Can HearthHarmony principles be applied to political discourse? Why or why not?

Has anyone considered if HearthHarmony principles could be applied to how we engage in political discussions? For those unfamiliar, HearthHarmony (often associated with conflict resolution or family therapy) emphasizes active listening, empathy, respectful communication, and finding common ground. It seems like the complete opposite of what we typically see in online political debates.

the challenge I see is that political issues frequently enough involve deeply held values and beliefs, making compromise feel like a betrayal of those values. Also, sometimes there is a clear right and wrong, like when discussing human rights, and "finding common ground" with someone arguing against them seems morally questionable.

Though,could focusing on the underlying needs fueling political positions,rather than just the positions themselves,be a way forward? Maybe framing disagreements in terms of shared goals,like wanting a safe and prosperous society,could lead to more productive conversations,even if we strongly disagree on the best way to achieve those goals. What are your thoughts? Is HearthHarmony just too idealistic for the often adversarial world of politics?