Hi David, I listened to your latest podcast and then read this; your prompt is valuable for all of us in bridge-building. Many of us in bridging circle back to a basic question, "Fight, or bridge?" somewhat routinely, especially each time the U.S. undergoes a major rupture as we are right now around events unfolding in Minneapolis. But I usually come back to seeing this distinction as false.
Bridgers are also fighters ... we are fighting for a future in which the vast majority of Americans embrace peace, pluralism, and representative / constitutional democracy. To win this "fight," we have to embrace, model, and convey a renewed vision, anchored firmly in America's founding principles, that an American supermajority can trust, believe in, and see themselves in.
Many data points are offered for how big this supermajority needs to be. I offer two suggestions: First, minority factions can do a lot of damage, so it's in all of our interests to win over as many Americans as we can, to see and join efforts to protect and renew the American experiment. Second, partisan paths are unlikely to build the supermajority power we need; the Democrats might win back the House, but they aren't capable of building a sufficiently broad coalition on behalf of constitutional democracy. Only cross-partisan, trust-building approaches -- inviting in right-leaners, left-leaners, independents, and the "exhausted majority" -- can build this coalition.
This is a battle of persuasion, a battle for hearts and minds, and as such it depends heavily on building trust between people who have different degrees of comfort and discomfort with the current administration's actions. Many of us intuitively understand that America's "center right" and other right leaners (libertarians, faith and family conservatives, etc) hold a lot of the cards right now. Our midterm and presidential contests will be close, as they always are, despite everything happening around us. Many of our local and state governments, too, are vulnerable to tilting away from representative, secular democratic principles.
To help hold the line on behalf of democracy, right-leaning voters across the country will need to see America's left-leaning "moralizers" as less threatening to their values and beliefs than the current administration's many challenges to our founding principles. It helps when left-leaning Americans show up in their lives as friends, colleagues, and listeners ... not just as the godless, baby-killing, "woke police" caricatures splayed across their screens.
Finally, today, despite events unfolding in Minneapolis and elsewhere, most Americans do not perceive that we are in a contest between authoritarianism and democracy (and among those who do perceive this, proponents are predictably arrayed on both sides). Most Americans have not read -- or nodded their heads to -- Jonathan Rauch's bracing article in The Atlantic, "Yes, It's Fascism." Case in point: I have not convinced a single Trump voter I know, including family members and very close friends, to revisit their support for Trump. Not one. Would sending Rauch's article to them do any good? Nope.
So we can shake our fists all we want, but what we need to do even more is to keep building the broadest coalition of Americans, of all political leanings, who are proactively committed to preserving the American experiment. Do all of these Americans have to believe Trump is a fascist? Do they have to be viscerally outraged by what happened to Renee and Alex, as so many of us are? We might want the answer to be "yes," but I think it has to be "no." Perhaps "truth and reconciliation" can come, sometime in the future. But for now, I think the most important and strategic work bridge-builders can do is to keep creating spaces for listening, curiosity, trust-, and relationship-building between Americans of different political and ideological leanings ... creating the conditions from which an American supermajority for constitutional democracy can emerge.
Hi Kristin, Thanks for taking the time to read and reply.
I couldn't agree more with much of what you say: bridgers are also fighters, we need a supermajority coalition, and partisan paths won't build that coalition. It's unfortunate that we are so locked in a left/right paradigm, or Democrat vs. Republican. I'm certainly not suggesting bridging needs to align with one side in that contest.
Even if most Americans do not perceive we are in a contest between authoritarianism and democracy yet, that's partly why I'm arguing bridge-builders need to be clear about it. If scholars of authoritarianism, constitutional experts, and democracy watchdogs are sounding alarms, part of our job is helping people see patterns they might be missing—not just validating whatever frame they already hold. I'm not suggesting anyone lead with 'Trump is a fascist' but I am suggesting we can't build a coalition for constitutional democracy if we're afraid to name threats to constitutional democracy.
