The Bridge, the Arena, and the Referee: A Response to Guy and Heidi Burgess and Pearce Godwin
Finding our place in the bridging movement.
Recently, I published a piece titled “What Bridge Building Owes Democracy,” asking if bridge-building risks becoming “performative” in the face of accelerating threats to our democratic institutions. Guy and Heidi Burgess of Beyond Intractability—mentors I respect immensely—responded with a thoughtful three-part series.
Before diving into our points of departure, I want to acknowledge that we agree on far more than we disagree. Much of what might look like a fundamental rift is likely a result of my own need to be clearer about my intent. Guy and Heidi provide vital context on the “Grand Democratic Bargain” and the necessity of maintaining trust. Their insights are a stabilizing force.
I also want to make one thing explicitly clear: if anyone read my previous piece and took away that I was suggesting Outrage Overload, or bridge-builders in general, should become crusaders for the Democratic Party, let me correct that now. That was not the call-to-action I was making. My concern is not with which side 'wins' the next election, but with whether the democratic arena itself survives the contest. We aren't advocating for a team; we are advocating for the resilience of the system.
There are also thoughtful comments on the original post from our colleagues, Kristen Hansen, Brad Porteus, and Pearce Godwin, among others that are worth checking out. I cover Pearce Godwin’s specific response in some detail below.
However, there is a specific tension in the Burgess’s response that I believe we must confront.
The “3Rs” and the Resistance Trap
In their response, the Burgesses cited Bill Doherty’s “3Rs” of social change: Resist, Replace, and Repair. They placed bridge-building firmly in the Repair lane—the work of healing the social fabric. Their warning was stark: If bridge-builders join the “Resistance,” they lose the cross-partisan trust required to bind the wounds of the nation later.
The challenge for me here is that if, in this view, we define “Resistance” so broadly that it includes any naming of asymmetric threats, then we are essentially saying bridge-builders must operate in a state of strategic silence.
This highlights what I might call a Resistance Trap. It suggests that “publicly naming and confronting problems” is a form of partisan combat that disqualifies you from being a peacemaker. In this view, if you point out an asymmetric threat, you’ve “picked a side” and lost your ability to heal.
Redefining the “Resistance”
I believe this framework creates a false choice. I disagree with the idea that pointing out asymmetric threats inherently kills trust.
We must distinguish between Partisan Opposition and Principled Accountability:
Partisan Opposition: Fighting for “Team Blue” to defeat “Team Red” on policy or ideological grounds.
Principled Accountability: Pointing out when any actor—regardless of team—is dismantling the “Arena” that makes democracy possible.
The Referee vs. The Neutral
If I understand it right, the Burgesses argue that naming asymmetry kills trust. I believe that trust is built on fairness, not silence.
I believe we can play the role as bridge-builder not as a “Neutral Observer,” but as a Referee.
A referee is neutral toward the teams, but they are absolute about the rules.
If one team commits more fouls, the referee calls more penalties on that team.
The referee hasn’t “joined” the other side; they are protecting the game itself.
If we ignore documented, asymmetric threats to appear “balanced,” we aren’t being neutral—we are being inaccurate. Orgs like Tangle News prove that you can maintain cross-partisan trust while still calling out specific problems, provided you are transparent and consistent in your principles.
A Mission for Democratic Resilience
This distinction is vital because of our specific mission. Unlike some organizations that focus primarily on relational “convening,” Outrage Overload operates under the Connors Institute mandate:
To disseminate high-quality, nonpartisan information.
To promote democracy and news literacy.
To cultivate a more informed, reflective, and constructive citizenry.
Our primary “client” is not just the relationship between two people; it is the resilience of the democratic system. If the system is under attack, our mission requires us to name the threat, regardless of the “team” behind that threat.
We will continue to build bridges. We will continue the work of “Repair.” But I believe we can do so as Stewards of the Arena—doing our part to uphold the rules of the game (truth, accountability, and the rule of law) so that there is still a game worth playing.
The Price of Peace: A Response to Pearce Godwin
In the discussion following the piece, Pearce Godwin, founder of the Listen First Project, offered a powerful and moving “pragmatic” defense of the bridging movement. Pearce’s “North Star” is clear: the goal is the ability and willingness to work together across differences. He goes a step further than most. Pearce explicitly states that he is willing to accept the risk of losing democracy if it means avoiding the “greater risk” of widespread sectarian violence. For Pearce, the “price” of maintaining a broad coalition is to avoid taking positions on contested political issues—which, in my reading, includes the naming of asymmetric authoritarian threats.
