Like it or not, Donald Trump’s campaign was wildly successful. As Malaysia trudges into election season, there is a thing or two that we need to learn - lest we also be ensnared in demagoguery and fall into the lure of a strongman leader.

Amidst insults volleyed between the Democrats and the Republicans during an exceptionally vitriolic US presidential election campaign, Michelle Obama stole the show when she said with earnestness and straightforward eloquence, “When they go low, we go high.” Salon.com called Michelle Obama’s words a “dignified restraint” and “words to live by.” Her words caught on, and became the unofficial rallying cry of left-leaning Americans.

But “going high” doesn’t simply mean asserting your dignity over others by lining your ideological stance with copious layers of facts and figures, leaving those who dissent in the dust. “Going high” means not responding in kind to jabs and insults. More than that, “going high” means acknowledging that others are just as significant, and treating them with dignity.

In Malaysia, PAS’ proposal to amend the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, more colloquially known as Act 355 gleaned the stamp of approval from conservative Muslims. But, inasmuch as the proposal garnered acclaim, it also elicited fury, unsurprisingly amongst most non-Muslims and some Muslims.

However, it is important to not scoff at Act 355 as an obsession of the conservative Muslim, or an unreasonable demand of the ‘unenlightened’. On the day that Act 355 was scheduled to be debated last November, I watched as ardent supporters held up placards and chanted in orderly lines, compelling Muslim members of parliament to vote in favour of the amendment, early in the morning in front of Parliament - lest our legislators become un-Islamic.

On Saturday, thousands more thronged to Padang Merbok for the same cause.

The indefatigable supporters of Act 355 may or may not have a point. But, what is important is for the criticss, the moderates and the liberals to acknowledge that living by Islamic principles is important to those who support Act 355. The critical rationalising - whether Act 355 is a true embodiment of Islamic principles, whether it’s appropriate for a multicultural society to live with a dual legal system, whether the punishments to be meted are just - can come after.

After acknowledging that an assertion of prescriptions that are religious in character beyond the private sphere is important to the amendment’s supporters; after acknowledging that the restructuring of government and society in accordance to a single religion in a multicultural society appear unjust to the critics.

After all, as the philosopher David Hume had famously written, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.”

How then should either side of the divide be able to convince the other when supporters believe that the new amendment is simply a fulfilment of basic needs, while critics believe that that same amendment is fundamentally unjust?

From claiming moral high grounds, to embracing moral worldviews

In the United States, the liberals and conservatives are often hard-headed about their respective philosophies. The abortion debate is split between pro-choice and pro-life advocates; the taxation debate is split between proponents of individual liberty, to whom the government are a pesky interference, and proponents of equal opportunity, for whom the government will act as a conduit.

The debate to build a wall - as per Trumpian locution - is split between those who are fiercely loyal to their kindred, and those who care for all, even those stranger to them.

Between a liberal and a conservative, their words glide over each other’s heads like oil and water, leaving each other more baffled, more self-righteous than before. Two social psychologists, Matthew Feinberg and Robb Willer, studied why these exchanges of words fail to persuade and find that most people root their arguments firmly in their own moral values, not the values of people they contend with.

Feinberg’s and Willer’s solution: Reframe your political arguments to appeal to the moral values of those who embrace differing political convictions.

In the case of Act 355, critics are better off making the argument that Act 355 nitpicks on arbitrary, isolated aspects of the penal code and misses the purpose of a holistic Islamic philosophy, as opposed to denouncing hudud as a legal system that is barbaric. In the words of Dr Mohammad Hashim Kamali, “The Qur’anic outlook on punishment may be characterised by its dual emphasis on retribution and reformation.”

Yet, Act 355 increases penalties for syariah offences to a maximum of 30 years’ imprisonment, RM100,000 fine and 100 lashes of the cane (up from three years, RM5,000 and six lashes).

While it seeks to deter wrongdoing by inflicting pain and punishment, Act 355 abandons the Qur’anic outlook that places a non-negotiable emphasis on providing space for rehabilitation and reform. One could then argue that Act 355 does little to promote Islam, and instead, hinders its proper application.

In contrast, some commonly invoked arguments against Act 355 - that it is oppressive, that a dual penal system in a multireligious country is divisive, that the amendments are too drastic - are rigorously analysed and have their merits. But, they do no favours to respect the moral worldviews of others and find the common ground between supporters and critics of Act 355.

What is sure instead is that the differences between both parties will appear even more diametrically opposed - more irreconcilable. Philosopher Slavoj Zizek has drawn a parallel between this act of asserting one’s moral high ground with “symptomatic healing” - it feels good, but the chasm between ideological opponents remains.

However, acknowledging an opposing moral worldview, empathising with it and forming arguments with these newly-discovered moral values, no less, may be a dissonant experience. But it’s the only way to communicate effectively, not to mention reconcile warring factions.

This weekend saw two opposite groups holding rallies - one for Act 355, the other against - by the end of which their spite for each other appear more jarring than ever. Protests as such play an important role in expanding our political consciousness, but they have their limits. Beyond a certain point, cynicism only undermines collaboration.

Showing someone that you understand their moral convictions - though you may not necessarily prefer them - is not just a human obligation, it is a practical one. Ask yourself if change can be achieved without the religious conservatives, without the Islamist grassroots organisations, without PAS’ fervent supporters? Building a movement for change requires engaging with more than the people who already agree with you.

Nevertheless, some may argue that the empathy, humility and non-judgmentalism required to admit someone else’s moral worldview is mere political correctness that may suppress critical reflection, that may compromise the rigour of informed discourse in society. They fear that expanding their moral imagination to accommodate the worldviews of others whom they dispute will nurture an entitled, infantilised Malaysian society.

But this is a false dichotomy, for empathy does not constrict the debate. In fact, empathy builds a larger audience who will be increasingly willing to listen to your side of the story.

There is a time for fiery debates, and there is a time to be humble and listen. Fiery debates will always stay as futile preaches to the choir, until one learns to understand and respect his or her ideological opponents.

When they go low, we go high in moral imagination.