Utah Gov. Spencer Cox on why he’s the 'worst possible spokesperson' for his own book
In this episode of NPR's Book of the Day, Utah Governor Spencer Cox discusses his book about political civility and his relationship with Donald Trump. Cox explains his decision to work with Trump through constructive disagreement rather than antagonism, despite their contrasting approaches to politics. He recounts a striking example of their philosophical differences regarding forgiveness and political engagement.
Cox addresses the personal costs of political polarization, including fractured relationships and the "exhausted majority" who want better political discourse. He advocates for civility and grace while acknowledging his own struggles to consistently embody these ideals, calling himself "the worst possible spokesperson" for his message. The conversation explores whether traditional calls for respectful disagreement are sufficient to address America's current political divisions, and Cox suggests that political parties could benefit from meeting the demand for less toxic politics.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Sep 24, 2026 episode of the NPR's Book of the Day
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
1-Page Summary
Cox's Civility vs. Support For Trump's Confrontational Politics
Utah Governor Spencer Cox defends his relationship with Donald Trump by emphasizing his commitment to "disagree better" rather than pursue antagonism. After eight years of trying a more adversarial approach, Cox decided to work with Trump through constructive disagreement, enabling them to collaborate despite fundamentally different perspectives on political engagement. Cox acknowledges that Trump doesn't prioritize unity in the way he does, and their approaches to political challenges diverge significantly.
Cox shares a striking example of this contrast at Charlie Kirk's memorial. He describes Erica Kirk's public forgiveness of her husband's assassin as one of the most profound Christian moments he's witnessed. Shortly afterward, Trump spoke at the same event, openly rejecting the principle of loving one's enemies, saying "I can't love my enemies. I hate my enemies." Trump even apologized to the Kirks, acknowledging he couldn't embrace their message of forgiveness.
Despite these stark philosophical and moral contrasts, Cox insists that relationships can persist across political disagreements and opposing values. He invites others to judge his governorship based on his own values and actions rather than Trump's rhetorical style.
Cox's Peacemaking: Grace, Common Ground, Contempt Reduction
Cox's commitment to civility in American political culture arose from his reaction to the shooting of Charlie Kirk. Seeing people celebrate the news prompted him to urge Americans to reject the satisfaction found in political violence, which became the foundation for his book.
Cox warns that polarization has deep personal costs, noting that "too many Americans have lost close personal friends, have lost family members to politics, where they don't talk to each other anymore." He calls this rupture "incredibly unhealthy" for the country and people's souls. To counter these trends, Cox advocates for civility and respectful disagreement to reduce political contempt and division, proposing a return to foundational values of grace and pursuing common ground with opponents.
Cox cites a revealing statistic: "70% of Americans hate where we are right now," identifying this group as the "exhausted majority" united by a desire for something better in the country's political climate.
Personal Accountability: Cox Admits Falling Short of Ideals
In discussing his book "Off Ramp: How to Be a Peacemaker in an Age of Contempt," Cox openly acknowledges the difficulty of consistently embodying the civility and grace he advocates. He candidly confesses, "I'm the worst possible spokesperson for this because I'm deeply flawed," admitting that he sometimes disparages political opponents instead of engaging respectfully.
When confronted with backlash over his governance decisions, Cox finds it especially difficult to "take the high road" as he recommends. He notes the temptation to harm opponents is often greater than the resolve to practice grace, though he states he is "working on it" and strives to do better.
Cox emphasizes the importance of apologizing and prioritizes improvement over perfection. He expresses gratitude for the grace he's received from others and commits to extending that same grace in return, hoping other Americans will similarly aim to bridge differences rather than fall into contempt.
Addressing Political Divisiveness In America
Sacha Pfeiffer observes that Cox's book is mostly dark and depressing until its conclusion, where it offers peacemaking solutions that come across as classic, even platitudinous, advice for respectful disagreement. She questions whether such traditional recommendations are sufficient given the extent of division today.
Cox responds by asserting that civility and mutual respect remain fundamental tools for healing America's political crisis. He believes there is no "magic answer" to divisiveness except returning to respectful discourse and basic decency. Despite criticisms that these calls sound simplistic, Cox stands by these foundational principles.