Pearce’s challenge to me is a fair one: What is the endgame for any approach that doesn’t earn engagement from a supermajority of fellow Americans?
The “Peace-First” vs. “Democracy-First” Divide
Pearce’s perspective is grounded in Human Dignity. His only requirement for participation is that you see your fellow American as a human being. He focuses on the interpersonal level because he believes that if we lose the “Peace,” the “System” doesn’t matter anyway.
But here is where our missions diverge:
The Peace-First View: Prioritizes social cohesion. The “Arena” is the conversation itself. The risk is that we accidentally “keep the peace” while the ground beneath our feet is being removed.
The Democracy-First View (Outrage Overload): Prioritizes the system. The “Arena” is the set of rules—truth, accountability, and the rule of law—that allow us to have the conversation in the first place. The risk is alienation of “Red” or “Blue” cohorts who feel targeted by the naming of threats.
The Endgame of Silence
Pearce asks what my endgame is if I alienate people by naming asymmetric threats. My response is to ask: What is the endgame of a bridge that lands in an autocracy?
Further, as I noted above, I believe one can maintain trust and limit alienating people through fairness, transparency, and consistency.
If we “earn engagement” by remaining silent about the dismantling of democratic guardrails, we might achieve scale, but what have we scaled?
The peace of an autocracy is still a form of “peace,” but it is not the Democratic Resilience we are tasked with promoting at Outrage Overload and the Connors Institute.
Scales vs. Standards
Pearce argues that staking out a position on authoritarianism “dooms” the mission of social cohesion.
I certainly agree that we can’t operate under the delusion “we’ll vanquish the other side into oblivion and not have to contend with them or their values any more” and I believe far too many Americans, on both sides, find themselves there and it’s one of the greatest dangers to our democracy. We talked about this at great length in our documentary episode: America on the Knife’s Edge.
However, reading Pearce’s comment, it’s easy to focus on our differences—his prioritization of “Peace” versus my prioritization of “Democracy.” But if we look closer, we find that we aren’t actually in different worlds; we are simply debating the location of the boundary.
Pearce is not a “peace at any cost” absolutist. He explicitly draws a line:
“the belief that a fellow American is less than human is the only perspective I would exclude... In addition of course to any threats or acts of physical violence.”
This is a vital admission. Pearce is acknowledging that for the “bridge” to exist, there must be a shared baseline of humanity and safety. If someone crosses that line, they are no longer part of the “prosperous path forward.”
My argument for Principled Accountability is essentially an extension of Pearce’s own logic.
Pearce’s line is Dehumanization and Violence. My line is The Dismantling of the Arena.
We both agree that bridging cannot be a “suicide pact.” We both agree that there are certain behaviors that make bridging impossible. Where we differ is in our assessment of what those behaviors are:
Pearce argues that as long as we treat each other as human and don’t hit each other, the bridge can hold.
I argue that even if we are being “civil,” if certain groups are systematically removing the guardrails of the system—the independent courts, the integrity of the vote, the accountability of the executive, then its a “bridge” to nowhere.
It is important to emphasize that I fully support the “Peace-First” work Pearce describes. We want to bring those doing this work to the attention of our audience. If you’re doing this kind of work, reach out; we want to hear from you and highlight your work.
Conclusion: One Movement, Three North Stars
The dialogue over these past few weeks has been a masterclass in the complexity of modern bridge-building. By engaging with Guy and Heidi Burgess, Pearce Godwin, and our own mandate here at Outrage Overload, we have surfaced a fundamental truth: the “Bridging Movement” is not a monolith.
A Humbled Seat at the Table
I recognize that Outrage Overload may not meet every “purity test” of a traditional bridge-builder. We don’t just convene; we analyze. We don’t just listen; we report.
We are deeply humbled and grateful that the bridge-building movement has embraced us, despite our relative newcomer status and differences in approach. Our goal is to expose our audience to as much of this vital movement as possible, even as we continue to figure out exactly where we sit within it. Are we bridge-builders, or are we the stewards of the ground the bridge is built on? Perhaps we are a bit of both.
To our listeners, readers, and everyone who supports us: thank you. Thank you for walking with us as we make our way on this journey, for wrestling with these hard questions alongside us, and for your commitment to a more resilient democracy. We couldn’t do this without you.