For what it's worth, I'm not focused on 'converting' Trump supporters—that's important to some, but it's not my lane. I'm more interested in helping bridge-builders navigate what it means to do this work when democratic infrastructure itself is under threat.
I hear your point about how left-leaning Americans are perceived, and I think you're right that relationships and trust-building across that divide are crucial. My concern is that if the price of maintaining those relationships becomes never naming authoritarian actions clearly, we risk building a coalition for keeping the peace rather than defending democracy.
I agree that creating spaces for listening, curiosity, and trust-building is necessary. Where I get stuck is whether they're sufficient on their own. I'm not saying every bridge-building conversation needs to center around threats to democracy. But I do worry that if our field collectively treats naming authoritarian patterns as 'too divisive,' we may inadvertently provide cover for what we're trying to prevent.
The work you're doing to create genuine spaces for relationship-building across political divides is exactly what we need, and I don't want to undermine that. I think my question is whether we can do that work while also being clear-eyed about the stakes. I'm genuinely uncertain about how to balance these and your perspective helps me think it through more carefully.
Thank you for pushing back thoughtfully. This is exactly the kind of dialogue I was hoping to provoke.
I’ve been processing your post and trying to reconcile the asymmetrical conflict you delve into herein.
The dichotomy you describe of the positive intentions of a slow burning bridging effort against imminent existential threats to democratic principles and institutions is indeed unsettling and even confusing.
In my own small corner of the bridging space, playing the long game to nudge incentives for a healthier Legislative Branch through Bridge Grades, I can relate.
I personally rationalize this disconnect by openly acknowledging that bridging efforts today simply do not meet the moment. Rather, I remind myself that bridging is not about solving what ails us today, but rather it’s about better preparing us and society for what happens next — so we can find each other after the dust has settled. As we enter what feels like an era of necessary if inevitable conflict now, bridging efforts conducted today help set the table for reconciliation over a longer time horizon on a path of social deescalation.
I love the idiom that if the best day to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the next best day to plant a tree is today.
Keep on fighting for us to find each other, David. We’re worth it.
First of all, I respect that you gave what I would consider and "unfiltered" take while being aware that it could have some holes.
Now, onto the content of the article. I am a blue myself, and I would personally say that I really hope that Trump and his crew will reap what they have sown come the midterms. But that does not disqualify me from being a bridge-builder. This is because bridge-building, to me, was never about neutrality, because such a thing is kind of impossible to really nail down. Neutrality is really a cover for the true ideal: openness, the ability to see how you could become your enemy had things been different, and the ability to imagine a world in which you can live side by side.
Now, there's an argument that Bridge-Building organizations should be neutral to let the people not be, but that doesn't mean that any specific platform ought to be neutral just for the sake of it. Not being neutral may make it harder to build trust in a paranoid world, but any trust gained may be stronger for it. Therefore, I agree with Zachary Elwood that one can perfectly believe one side is worse than the other and still be an effective bridge-builder.
However, I would also warn that Outrage Overload should be careful of learning too hard at the risk of diluting its mission. I've seen many organizations get sucked into a progressive "omnicause" of every social justice mission together, and come out doing none of them. I believe Bill Doherty was thinking about this when he said that Braver Angels "has an opportunity to make a difference only if we stay in our distinctive lane". There's a fine line between "yes, this is really bad, but there's a better way to deal with it" compared to "we would have had this solution already if not for the other side!" Believe me, there's enough voices blaming Republicans for the breakdown in institutional trust.
What you choose to do in the future is up to you, but if there's one thing I would recommend I would say to look at what's going on at the podcast "Why Should I Trust You", which is the MOST impactful bridge-building effort I have ever seen. In a year or so, they've somehow managed to achieve what other initiatives dream of: getting the high-profile leaders of each side in the same room and getting real action out of it.
Thanks for taking the time to read this very long comment. No matter where the future goes, I wish you and this project the best.