Cox also sees opportunity in what he calls a significant market failure in both major parties. He contends that the political party able to recognize and meet the exhausted majority's demand for less toxic, more unifying politics will do very well in future elections, urging his own party to capitalize on this opportunity.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Before embracing civility, Spencer Cox engaged in a more confrontational political style, often emphasizing clear opposition to political adversaries. This approach involved direct criticism and partisan conflict aimed at advancing his policy goals. It reflected a common trend in American politics where adversarial tactics are used to mobilize supporters and challenge opponents. Cox later shifted to civility to reduce division and foster cooperation across political lines.
- Donald Trump is known for a confrontational and often divisive political style, emphasizing loyalty and strong opposition to critics. He frequently rejects calls for political unity or compromise, favoring aggressive rhetoric and actions. His approach contrasts with traditional calls for civility and grace in politics. The reference to his statement at Charlie Kirk's memorial highlights his rejection of forgiveness toward political enemies.
- "Disagree better" means engaging in disagreements with respect and openness rather than hostility. It involves listening actively, seeking understanding, and focusing on ideas instead of personal attacks. This approach aims to reduce conflict and build constructive dialogue despite differing views. It implies valuing relationships over winning arguments.
- Sacha Pfeiffer is a respected journalist known for investigative reporting and political commentary. Her critique highlights skepticism about traditional civility advice's effectiveness amid deep political divisions. She questions whether simple calls for respectful disagreement can address complex, entrenched conflicts. Pfeiffer's perspective adds a critical lens to Cox's optimistic approach.
- The "exhausted majority" refers to a large group of Americans frustrated with extreme political polarization and conflict. They desire more civil, respectful, and cooperative politics rather than constant confrontation. This group is significant because their dissatisfaction could influence election outcomes and political party strategies. Politicians who address their concerns may gain broad support.
- In the U.S., the two major political parties are the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Republicans, including figures like Donald Trump, often embrace a more confrontational and partisan style. Democrats generally advocate for more civility and cooperation, though both parties experience internal divisions. Cox suggests both parties have failed to address the public's desire for less divisive politics, creating an opportunity for change.
- Cox's book "Off Ramp" explores how individuals can reduce political hostility by practicing civility and grace in everyday interactions. It emphasizes personal accountability, acknowledging flaws while striving to improve respectful dialogue. The book offers practical advice for bridging divides through empathy and forgiveness, even amid deep disagreements. Cox presents peacemaking as a necessary response to the harmful effects of political contempt on society.
- The broader political climate in the U.S. has become highly polarized, with deep divisions between conservatives and liberals. This polarization often leads to intense partisanship, where political opponents are viewed with hostility rather than as fellow citizens. Social media and partisan news have amplified these divisions, making compromise and civil discourse more difficult. The result is widespread frustration and a sense of political exhaustion among many Americans.
Counterarguments
- Emphasizing civility and respectful disagreement, while admirable, may risk normalizing or legitimizing harmful rhetoric or policies by treating all disagreements as equally valid, regardless of their impact on vulnerable groups.
- Calls for unity and grace can sometimes be used to avoid addressing substantive injustices or abuses of power, potentially silencing necessary criticism or protest.
- The focus on personal relationships and civility may overlook the structural and systemic causes of polarization, such as media incentives, gerrymandering, or economic inequality.
- The idea that both sides are equally responsible for polarization may not account for asymmetrical behaviors or rhetoric from different political actors or parties.
- Traditional advice about civility and decency may seem inadequate to those who feel existentially threatened by certain political movements or policies.
- The notion that the "exhausted majority" simply wants less toxic politics may oversimplify the diverse reasons for political dissatisfaction, which can include substantive policy disagreements, not just tone or style.
- Prioritizing improvement over perfection in civility is positive, but repeated failures to uphold these ideals by leaders can undermine public trust in their sincerity or effectiveness.
- Urging parties to capitalize on voter exhaustion with divisiveness frames the issue as a political opportunity rather than a moral imperative, which could be seen as cynical.
Get access to the context and additional materials
Cox's Civility vs. Support For Trump's Confrontational Politics
Cox Defends Backing Trump Despite Differing Views on Political Engagement and Rhetoric
Spencer Cox explains that his relationship with Donald Trump is built not on antagonism, but on a commitment to disagree better. For eight years, Cox tried a more adversarial approach but decided to pursue a relationship with Trump through constructive disagreement, which enabled them to collaborate on various issues despite fundamentally different perspectives on political engagement. Cox emphasizes that he and Trump have ongoing discussions about their differing approaches; while they never agree on methods, finding common ground allows them to work together on other important matters.
