Are you pumped to gorge yourself on both food and entertainment this upcoming National Native Day of Mourning even as hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their SNAP and food stamp benefits???!!! I sure am!!! I’m so glad you all found my last holiday article, in which I suggested some low-stress ways to keep conversations civil and nonpolitical, helpful. In fact, I hear that my tactics almost worked too well for many of you, accidentally causing a total hush as your entire family, overwhelmed with your wisdom, stopped speaking and silently meditated for the entirety of Thanksgiving dinner, striving for nirvana and completely ignoring both the big football game and Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. If this situation sounds familiar, read on for my tried-and-true tips to turn any awkward silence into happy and zero-conflict family time!

Tip #1: Selecting a Topic 

The most important tip, of course, is to make sure you understand the balance between casual, low-stakes conversation and something that your family could be offended by or take personally. That’s why I always start with a pleasant, objectively true comment like, “Isn’t it beautiful weather? It’s so crisp and autumny outside!” or “Wow, isn’t it great that the Supreme Court declined to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges, protecting same-sex couples’ right to marriage?” Since these comments are both friendly remarks about things we all agree about, they are perfect for starting a lively conversation without disturbing the Thanksgiving peace.

Tip #2: Setting the Mood 

After making sure your conversation starter is noncontroversial, you have to deliver it correctly. Even the most banal comment could be taken the wrong way if you seem agitated or mean when you say it. Here’s a pro tip: Thanksgiving is about thankfulness (and colonization), so you already have a built-in socially acceptable way to make comments! Simply start your sentence with “I’m so thankful for,” expressing your gratitude and joy to ensure you are not seen as disruptive or unpleasant. For example, if I grabbed a greasy serving fork, rolled my eyes back in my head, and screamed, “People wanted Charlie Kirk’s assassin to pay the highest possible penalty when they blamed a trans person, but as soon as they realized a cis, white, religious man was responsible, they switched over to thoughts and prayers for the murderer!” this could be seen as aggressive, even though I followed Tip #1 and made a noncontroversial and obvious point. Instead, I would format my comment thus: “I’m so thankful for increasing awareness of gun violence in America!” using a calm, happy voice and only gritting my teeth a little bit. Try it! 

Tip #3: Knowing Your Audience 

Always make sure you understand where everyone’s coming from before starting a conversation! Notice the little moments, and remember things your family has expressed in the past so that your comments always land the way you want. Let’s say the table is awkwardly quiet and I want to start a conversation. I look around the table and see, probably, a lot of white people. I think back to things I know about white people, like how we participated in the transatlantic slave trade, the Trail of Tears and other forms of colonization and racism, including neocolonialist practices that are still occurring today. Eureka! “Did you know that calling people ‘illegal’ for not having the correct papers under a system that makes it extremely difficult to gain these documents legally is, in fact, racist and discriminatory, devaluing immigrants as people even though America is supposed to be a nation of immigrants and a melting pot for all cultures?” I would then say. Be sure to incorporate Tip #2 — I’ve found that raising your eyebrows very high, smiling as widely as possible, and looking at everyone at the table in quick succession is the most pleasant way to deliver this point. After about 30 seconds of looking around and grinning, remember to express your gratitude by adding, “I’m thankful that you agree with me here and are working not to carry on the legacy of the horrible things the U.S. has done in the past.” Then, you should quickly jump up from the table and open the front door, welcoming in the 47,964 immigrants who committed only minor offenses, like traffic violations, held in ICE detention centers as of 2025. Education about a certain people group is, of course, best done by members of that people group, so personal contact with the minorities persecuted by President Trump’s fascist regime will be a valuable opportunity for your family to ask questions and learn.

But What if an Argument Starts Anyway? 

Once you know how to find a noncontroversial point, deliver it in a pleasant way, and understand your audience, you’ll be able to create a warm environment that fosters great conversations and promotes familial community. Unfortunately, there’s always one person who doesn’t know these tips, and might even try to start something on purpose — what a faux pas! If anyone at the table says something that is bad etiquette and doesn’t follow the above tips, whether it’s a topic that could be offensive, a downright unpleasant delivery, or a lack of effort to understand where people are coming from, you can fix it! Simply read accurate and scholarly sources about political topics, speak to a wide variety of people and make a genuine effort to understand their experiences, remember the speaker’s shared humanity as you prepare to encounter their misguided attitude and hire a death metal vocalist to loudly growl out the famous political protest song “Bella Ciao” any time the problematic family member begins speaking. This uplifting, anti-fascist experience should help even the grumpiest relative see the error of their ways, after which you can take the opportunity to share my three tips for successful holiday conversation. 