David - thanks for keeping this conversation going. This latest entry from you is helpful and clarifying for me. I have two follow-up reflections to offer:
(1) Do we need to think about sequencing, as another dimension of the discussion about the "Peace-First" view vs the "Democracy-First" view? Here's what I mean: From where we are at this moment in the U.S, is it even possible to build the "Democracy-First" supermajority we seek, without first repairing our social fabric through increased trust, understanding, and goodwill towards each other? Or does leapfrogging to "democracy-first" risk alienating too many of the people that we need on the democracy train?
My own conclusion, and it sounds like yours too, is that we should / must pursue both tracks simultaneously - with some groups pursuing "peace-first" and others "democracy-first." We can't afford to sequence the work in either order, when both peace and democracy are simultaneously under pressure. Tensions emerge, however, when one track is seen as undermining or setting back the other. For example, the "peace-first" track can feel impeded when the "democracy-first" track seems to accuse one side, or the other, of embracing authoritarianism. And the "democracy-first" track can feel impeded when bridge-building work accommodates / elevates individuals or organizations seen as being anti-democratic.
FWIW, many healthy back-channel conversations about these tensions are happening all the time; the bridge-building and democracy folks know each other well and grapple with these tensions together, in multiple forums.
(2) I find myself thinking a lot lately about Argentina and Brazil, both of which emerged from brutal military dictatorships to democracies that -- while certainly imperfect -- might offer some hopeful insights and lessons to the U.S. today. I've resolved to study both countries' histories and current conditions more deeply, to better understand what blend of social and structural factors helped lead them from the depths of repression, violence, and autocracy to being more tolerant, pluralistic, and democratic countries today.
David, your grace, thoughtfulness, and framing in this discussion are extraordinary. Thank you!
You write, "This highlights what I might call a Resistance Trap. It suggests that “publicly naming and confronting problems” is a form of partisan combat that disqualifies you from being a peacemaker. In this view, if you point out an asymmetric threat, you’ve “picked a side” and lost your ability to heal... We must distinguish between Partisan Opposition and Principled Accountability."
While I appreciate the distinction you're making here, my concern is that when it comes to maintaining the trust and earning the engagement of the widest possible spectrum of fellow Americans, perception matters more than our intentions. Sadly, I observe that those of us most actively engaged in politics (and thus most responsible for driving up the heat that must come down) are rarely perceiving principle in anything that challenges our own positions. Increasingly, we perceive the political landscape and our fellow Americans in binary, us-versus-them terms: if you don't agree with me and my team, you're clearly on the other team and must be defeated to preserve what I hold sacred. In that environment, I don't know how to act out of "principled accountability" and be seen as anything other than a partisan actor.
I find your referee analogy very helpful. But I'm afraid it doesn't apply as well as we'd like. In the United States today, we don't have teams that agree on any set of rules, let alone subject themselves to them. I'm seeing many Americans feel an existential threat from the other team. When the stakes feel existential, anything goes, rules are out the window, any means justify the ends of avoiding dire threats and defeating the enemy.
I also find your arena analogy very helpful. I applaud other patriotic Americans, such as yourself, who are most concerned about the arena and name what they see as asymmetric threats. That’s important work. As individuals and organizations, we can’t all play every role. My personal conviction is that my particular role, or lane, is maximally effective (perhaps only effective) if I steer clear of the referee / naming / resistance / advocacy role. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe those roles should be played. They should, and I’m grateful others are following their own convictions and highest priorities in doing so.
(Side note related to naming asymmetric threats: I think it's easy for all of us to overweight the threats from the other team and underweight threats from our own team. All threats or offenses are certainly not symmetrical, but a hard and honest look in the mirror at our own team can make us more accurate, more credible, and harder to dismiss as partisan.)
You ask me, "What is the endgame of a bridge that lands in an autocracy?" That outcome would be ugly and devastating, a terrible failure of the American experiment, which I've described in recent speeches as "a bet that a collection of people from a wide variety of backgrounds and beliefs would be able to work through their differences enough to live peaceably and govern themselves. That out of many, we could be one — E Pluribus Unum.”
This is where I see my highest priority complementing yours. The distrust, demonization, and dysfunction of toxic polarization enables and accelerates a descent into autocracy. We become all too willing to deprecate our democratic principles and values of decency to support a strongman (or woman) when the threat from the other team seems so existential. I believe one way — if not the best way, at least the path I’ve chosen — to avoid autocracy or any other destruction of the great democratic experiment that is America is to turn down the heat of toxic polarization by pursuing trust, understanding, relationships, and solutions across divides. If we diminish the fear of our fellow Americans, we undermine the conditions for autocracy and build a more resilient arena for society and governance.