Cox clarifies that, according to personal conversations, Trump does not prioritize unity in the same sense Cox does. While Trump might claim he would like to unify the country, their approaches to national issues and political challenges fundamentally diverge.
Forgiveness at Kirk's Memorial vs. Trump's 'Hate Enemies' Remark Highlight Cox's Tension
Cox shares a poignant example illustrating this contrast during Charlie Kirk's memorial. He describes Erica Kirk's public act of forgiving her husband's assassin as one of the most profound Christian moments he has witnessed and embodies the message of grace and reconciliation featured in his book.
Shortly afterward, Trump spoke at the same event, openly rejecting the principle of loving one's enemies, saying, "I can't love my enemies. I hate my enemies." Trump even apologized to both Charlie and Erica Kirk, acknowledging that he could not embrace their message of forgiveness. Cox agrees that Trump's response directly contradicted his own values and message of gr ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Cox's Civility vs. Support For Trump's Confrontational Politics
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Spencer Cox is the Governor of Utah, a U.S. state in the western region. He is a member of the Republican Party and has served in various political roles within Utah before becoming governor. Cox is known for his moderate and collaborative approach to politics. His leadership style contrasts with more confrontational figures within his party.
- Spencer Cox's previous "adversarial approach" involved engaging in political conflicts with a confrontational and oppositional style. This method focused on highlighting differences and challenging opponents aggressively. It often led to heightened tensions and less productive collaboration. Cox shifted away from this to foster more constructive and respectful dialogue.
- Erica Kirk is the widow of Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk was a conservative activist and founder of Turning Point USA. Erica became publicly known for her act of forgiveness toward her husband's assassin. Their relationship is central to the example of grace and reconciliation mentioned by Cox.
- Trump's statement "I can't love my enemies. I hate my enemies." rejects the traditional Christian teaching of loving and forgiving one's enemies. This stance contrasts with values of grace, reconciliation, and forgiveness often emphasized in religious and moral contexts. It signals a confrontational and adversarial approach to political and personal conflicts. Such a viewpoint can deepen divisions rather than promote unity or healing.
- Spencer Cox generally emphasizes civility, collaboration, and principled leadership, valuing grace and forgiveness in politics. Donald Trump often adopts a confrontational, combative style, prioritizing loyalty and directness over unity or reconciliation. Ideologically, Cox leans toward more traditional conservative governance focused on consensus-building, while Trump’s approach is more populist and polarizing. These differences reflect contrasting views on how political power should be exercised and ...
Counterarguments
- Building relationships through "disagreeing better" may risk normalizing or legitimizing rhetoric and behaviors that undermine democratic norms or civility, especially if the other party does not reciprocate the commitment to constructive engagement.
- Shifting from an adversarial approach to collaboration with Trump could be seen as compromising on core values, particularly if the collaboration enables or overlooks harmful rhetoric or policies.
- Finding common ground with individuals whose methods or values fundamentally diverge may inadvertently signal to the public that such differences are less significant or consequential than they actually are.
- Emphasizing civility and collaboration may not be sufficient when confronting rhetoric or actions that are widely regarded as divisive or harmful; some critics argue that stronger opposition is necessary in such cases.
- Inviting judgment based solely on perso ...
Get access to the context and additional materials
Cox's Peacemaking: Grace, Common Ground, Contempt Reduction
Utah Governor Spencer Cox’s commitment to civility and peacemaking in American political culture arises from his concern over society's reaction to political violence and the deep ruptures caused by partisan contempt.
Cox's Book Arose From His Reaction to Charlie Kirk's Assassination, Urging Americans to Reject Political Violence Satisfaction
The release of Cox’s book is catalyzed by responses to the shooting of Charlie Kirk. Seeing people celebrate the news prompted him to urge Americans to reject the satisfaction found in political violence. Cox says, “If anyone in the sound of my voice celebrated even a little bit at the news of this shooting, I would beg you to look in the mirror and to see if you can find a better angel in there somewhere.” This personal call for reflection became the foundation for Cox’s plea to engage with political opponents rather than dehumanize them.
Cox Warns: Political Disagreement Harms Personal Relationships
Cox emphasizes that polarization has deep personal costs. He notes that “too many Americans have lost close personal friends, have lost family members to politics, where they don't talk to each other anymore. And that number is exploding.” He calls this rupture “incredibly unhealthy,” not just on a personal level but for “our country” and “our souls.”
