WNBA superstar Caitlin Clark is facing backlash from a lot of fans after liking Taylor Swift’s Instagram post this week where the pop star endorsed Kamala Harris following the presidential debate. After fans noticed she liked Swift’s post, users flooded Clark’s own Instagram posts with comments sharing their disappointment.
“Definitely should have stayed out of politics,” one user wrote. “Loved watching you but now I refuse after seeing you support Taylor Swift and Kamala.”
Another wrote, “Was just starting to finally pay attention to the WNBA because somebody was actually worth watching, then you caved.“
“You just couldn’t keep your politics out of sports!” posted another. “You have just lost millions of supporters!”
Clark, to be clear, was not endorsing a political candidate. As she explained to reporters on Thursday morning, she was supporting Swift using her platform to encourage others to vote.
“I have this amazing platform, so I think the biggest thing would be just encourage people to register to vote,” Clark said. “That’s the biggest thing I can do with the platform that I have, and that’s the same thing Taylor [Swift] did.”
Unfortunately, Clark is the latest celebrity to fall victim to a wave of vitriol from users for engaging with any sort of political content. Last week, Brittney Mahomes, wife of Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes, faced backlash from more liberal supporters for liking a comment on an Instagram post supporting Donald Trump. Mahomes did not add any commentary or voice any of her own opinions on why she liked the comment, but the damage was done. Dozens of think pieces, coupled with countless social media posts, made it seem as if she was Trump’s newest spokesperson.
This fiery division is not good for our country’s future.
Over the last several years, American politics has become a battleground of toxic polarization, where reasoned discourse and mutual respect are often disregarded. People on both sides of the political spectrum seem to have set critical thinking and basic human decency to the side, instead spreading hate toward anyone with a slightly differing opinion. This trend is especially concerning for Christians, who are called to love their neighbors and uphold the dignity of every person, even in disagreement.
At this point, it’s not worth rehashing how we got here. Now, we have to figure out how we can move forward — all of us.
One of the main challenges we face in navigating political differences is our tendency towards “either/or” thinking: you’re either with me or against me. A.k.a., you’re right or you’re wrong, good or bad. This mindset not only takes away any room for nuance, but it shuts down any meaningful dialogue altogether. For far too many, there seems to be no middle ground, no room for conversations or even the possibility that people on the other side may have valid points worth listening to.
Most things in life are rarely black and white. For example, take the issue of abortion. Someone who aligns themselves as pro-life can also acknowledge that there are valid concerns with women’s reproductive rights that can and should be addressed. But when we take away space for empathy and nuance, we cut off the opportunity for growth and change that can benefit all of us.
Thankfully, there is a better way to approach these conversations, one that aligns more closely with Christian values of love, respect and understanding. Instead of the limiting “either/or” framework, we can adopt “both/and” thinking, also known as non-dual thinking. Both/and thinking opens up our minds, enabling us to see the validity in multiple perspectives.
This way of thinking doesn’t ask us to compromise our convictions or concede our deeply held beliefs. Instead, it encourages us to respect the humanity in others, even when we disagree with their perspectives or policies. In this way, it’s not about finding a perfect middle ground but about maintaining the dignity of our discourse and respect for each other. And when we are able to approach conversations with a mindset that allows for differences, we can create space for productive dialogue and potential common ground, even when no agreement is reached.
“Knowing others who are not like you is one way to display to the world that in Christ we are the same,” explains author Trillia Newbell. “We are all made equally in the image of God, and when we display the unity found throughout Scripture, it speaks of the power of the Gospel to make us united.”
So, how do we get this ball rolling? We start with ourselves. We start by examining our own conversations and interactions. Are we listening with the intent to understand, or are we simply waiting for our turn to speak? Are we engaging with humility, recognizing that we don’t have all the answers, or are we doubling down on our own certainties at the expense of real dialogue? By adopting both/and thinking, we can begin to model the kind of conversations that foster connection over division.
Ultimately, the goal is not to erase our differences but to approach them in a different way that reflects the heart of Christ — a heart that sees beyond labels and demonstrates love even in the midst of disagreement. In doing so, we can push back against the toxic polarization that threatens to tear our society apart and instead foster a culture of respectful dialogue and genuine understanding.
