“A house divided cannot stand” feels uncomfortably on-target at this time in our political history. To compare Abraham Lincoln’s famous words to our current political intransigence may appear hyperbolic. But the reality is that our divisions are intense and deep.

Politically, there is a sense of caution in talking to friends, neighbors and family. A wariness that a declaration of our viewpoint will risk an argument or, worse, a broken relationship. The differences between opposing loyal party members are now palpable.

It’s understandable how this happened. Each side watches different media, receives opposing messages, evolves into separate cultures, and even moves to like-minded but separate communities.

It’s pleasurable to have our views confirmed. We prefer to share time with people who have similar opinions and beliefs. It’s comfortable. To do otherwise is to risk emotional conflicts. Whether understandable or not, it harms our democracy, where civil conversation and friendship help nurture compromise and progress.

In such a divisive environment, the near outlook for cooperation and comity appears dim.

For the sake of our democracy, we need to step back and look at the current environment. We can begin individually by noting that our actions are not working.

Our citizens are not talking to one another, and neither are our leaders. Both are avoiding meaningful conversations. While our leaders’ avoidance may provide short-term benefits as they appear strong to their political base, it creates long-term harm. Given the siloed nature of political parties, partisanship continues to grow and relationships diminish.

I am suggesting an action that appears easy in concept but takes courage. It is to listen to those with different political viewpoints while avoiding escalation.

Here is the process I’ve used on numerous occasions to good effect: “John, we’ve been friends for a while. I know our politics are different, but I’d like to hear your beliefs fully and not argue. Please tell me why you support your candidate and party. I’d like to see if we have any common ground. I won’t interrupt or argue afterward. I want to listen and understand.”

Just sharing a sincere interest in hearing views reduces the potential of an argument. Don’t ask the question if you aren’t genuinely open to listening without interrupting. But admitting you don’t understand another’s viewpoint can open doors.

Sincere listening can reduce tension. In some cases, it can remove an obstacle to friendship. Regardless, it allows you, the listener, to act in the face of our country’s hostile environment.

It’s important to consider what you hear not as ammunition to use in future conversations but to understand the person’s point of view and perhaps his or her values. The advantage of such an approach is that friendships continue, often with more mutual respect.

Many will scoff at my recommendation, believing that their opponents are immovable. The goal is not to change them. It’s to understand them. You may confirm that they are absolute in their views. You may realize that you are stubborn in yours and, therefore, that your relationship is limited. You may believe my suggestion is naïve.

However, others’ rigidity may have come from our lack of listening. Their perceived stubbornness may have come partly from our adamant point of view. You are unlikely to understand the basis of their beliefs if you are eagerly thinking of your counterarguments.

Change can happen but is only possible if we, the public as individuals, work to make it happen. Genuinely listening can play a role. Without it at the citizen level, we are stuck and becoming more entrenched.

Psychologists facilitate change by carefully listening and understanding. They set an atmosphere for change, as do mediators, diplomats and numerous other professionals. Listening and understanding are alternatives to the combative approach in which we are currently locked.

Considering the animosity Americans presently feel toward their political opponents, this small step is worth considering. A democracy in which citizens do not listen to or understand the values, views and motives of their opponents is a democracy at risk.

Robert Pawlicki is a retired psychologist and author. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.