A Situation From a Reader Just Like You! 

I did also want to address a quick reader question. Unfortunately, after reading my first Thanksgiving article, someone let me know that every year they have to share a Thanksgiving table with — the essence of medical malpractice and ableism itself? What a sticky situation! My advice is to just read RFK Jr. a peer-reviewed article about honestly any scientific topic. This will probably take him out; if not, I think a flamethrower is what you’re supposed to use for zombies.

Now that you know how to start productive conversations over the Thanksgiving holiday, you should be totally prepared for the big day! I hope my tips help you celebrate without having to worry about awkward silences or those annoying moments when your family somehow starts saying things that they clearly can’t actually believe. Happy Tofurkey Day, and enjoy the benefits of capitalist exploitation that you greedily benefit from with no concern or empathy for the less fortunate!!! God bless America!!

On Oct. 5, American Public Square hosted an author Q&A at William Jewell College for Robert Putnam and Shaylyn Romney Garrett’s “The Upswing: How America came together a century ago and how we can do it again.” Putnam is the Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University and author of critically acclaimed books such as “Bowling Alone,” “Our Kids” and “American Grace.” He has been called one of the most influential academics of our world today. Garrett, a former student of Putnam’s at Harvard, is a founding contributor to David Brooks’ Aspen Institute initiative, Weave: The Social Fabric Project. Garrett has also written extensive opinion articles for the New York Times, Time Magazine, NPR, BBC and PBS Newshour. 

Their new book “The Upswing” tells the fascinating story of America’s progression and regression to and away from a “we” society. They argue that we have been on a downslide of division and individualism. The book takes a comparative approach to another divided part of America’s history: the Gilded Age. The authors lay the groundwork for how we can build ourselves back up towards a more equal and better society through a detailed study of past trends. 

I was able to sit down with co-author Shaylyn Romney Garrett after the event to talk with her about the book in more detail. 

What was the inspiration behind the book?

“One inspiration is that despite writing “Bowling Alone” and calling for the renewal of American communities, our communities have dissolved even further in the 20 years since the book was published. I think Bob’s (Robert Putnam) question was, is there something bigger going on here. So he decided to zoom out and look at the data sets that were about different aspects of society… He stumbled across data sets that matched in measures across society, politics, economics, and culture over 125 years. Which is kind of crazy that they match the same trend. Once he made that discovery, he knew there was an important story to tell, and he brought me in to help with the book.” Said Garrett about the inspiration behind the book.

In the research you mentioned, was there a specific variable that began to trend before the others: a leading variable towards equality?

“It is a little bit hard to identify the leading variable. We do know that the lagging variable was economic quality. Economics was the last curve to turn, which was surprising, especially for those within the social sciences… It is like looking at a flock of birds in flight. All of them turn in one direction at the same time, but from the ground, it is difficult to identify the first bird to turn first. However, if you look at the historical data and the intellectual history of the day, it seems clear that the earliest changes were in a culture that was moving away from individualism and towards communitarianism. It appears that the leading variable was culture.”

A theme in your book is the impact of Progressivism in combating individualism in the early 1900s; what parts of the original movement should we use today in our approach to building a better society?

“It is really important to remember that the original Progressivism era was a bipartisan movement. One historian described the era as so diverse that it was barely coherent… Progressivism is about something more foundational than politics. It is unfortunate that this term has been shuttled into today’s lexicon to describe the far left. The Progressivism movement is a cultural movement, a civic innovation movement, and a citizen-driven movement. So I think that we need to understand that not all solutions are political solutions… The approach was very bottom up. I think that we have become hyper-focused on national politics and not focused enough on the politics and means of our towns and cities… It was the solutions found on the hyper-local level that ultimately bubbled up.”

Overall, the takeaway from the book is clear, more civic participation according to Garrett.