Hi David, I listened to your latest podcast and then read this; your prompt is valuable for all of us in bridge-building. Many of us in bridging circle back to a basic question, "Fight, or bridge?" somewhat routinely, especially each time the U.S. undergoes a major rupture as we are right now around events unfolding in Minneapolis. But I usually come back to seeing this distinction as false.
Bridgers are also fighters ... we are fighting for a future in which the vast majority of Americans embrace peace, pluralism, and representative / constitutional democracy. To win this "fight," we have to embrace, model, and convey a renewed vision, anchored firmly in America's founding principles, that an American supermajority can trust, believe in, and see themselves in.
Many data points are offered for how big this supermajority needs to be. I offer two suggestions: First, minority factions can do a lot of damage, so it's in all of our interests to win over as many Americans as we can, to see and join efforts to protect and renew the American experiment. Second, partisan paths are unlikely to build the supermajority power we need; the Democrats might win back the House, but they aren't capable of building a sufficiently broad coalition on behalf of constitutional democracy. Only cross-partisan, trust-building approaches -- inviting in right-leaners, left-leaners, independents, and the "exhausted majority" -- can build this coalition.
This is a battle of persuasion, a battle for hearts and minds, and as such it depends heavily on building trust between people who have different degrees of comfort and discomfort with the current administration's actions. Many of us intuitively understand that America's "center right" and other right leaners (libertarians, faith and family conservatives, etc) hold a lot of the cards right now. Our midterm and presidential contests will be close, as they always are, despite everything happening around us. Many of our local and state governments, too, are vulnerable to tilting away from representative, secular democratic principles.
To help hold the line on behalf of democracy, right-leaning voters across the country will need to see America's left-leaning "moralizers" as less threatening to their values and beliefs than the current administration's many challenges to our founding principles. It helps when left-leaning Americans show up in their lives as friends, colleagues, and listeners ... not just as the godless, baby-killing, "woke police" caricatures splayed across their screens.
Finally, today, despite events unfolding in Minneapolis and elsewhere, most Americans do not perceive that we are in a contest between authoritarianism and democracy (and among those who do perceive this, proponents are predictably arrayed on both sides). Most Americans have not read -- or nodded their heads to -- Jonathan Rauch's bracing article in The Atlantic, "Yes, It's Fascism." Case in point: I have not convinced a single Trump voter I know, including family members and very close friends, to revisit their support for Trump. Not one. Would sending Rauch's article to them do any good? Nope.
So we can shake our fists all we want, but what we need to do even more is to keep building the broadest coalition of Americans, of all political leanings, who are proactively committed to preserving the American experiment. Do all of these Americans have to believe Trump is a fascist? Do they have to be viscerally outraged by what happened to Renee and Alex, as so many of us are? We might want the answer to be "yes," but I think it has to be "no." Perhaps "truth and reconciliation" can come, sometime in the future. But for now, I think the most important and strategic work bridge-builders can do is to keep creating spaces for listening, curiosity, trust-, and relationship-building between Americans of different political and ideological leanings ... creating the conditions from which an American supermajority for constitutional democracy can emerge.
Hi Kristin, Thanks for taking the time to read and reply.
I couldn't agree more with much of what you say: bridgers are also fighters, we need a supermajority coalition, and partisan paths won't build that coalition. It's unfortunate that we are so locked in a left/right paradigm, or Democrat vs. Republican. I'm certainly not suggesting bridging needs to align with one side in that contest.
Even if most Americans do not perceive we are in a contest between authoritarianism and democracy yet, that's partly why I'm arguing bridge-builders need to be clear about it. If scholars of authoritarianism, constitutional experts, and democracy watchdogs are sounding alarms, part of our job is helping people see patterns they might be missing—not just validating whatever frame they already hold. I'm not suggesting anyone lead with 'Trump is a fascist' but I am suggesting we can't build a coalition for constitutional democracy if we're afraid to name threats to constitutional democracy.