Cox Advocates Civility and Respectful Disagreement to Reduce Political Contempt and Division
To counter these trends, Cox proposes a return to foundational values of grace and the pursuit of common ground with opponents. He believes civil discourse— ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Cox's Peacemaking: Grace, Common Ground, Contempt Reduction
Additional Materials
Counterarguments
- Calls for civility and peacemaking, while well-intentioned, can sometimes be used to silence or minimize legitimate anger and protest against injustice or harmful policies.
- Emphasizing "common ground" may risk overlooking or downplaying significant moral or factual disagreements that cannot be easily reconciled.
- The focus on reducing contempt and promoting civility may place equal responsibility on both sides of the political spectrum, even when one side may be disproportionately responsible for toxic rhetoric or actions.
- Appeals to civility have historically been used to maintain the status quo and discourage necessary social change or activism.
- The concept of an "exhausted majority" may oversimplify the diversity of opinions and motivations among Americans who are dissatisfied with political toxicity.
- Encouraging people to avoid ce ...
Actionables
- you can keep a civility journal to track moments when you feel political frustration and intentionally record how you respond with grace or restraint, helping you notice patterns and reinforce positive habits over time; for example, jot down a heated social media post you chose not to send, or a time you asked a clarifying question instead of making an assumption.
- a practical way to foster respectful disagreement is to set a personal rule to ask at least one open-ended question when someone expresses a political view you disagree with, such as “what experiences led you to that perspective?” or “how do you see this affecting your daily life?”—this shifts your focus from reacting to understanding.
- you can create a ...
Get access to the context and additional materials
Personal Accountability: Cox Admits Falling Short of Ideals and the Challenge Of Practicing What one Preaches
Utah Governor Spencer Cox, in an interview about his book "Off Ramp: How to Be a Peacemaker in an Age of Contempt," openly acknowledges the ongoing difficulty of consistently embodying the civility and grace he advocates.
Cox Admits Failing to Embody His Book's Advocated Civility and Grace
Cox candidly confesses that following his own advice is a persistent challenge. He admits, "I'm the worst possible spokesperson for this because I'm deeply flawed." He confesses that instead of always engaging respectfully, he sometimes disparages his political opponents, falling into the confrontational political incentives he criticizes in his book. Cox highlights how current political incentives, especially those modeled by figures like President Trump, reward confrontation rather than civility, further complicating anyone’s efforts to maintain higher standards of discourse.
Cox Struggles to Apply Principles Amid Criticism and Opposition Over Governance Decisions
When confronted with backlash over his stances supporting Trump, data centers, actions seen as book bans, and Utah’s ICE detention facilities, Cox finds it especially difficult to “take the high road” as he recommends. He notes the temptation to harm opponents is often greater than the resolve to practice grace, and he admits he does not always succeed. Nonetheless, he states that he is “working on it” and strives to do better, modeling an ongoing struggle to live up to his own ideals.
Cox Prioritizes Apologizing and Striving ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Personal Accountability: Cox Admits Falling Short of Ideals and the Challenge Of Practicing What one Preaches
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Cox's book "Off Ramp" explores how to foster respectful dialogue and understanding amid deep political and social divisions. It emphasizes empathy, active listening, and avoiding contempt in conversations. The book offers practical strategies to de-escalate conflicts and build bridges across ideological divides. Its core theme is promoting civility as a foundation for a healthier democracy.
- Confrontational political incentives refer to the rewards politicians receive for aggressive, divisive behavior, such as increased media attention and energized voter bases. These incentives encourage conflict over compromise, as conflict often drives higher engagement and fundraising. Social media amplifies this by promoting sensational and polarizing content. This dynamic makes it difficult for politicians to prioritize civility without risking political support.
- Utah is a predominantly conservative state but has a strong tradition of moderate Republicanism and civility. Donald Trump’s style and policies sharply contrast with Utah’s political norms, causing division among local Republicans. Some Utah leaders and voters reject Trump’s confrontational approach and controversial actions. Supporting Trump can alienate moderate constituents and provoke backlash within Utah’s political landscape.
- Data centers in Utah have sparked controversy due to their large water and energy consumption in a state facing resource constraints. Critics worry these facilities strain local infrastructure and harm the environment. Supporters argue they bring economic growth and high-tech jobs to the region. The debate reflects broader tensions between development and sustainability.