“I think Bob would agree with me in saying that the most important message, from our point of view, is the power of citizen agency. I don’t want people to look at these curves and think this is a wave of history. That is not the case. We still believe that in a democratic society, the citizens determine the course of that society. If we abandon that project and get complacent, things will continue to plunge downwards. It is going to take a lot to turn this ship around, so every single one of us needs to find a way right outside our doorsteps to do that today. Whether that is talking to a neighbor and repairing a relationship damaged by polarization, volunteering in a school to help low-income kids who do not have opportunities, or being welcoming to a refugee or an immigrant. We need to start there. Those will ultimately be the types of changes that create a C change for the country.”

“The Upswing,” is available at a bookstore near you and also on Amazon and other online distributors. “The Upswing” tells the story of how we have overcome our divisions before, and more importantly it helps explain how we can do it again; “The Upswing,” is a must-read for every American.

American Public Square at Jewell offers some unique opportunities for the William Jewell College community, but its goal of restoring civility to politics is deeply flawed. This is not to say that we need to make vulgarity the norm, nor am I saying that American Public Square isn’t doing good work. There is certainly value to providing forums where issues can be discussed rationally and where, to quote Dr. Alan Holiman, “we can talk about this, and not about you.” These sorts of forums can be very useful for education on pertinent issues and help people gain a better understanding of politics. 

The problem is that the goal of promoting civility in relation to politics is in and of itself woefully misguided. Civility politics fundamentally benefit the powerful, at the expense of the powerless, it emphasizes style and tone, over content and actions, and it overlooks the conflictual nature of politics.

Civility politics assumes that through respectful and rational dialogue we can establish consensus and negotiate a compromise. Agreeing to disagree is the highest form of politics. It is no surprise that support for civility politics is so profound in academia and the media. But politics is not simply discourse where we can agree to disagree. Politics is about power, and it is about people’s lives. Fundamentally a struggle between irreconcilable forces. Hostility is as much a feature of politics as stress is a feature of college. 

Ambassador Allan Katz, founder of American Public Square and a distinguished professor at Jewell, has said that “politics doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game,” but two contradictory groups cannot both win, and for the people impacted by political decisions, especially those without power, politics is, more often than not, a zero-sum game. Political decisions have very real, material impacts and often can mean life or death. Cuts to Medicaid will lead to preventable deaths. Gentrification will force poor people out of their homes. 

There is inherent violence to politics that civility politics chooses to ignore because civility is rooted in norms that reflect the existing order and ideological hegemony. Police violence, systemic poverty, wars for hegemony, union-busting and gentrification are normalized because they are done by or for the benefit of the existing order and the ruling class. 

Resisting injustice and challenging the existing order requires norms to be violated, and thus the ruling class has always used civility to delegitimize and marginalize social justice movements. Protests, strikes, direct action, civil disobedience and other confrontational methods of extra-parliamentary politics are chastised by pundits and politicians for being uncivil, however, they are often the only effective means of combating systemic violence. 

The terms of civility would have people who are marginalized, disadvantaged and oppressed accept the conditions imposed on them by the ruling class. A call for civility is, in effect, a call for the status quo. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who was criticized in his time for being uncivil, famously said, “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” This will often require people to be disruptive, confrontation, and even disrespectful.

Civility is also used to mask the ruthlessness of policies enacted by the powerful. A key element of civility is a presumption of good faith, people are entitled to the assumption that they are acting sincerely and with the purest intentions. Racist policies from the war on drugs, to gentrification, to voter suppression, are often justified in a way that is seen as more “civil”, emphasizing ideas like law and order or economic development, and does not appeal to overt racism. Perhaps this was most poignantly illustrated by Republican strategist Lee Atwater in 1981, who stated: 

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘N*****, n*****, n*****.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘n*****’—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… ‘We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘N*****, n*****.’”

This emphasis on style and tone over content and action allows the powerful to escape scrutiny and for harmful policies, rooted in bad faith, to be enacted. Those who challenge such policies on the grounds that they are racist are stifled and countered by denials which appeal to the assumption of good faith.

This is not to say the answer is vulgarity, as previously stated it is often useful to engage in civil dialogue with people we disagree with and this can even be necessary. But civility politics is deeply problematic. 

Civility for its own sake is fundamentally at odds with the inherently hostile nature of politics, benefits the powerful at the expense of the powerless and values style over substance, allowing ruthlessness to escape scrutiny.

The American Public Square, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization whose goal is to change the tone and quality of public discourse, has announced a new partnership with William Jewell College, and has rebranded as the American Public Square at Jewell. 