For what it's worth, I'm not focused on 'converting' Trump supporters—that's important to some, but it's not my lane. I'm more interested in helping bridge-builders navigate what it means to do this work when democratic infrastructure itself is under threat.
I hear your point about how left-leaning Americans are perceived, and I think you're right that relationships and trust-building across that divide are crucial. My concern is that if the price of maintaining those relationships becomes never naming authoritarian actions clearly, we risk building a coalition for keeping the peace rather than defending democracy.
I agree that creating spaces for listening, curiosity, and trust-building is necessary. Where I get stuck is whether they're sufficient on their own. I'm not saying every bridge-building conversation needs to center around threats to democracy. But I do worry that if our field collectively treats naming authoritarian patterns as 'too divisive,' we may inadvertently provide cover for what we're trying to prevent.
The work you're doing to create genuine spaces for relationship-building across political divides is exactly what we need, and I don't want to undermine that. I think my question is whether we can do that work while also being clear-eyed about the stakes. I'm genuinely uncertain about how to balance these and your perspective helps me think it through more carefully.
Thank you for pushing back thoughtfully. This is exactly the kind of dialogue I was hoping to provoke.
I’ve been processing your post and trying to reconcile the asymmetrical conflict you delve into herein.
The dichotomy you describe of the positive intentions of a slow burning bridging effort against imminent existential threats to democratic principles and institutions is indeed unsettling and even confusing.
In my own small corner of the bridging space, playing the long game to nudge incentives for a healthier Legislative Branch through Bridge Grades, I can relate.
I personally rationalize this disconnect by openly acknowledging that bridging efforts today simply do not meet the moment. Rather, I remind myself that bridging is not about solving what ails us today, but rather it’s about better preparing us and society for what happens next — so we can find each other after the dust has settled. As we enter what feels like an era of necessary if inevitable conflict now, bridging efforts conducted today help set the table for reconciliation over a longer time horizon on a path of social deescalation.
I love the idiom that if the best day to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the next best day to plant a tree is today.
Keep on fighting for us to find each other, David. We’re worth it.
First of all, I respect that you gave what I would consider and "unfiltered" take while being aware that it could have some holes.
Now, onto the content of the article. I am a blue myself, and I would personally say that I really hope that Trump and his crew will reap what they have sown come the midterms. But that does not disqualify me from being a bridge-builder. This is because bridge-building, to me, was never about neutrality, because such a thing is kind of impossible to really nail down. Neutrality is really a cover for the true ideal: openness, the ability to see how you could become your enemy had things been different, and the ability to imagine a world in which you can live side by side.
Now, there's an argument that Bridge-Building organizations should be neutral to let the people not be, but that doesn't mean that any specific platform ought to be neutral just for the sake of it. Not being neutral may make it harder to build trust in a paranoid world, but any trust gained may be stronger for it. Therefore, I agree with Zachary Elwood that one can perfectly believe one side is worse than the other and still be an effective bridge-builder.
However, I would also warn that Outrage Overload should be careful of learning too hard at the risk of diluting its mission. I've seen many organizations get sucked into a progressive "omnicause" of every social justice mission together, and come out doing none of them. I believe Bill Doherty was thinking about this when he said that Braver Angels "has an opportunity to make a difference only if we stay in our distinctive lane". There's a fine line between "yes, this is really bad, but there's a better way to deal with it" compared to "we would have had this solution already if not for the other side!" Believe me, there's enough voices blaming Republicans for the breakdown in institutional trust.
What you choose to do in the future is up to you, but if there's one thing I would recommend I would say to look at what's going on at the podcast "Why Should I Trust You", which is the MOST impactful bridge-building effort I have ever seen. In a year or so, they've somehow managed to achieve what other initiatives dream of: getting the high-profile leaders of each side in the same room and getting real action out of it.
Thanks for taking the time to read this very long comment. No matter where the future goes, I wish you and this project the best.
- Fork