- Book bans refer to efforts by individuals, groups, or authorities to remove or restrict access to certain books, often due to objections about their content. These bans typically arise from concerns over topics like race, sexuality, religion, or politics, sparking debates about censorship and freedom of expression. In recent years, some U.S. states, including Utah, have seen controversies over banning books in schools and libraries, reflecting broader cultural and political conflicts. Such actions can lead to public backlash and complicate political leadership, as seen in Governor Cox's challenges.
- Utah’s ICE detention facilities are centers where Immigration and Customs Enforcement holds individuals suspected of immigration violations. These facilities are contentious because critics argue they often have poor conditions and separate families. Supporters claim they are necessary for enforcing immigration laws and public safety. The debate reflects broader national tensions over immigration policy and human rights.
- "Taking the high road" means responding to criticism or conflict wi ...
Actionables
- you can keep a civility scorecard for yourself by jotting down each time you respond to disagreement with patience or lose your cool, then review your week to spot patterns and set a small goal for improvement, like pausing before replying to a heated comment.
- a practical way to reinforce grace is to send a short, positive message to someone you disagree with once a week, focusing only on something you genuinely appreciate about them, even if it’s unrelated to your differences.
- you can create a personal “reset p ...
Get access to the context and additional materials
Addressing Political Divisiveness In America: Can Traditional Advice on Respectful Disagreement Help?
Cox's Book Paints a Bleak View of America's Politics Before Suggesting Solutions
Sacha Pfeiffer observes that Governor Spencer Cox’s book promises positivity but is, for the most part, dark and depressing until its conclusion. The book highlights the nation’s crisis of contempt and divisiveness, painting a bleak picture of the current political climate. Toward the end, Cox offers suggestions for how Americans can become peacemakers. However, Pfeiffer notes that these peacemaking solutions come across as classic, even platitudinous, advice for respectful disagreement, and questions whether such traditional recommendations are sufficient given the extent of division in the country today.
Cox Claims Civility and Respect Are Essential For Healing National Divisions
Cox responds by asserting that civility and mutual respect remain fundamental tools for healing America’s political crisis. He stands by these foundational principles, stating that getting back to basics is key and that there is no “magic answer” to the divisiveness except for returning to respectful discourse and basic decency. Despite criticisms that these calls for civility sound simplistic, Cox believes they are essential and sufficient for addressing the nation’s challenges.
Cox Sees ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Addressing Political Divisiveness In America: Can Traditional Advice on Respectful Disagreement Help?
Additional Materials
Counterarguments
- Traditional calls for civility and respectful disagreement may overlook the structural and systemic factors driving political polarization, such as gerrymandering, media fragmentation, and social media algorithms, which cannot be addressed solely through individual behavior.
- Emphasizing civility can sometimes be used to silence marginalized voices or discourage necessary confrontation of injustice, potentially maintaining the status quo rather than fostering genuine progress.
- The notion that both major parties are equally responsible for divisiveness may ignore asymmetries in rhetoric, policy, or tactics between them, oversimplifying the causes of polarization.
- Calls for unity and less divisive rhetoric may not address substantive policy disagreements or deep-seated ideological differences that require more than just polite conver ...
Actionables
- you can keep a daily log of your own political conversations, noting moments when you felt contempt or division, and then brainstorm one small way to shift your tone or language toward unity in your next interaction
- By tracking your own patterns, you’ll spot triggers and practice replacing divisive words or reactions with more neutral or bridge-building ones, such as swapping sarcasm for curiosity or pausing before responding to heated comments.
- a practical way to reduce divisiveness in your immediate circle is to set up a rotating “political pause” during group chats or family discussions, where for one week, everyone agrees to only share news or stories that highlight bipartisan cooperation or positive cross-party efforts
- This experiment helps everyone notice and appreciate examples of unity, making it easier to recognize and encourage such moments in real life.
- you can cre ...
Get access to the context and additional materials
1-Page Summary- Cox's Civility vs. Support For Trump's Confrontational Politics
- Cox's Peacemaking: Grace, Common Ground, Contempt Reduction
- Personal Accountability: Cox Admits Falling Short of Ideals and the Challenge Of Practicing What one Preaches
- Addressing Political Divisiveness In America: Can Traditional Advice on Respectful Disagreement Help?
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
