Stephen Richer understands how volatile political discussion can be. As the election recorder for Maricopa County Arizona in the wake of the 2020 presidential election and Arizona’s 2022 gubernatorial election, Richer, a Republican, faced severe criticism—and eventually was voted out of office—when he disagreed with the false claims that those elections had been stolen.
Richer, who discussed those elections on 60 Minutes in 2024, is now a senior fellow at the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School. He also co-hosts Terms of Engagement, a weekly podcast with Archon Fung, the director of the Ash Center and the Winthrop Laflin McCormack Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government.
In a recent commentary, Richer outlined 10 ways he found could lower the temperature of political discussions after several tragic incidents of political violence. HKS talked with him to learn more.
Q: Your first point talks about self-assessment. What traps are we hoping to avoid by looking into our own motivations?
Understanding what you want out of a conversation is key. Do I want to persuade this person? Is humiliation the goal? Am I trying to correct an error? Why am I making this point? Once you take a beat to consider your own personal motivation in a discussion you can engage or not. Most of the time we do not think about it first.
I also feel stirring the pot in political discussions is baked into our DNA.
Behavioral psychology says we do have tribal parts of our brain that like to order facts to reaffirm what we already think. Then there are people who have figured out that making a perfectly reasonable, balanced, and nuanced point is less captivating than one that is outrageous or extreme. This is how social media raises the temperature: the extreme sells and not just in politics.
Q: Much of your criticism is leveled at social media. How do we work around platforms we have all come to rely on?
I have doubts whether or not you can have productive political conversations online. I think social media can be very helpful in getting news quickly and learning about events. But in terms of having substantive conversations, I think it is mostly rallying the flag.
And another thing that’s documented at this point is that both internal and foreign adversaries create these bots that are meant to just sow hate. It’s not even all that complicated to do, you just have a bot that consistently goes into places and makes radical comments that ignites a lot of passions.
I would say go through your feed and choose the 100 people who you think are responsible actors and just look at those 100 people rather than opening whatever social media serves you.
We as consumers of social media can demand change. If we think McDonalds should have healthier options, we don’t need the government telling McDonalds to have healthy options, their customers will.
The same is true with social media. If people demand to know how they are being pushed and pulled, if the tech giants get forced into disclosure, then at least more people will be able to make conscious decisions about which platforms they want to spend their time on, knowing that they are being manipulated in a certain way.
“This is my pitch for using tragedy to better society.”
Q: How does hyperbolic language turn up the heat?
If I called someone a traitor to the United States, the vast majority of the people might understand that what I am really saying is that I don’t like his politics. I am not saying this person is purposefully undermining the goals of the U.S. But there is always the chance someone will think this person is a legitimate traitor, and being a patriot, decide to do something.
Obviously, the extreme example is an act of violence. That’s what got me to write this commentary. If we see people as humans first and not as labels, we can possibly respond to what we hear with empathy and facts rather than violence.
I do think people with power and position matter most in this conversation because they have some designation of authority and are most likely to earn people’s trust. As Utah governor Spencer Cox said of the person accused of killing Charlie Kirk, ultimately one person was responsible for the shooting. But people with power, position, and persuasion create these environments and own some kind of moral responsibility.
Q: Is there an example from your professional career where these guidelines would help?
When I was in my elected office and trying to convince people that the 2020 election wasn’t stolen, I tried bringing them in and showing them the human element of it. It’s real people who are working this election, not nefarious demons. I tried finding the points of commonality, discussing things we all like, such as the Arizona Cardinals.
But when I asked myself why I was responding to every false claim on the internet, I would tell myself that that I was responding with truth and to try and convince that person that the election wasn’t stolen.
But when I really thought about what I was doing, I realized I was sometimes responding to either make a fool of the person or show everyone else how wrong this person was.
Following these last horrific shootings, I could see how the tragedy could become divisive. This is my pitch for using tragedy to better society. And whether or not we agreed with these politicians or pundits and what they stood for is immaterial.
I think we should ask: do you think it was a tragic day for the country? And if so, how do we do better?
I do think we can do better, and this is my simple starting point.
—
Banner image: Community members attend a vigil in Los Angeles for conservative political activist Charlie Kirk who was killed on Thursday, Sept. 11, 2025. Photo by Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times/Getty Images