Breaking the Cycle: Why Bridge-Building Feels One-Sided (and How We Fix It)
If both sides wait for the other to engage, no one ever will.
In today’s polarized landscape, many people engaged in bridge-building work feel frustrated. They see themselves making efforts to understand the other side, to listen, to engage with nuance—yet they don’t always feel that effort being reciprocated. For some, it seems like their group is always the one being asked to empathize, while the other side continues as usual. This frustration is real, and it deserves to be addressed.
At the heart of this concern is a question of fairness: Why does it always feel like our side is doing the work?
The Reality of Perceived Imbalance
If you’re feeling like bridge-building is a one-sided effort, you’re not alone. Many people from across the political spectrum express the same frustration—often pointing at the other side as the ones failing to reciprocate. Liberals may feel like they’re constantly asked to understand conservatives, while conservatives may feel like calls for dialogue only happen when liberals lose elections. The irony is that both sides often feel this imbalance.
There are a few key reasons for this perception:
The Outrage Industry Profits from Division
Outrage-driven media and political strategists thrive on deepening divides, making it seem like the “other side” is never willing to engage in good faith. When one side does attempt to reach across, these same forces discourage and punish those efforts, portraying bridge-builders as naive, weak, or even traitorous. This creates the illusion that engagement is always a losing game.Asymmetry in Political and Social Power
In any given moment, different groups hold more institutional or cultural power. The group currently feeling out of power is often the one more eager to push for dialogue and understanding. This can create cycles where only the losing side seems to care about bridge-building, while the winning side sees little incentive to participate.Psychological Distance and Confirmation Bias
We tend to notice the efforts made by our own side more than the efforts made by others. This isn’t a moral failing—it’s just how our brains work. When we spend more time in communities where people share our views, we see the sacrifices and frustrations firsthand, but we might not see similar efforts happening elsewhere.
The Trap of Waiting for the Other Side to Go First
One of the biggest obstacles to breaking polarization is the belief that the other side should make the first move. If both sides are waiting for the other to start listening, we stay locked in a cycle of resentment and mistrust. This dynamic only benefits those who seek to deepen divisions for political or financial gain.
Zachary Elwood, a writer who studies toxic polarization, has pointed out in the piece for The Hill that many people struggle with the idea of lowering the temperature while still maintaining strong political opposition. It can feel like a contradiction—how can we fight for what we believe in without fueling the very polarization we hope to reduce? The answer lies in recognizing that engaging with curiosity and restraint isn’t about conceding ground; it’s about making our movements more effective.
The reality is, those who engage in bridge-building aren’t doing it as a favor to the other side. They’re doing it as a strategy to reclaim power over their own engagement with politics and society. Understanding doesn’t mean agreeing—it means gaining the tools to be more effective, to reduce personal stress, and to break free from manipulative narratives designed to keep us outraged and exhausted.
What Can We Do?
Instead of focusing on whether the other side is doing enough, we can reframe bridge-building as a self-empowering choice:
Recognize That Both Sides Feel the Same Way
Just as you may feel frustrated that your side is doing all the work, there are people on the other side saying the exact same thing. Acknowledging this shared frustration is the first step toward disrupting the cycle.Engage Selectively and Strategically
Not every conversation is worth your time. Some people have no interest in genuine engagement. But many do—it’s just that they feel unheard themselves. Look for those willing to have real discussions, even if they don’t fully reciprocate at first.Understand the Broader System at Play
The structures fueling division are larger than individual disagreements. By recognizing the economic and political incentives behind polarization, we can approach these issues with more clarity and less personal exhaustion.Don’t Wait—Lead by Example
Someone has to go first, and history shows that those who take the first step often shift the conversation in meaningful ways. This doesn’t mean tolerating bad-faith arguments or excusing harmful behavior—it means being intentional about where and how we engage.
A New Way Forward
It’s easy to feel like bridge-building is a thankless task. But reframing it as a tool for personal and collective empowerment can help us stay engaged without burning out. The more we recognize that this frustration is shared across ideological lines, the more we can push back against the forces that seek to keep us divided.
This work is hard. It’s messy. But it’s necessary. And if we don’t do it, who will?