“In our increasingly polarized society, talking often seems to be the most dangerous thing we can do,” Harville Hendrix and Helen LaKelly Hunt write in their book, “How to Talk with Anyone about Anything: The Practice of Safe Conversations.” “The problem isn’t poor communication so much as it is the disconnection that results when we speak to one another in monologues rather than dialogues.”
Have you ever had an argument with a spouse or partner that included the statement, “You never hear a word I say!” Most of us have, and it’s more true than not. When I’m having an argument, I’m often using the time between talking to prepare what I’m going to say next, not actually listening. I’ve learned to do better, but the bigger the issue is to me, the harder it can be to stay focused on listening when I’m not talking. Hendrix says we are so bad at listening that, “on a good day, we miss 70 percent of what people say to us.”
Don’t get me wrong. In the world of politics and policy, debate is essential. But good debate depends on good listening, and good policy requires compromise. That can’t occur unless we are having a conversation where everyone actually listens, especially when we disagree.
When I’m open and curious, I can learn a lot. It’s essential to inform effective advocacy. It’s also critical to make good policy. Even if I’m 90 percent right, that 10 percent can make the difference between successful outcomes and a panoply of unintended consequences. I have learned from Hendrix that, “tell me more about that,” is the most valuable part of every conversation I have.
When I truly listen to people with whom I disagree, I often learn I disagree less than I thought. When I’m genuinely curious about what they are saying, I’m better prepared to find middle ground that may be acceptable to both of us. The bridge is shorter than it looks. I’m also able to identify the areas where compromise is not appropriate. Just because I’m willing and able to compromise doesn’t mean I need to compromise my integrity or surrender my values. Listening well also helps me make my case more effectively. If I can frame my position in a way that aligns with what you ultimately need, it’s more likely we can find common ground.
Relationship researcher John Gottman has found that about 69 percent of the problems couples face are unresolvable. They are what he calls “perpetual problems,” rooted in basic differences in personality, values, or needs. The goal is not to win those arguments – it’s to learn how to live with them without tearing each other apart.
Sixty-nine percent sounds like an awful lot of disagreement, but when told about this statistic, a friend observed that if you were a Major League Baseball player, a career batting average of .310 would likely get you into the Hall of Fame. Think about how much legislation we could pass if Democrats and Republicans (and the House and Senate) agreed on even a third of our public policy.
Right now, too much of our political “dialogue” is actually a monologue at best and a diatribe at worst.
Members of the House and Senate are facing this very issue today. Both chambers have succeeded in passing truly important housing legislation to address the housing affordability crisis occurring across the country. The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act passed the Senate on March 12 by an overwhelming 89-10 vote, after its House counterpart cleared the chamber by a similarly bipartisan margin of 390-9. Yet despite such strong bipartisan support, the legislation is stuck between the chambers. The next step is for members of the House and Senate to meet to reconcile the two bills in a “conference.” Some have objected, saying that a conference could kill the bill. They insist that the other body passing their bill is the only way forward. It isn’t. In fact, as I wrote last week, history shows that the more Congress sends legislation to a conference committee, the more they accomplish.
In the five Congresses preceding 2010, an average of 28 bills went to conference. In the five that followed, that number fell to fewer than five. Legislative productivity dropped as well: before 2010, Congress passed an average of 379 bills per term; over the next decade, that average fell by more than 100. During the most recent 118th Congress (2023–2024), only 255 bills became law—and just one went to conference.
It’s not too late to reverse that trend, and it can start by convening a conference on this bipartisan housing legislation.
Having difficult but productive conversations is essential to good communication of all kinds. The National Housing Conference will host our annual Solutions for Housing Communications convening on Wednesday, April 8, at the National Press Club. The full-day program will bring together housing experts, thought leaders, policymakers, and journalists to explore proven and emerging strategies for strengthening housing narratives and increasing public understanding of the importance of affordable housing in communities nationwide.
We will be joined by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner and Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Craig Trainor. Assistant Secretary Trainor and I will have a “fireside chat” on the administration’s fair housing priorities.
Not everyone in the room will agree with everything HUD is doing. They shouldn’t. NHC certainly doesn’t. For example, we have opposed the administration’s Disparate Impact rule. We believe it is one of the most important tools we have to detect and prevent housing discrimination and assess intent under the Fair Housing Act. We have been clear that rolling back that standard would weaken fair housing enforcement, increase uncertainty, and place more burden on plaintiffs and the courts.
I want to hear directly from HUD on their viewpoint. And I’m going to practice what I preach by listening, not debating. Otherwise, we are all just talking to ourselves, and that serves no one.
To effectively advocate for or against HUD’s direction, we need to understand not only what HUD is doing, but why. Then it’s all of our job to dig into the data, test the assumptions, and make our own best judgments about which policies to support, which to oppose, and which to improve.
At the same time, we continue to work closely with the administration where we do agree, including the urgent need to increase housing production, expand homeownership, and improve how our housing programs work.
We’ll also hear from some of the nation’s most influential reporters and practitioners on the front lines of the housing crisis. We won’t agree on everything. We shouldn’t. But if we can raise our batting average on listening, and accept that we don’t need to win every argument to make progress, we might just find that 31 percent is more than enough to build a better housing future.
I hope you’ll join us at Solutions for Housing Communications on Wednesday, April 8, and be part of the conversation shaping the future of affordable housing. Seating is limited, so register today.