The organization, founded in 2013 and headed by former Ambassador to Portugal Allan Katz, encourages honest, open, and civil discussions on important national issues, with the goal of fostering a better understanding of different perspectives and the eventual respect, compromise and resolution between groups.

The partnership between American Public Square and William Jewell was formally announced with a lecture by Ambassador Katz Sept. 17 in the Yates-Gill College Union on campus. The lecture was titled “Bringing Civility Back”. 

In his lecture, Ambassador Katz recounted the events leading to the founding of the American Public Square and its prototype, The Village Square, which he used to explain the reason for and goals of The American Public Square.

In 2006, while Ambassador Katz was a city commissioner for Tallahassee, Fla. there was a dispute about whether or not to build a coal plant near the city. While observing the argument between the two sides Katz decided that something must be done and joined with a Republican colleague to create Village Square, a space where people could “at least talk to each other”. 

The Village Square was conceived with a specific intent in mind by Ambassador Katz.

“As a sort of model of how you could talk about a controversial subject in a way that really was in keeping with the Founders’ approach of what America really was,” Katz explained. “You could agree to disagree without necessarily vilifying people on the other side.”

“Part of the basis of this country is that we owe to each other a certain amount of consideration, and our community has needs which we all have to work together and achieve,” Katz said. 

Following the lecture and question time there was an informal reception. During this time, Ambassador Katz agreed to an exclusive interview for the Hilltop Monitor.

Q: What kind of internship opportunities and ways to get involved will be available to Jewell students?

“There will be programs here, there will be programs around the community, which we hope students will attend. We would like to get students involved. We have a program committee, we have a membership committee, and we are always looking for new ideas and ways that we can involve more young people in what we do. Plus, we have a student initiative geared towards high school students, and we would love to get input from students on how to bring that into colleges as well.”

Q: When do you think these opportunities will start?

“Well, we have the office here now, we have programs scheduled now for the next three months. One will be here on the fourth of November on medicaid expansion. I’m hoping by mid-October we will have a much clearer idea. [By mid-October we are hoping to have] an infrastructure and framework in place so when a student shows up to be an intern we know what they’re going to be doing.”

Q: This organization has been going for several years now, since 2013. Are there any examples of times you have seen that your organization is making some impact on the community? 

“About two years ago we had a program called Muslims in the Metro, and we had a state representative from Kansas on the program and about five panelists, including a young woman who was part of the Muslim Student Association at KU. The state representative made some comment about her hijab, sort of referring to it as a costume.

“She was very, very calm and said, ‘I know you don’t mean to be offensive, but it’s part of who I am.’ By the end of the session, the state representative turned to one of the other Muslim panel members and said, ‘you know, I’ve never looked at things this way before. Would you please come out to my district where I can get some people and have you explain this to them?’ You never expect that to happen. It’s like out of a movie. 

“We never have a program where several people don’t come up to me and say, ‘I want to thank you for starting this. I’m so tired of all this other noise”. “[But for what comes next] It’s not like I’ve said, ‘here’s the plan and here’s what we’re going to get done.’ It’s up to all of us.” 

Q: Have you seen an increase in the size of audiences at your programs in recent years? How large of an audience do you see?

“Yes. The first program we did had 140 people. The largest we had was one at the end of February where we had 950 people. The range has usually been from somewhere around 100 to 150. We had a fake news program and there were 850 people, we had something on guns with 650 people, we had something on the death penalty that had 400 people. 

“Part of it is to reach out to the community [and spread information on events]. We have a very small staff. That is something interns could help with.”

Q: Are there any other ways you are hoping to make an impact on the Jewell community?

“I would love to see Jewell students decide – if they think they can organize themselves with some help from us – to create their own American Public Square on campus, with students running it. They can staff it, they can find the speakers, and we would be happy to help them do it. That would be great.” 

Dr. Katz will serve as a Distinguished Professor in Residence in Jewell’s Department of Political Science.

The American Public Square has a satellite office at William Jewell on the first floor of the Yates-Gill College Union. The organization is also continuing to maintain its headquarters in the Plexpod Westport Commons.
The first American Public Square event on William Jewell campus will occur Nov. 4, titled “Medicaid: Expansion vs. Status Quo – What’s the Price?”. Doors open at 5 p.m., the buffet opens at 5:30 p.m. and the program begins at 6 p.m.