the candidates.
“We're not going to make any progress as a country if we keep pointing those fingers, saying that someone else is ruining the country,” Pyfer said.
