I was very inspired by an email sent last week by Braver Angels’ CEO Maury Giles regarding the recent death of U.S. citizen Alex Pretti during an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protest in Minneapolis. (You can read the entire letter at the bottom of this post.)
“Intense conflict requires an equal force in response to be resolved; and that force can take very different forms. It can be domination (power and control) or connection (patience, perseverance, and perspective).”
I really appreciated the words of encouragement. At the same time, I thought, “You’re preaching to the choir.”
So I posted Maury’s letter on Facebook, Threads and Bluesky to encourage others to join the Common Ground Movement, and specifically member of Braver Angels, a nonprofit dedicated to civil discussion that leads to action.
In short, I became what I once more despised: an evangelizer.
What is evangelism?
The word evangelize comes from roots meaning “to bring good news.” In religious contexts it means to spread a message of salvation.
In secular use it’s come to mean to convert others to a belief or cause, sometimes with intensity and judgment, sometimes aggressively trying to win converts rather than foster understanding.
Because of that history, to me, evangelize carries negative connotations of zealotry, which is claiming the moral certainty and superiority to bulldoze over the experience and opinions of others. Zealotry implies a refusal to listen and typically focuses on winning rather than understanding.
So what does that mean for those of us who want to spread a positive message without bullying people? In this case the message that we Americans can draw together to change our country at the local, state and federal levels in the name of creating a stronger democracy and a happier life for all of us.
What I’ll offer is the idea of receptive evangelism, which I’d define as actively inviting people to discussion. And to clarify, “people” refers to those who new to the subject, rather than part of the choir.
So I’ll suggest another interpretation of evangelize: actively invite others to learn from one another and discuss solutions. I feel compelled toward this type of evangelism because if the choice is between letting chaos and violence grow — as we’re witnessing in Minneapolis, where two U.S. citizens have been fatally shot by federal immigration agents in separate incidents this month — or choosing a more peaceful path, I’m hell-bent on what’s behind Door Number 2.
The ways to evangelize
Here are the ways I evangelize for the Common Ground Movement.
Social media
Create posts about people and organizations that are taking positive actions to make change and encourage others to repost. We can also repost the messages of people who are working to decrease polarization and unite Americans, as well. Who cares if they’re not in the same organization. If they’re encouraging positive change, make friends and back them up!
Introduce the topic whenever the opportunity arises
I was at a farmer’s market booth to promote a state referendum. While talking to voters, I actively mentioned Braver Angels and encouraged them to join with fellow Americans, rather than remaining loyal to any one political party.
And either in-person or online, which people express their despair, be there to promote the Common Ground Movement and the hope expressed by those we know that if the 80% of Americans who are sad and disgusted by our current political system can draw together, we can make real change.
I’ll estimate that I reach out to people beyond my choir five times a week. You can start by forwarding this post to friends who may not know there’s an option other than to react to the daily craziness that ensues.
Are you willing to be “that” person?
The problem with evangelizing is that most of us don’t like reaching out to strangers. We think that doing will open us up to attack. What I’ve found is the opposite, that people are waiting for the opportunity to engage with someone who shows them kindness and promotes hope.
But the real reason to extend yourself beyond your comfort zone is because the stakes are high. Putting ourselves on the front line to gain the trust of the “exhausted majority” is key to turning our country away from violence and toward reclaiming and changing democracy to create a more just society.
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant PositivityFacebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
Letter from Maury Giles sent Jan. 25, 2026
I had just finished drafting this message when I read and watched videos of Alex Jeffrey Pretti being shot to death by ICE agents in Minneapolis. I felt a rush of anxiety, fear, and sadness; but, still, I was hoping it wasn’t true. It was; and it is our reality today.
Dr. Dimitri Drekonja, Pretti’s co-worker at the VA Medical Center, expressed the point on which I hope we all agree, no matter how you view ICE: “There is no reason for a guy like that to be dead, let alone to be killed by the agents of a government that employed him.”
➔ Two deaths in three weeks in Minneapolis.
➔ U.S. federal officers killing American citizens.
➔ Protestors storming church services with families and young children present.
➔ Local and federal officials arguing instead of talking, and leading, together.
So many reactions. So many questions. So many feelings.
Two things are on my mind right now about what is happening in Minneapolis:
What it means for our country and Braver Angels; and
The impact this reality, and the work we do, is having on each of us individually.
I want to start here: What we see in Minneapolis right now is a harsh but true reflection of us as a people.
Intense conflict requires an equal force in response to be resolved; and that force can take very different forms. It can be domination (power and control) or connection (patience, perseverance, and perspective).
I believe it is that simple.
Right now, “we the people” seem to prioritize “tribal interests” over the interests of all. With every emergent conflict, we are choosing domination (or apathy) over connection. It doesn’t matter if the point is destroying the “other side” or checking out as if one has no individual part in the play of our national drama. In both, we choose a path that does not lead to a better America.
Braver Angels’ quest is to inspire people to embrace a way of being because they see it as a genuine pathway to heal society and make a better world. While other groups rightfully advocate for specific solutions or organize protests, Braver Angels focuses on the methods of how we reach those answers. We do it with discipline.
Within our membership people have very different ideas about public policy solutions. That is by design. We aspire to the hard work of engaging across differences to build together. We choose connection over domination.
Think about it. Our individual choices are what matter. No public official, political party, or institution can or will make this change alone without us. They can lead, invite and teach. Or they can, as most seem to do today, incite more anger and more division.
We can choose to go against the grain. Find those with whom we disagree and do the difficult work of learning, sharing, and building. Together. The more intense the conflict, the more effort is required to build a common solution. This is the Braver Angels Way.
Let me close on the very personal, human impact on trying to do this work.
I can’t help but feel the strain. I am as stretched as I’ve ever felt, right now. I know you must feel variations of the same. For me, it is a daily (and sometimes hourly) battle to keep things in perspective, determine what is in my control, and act. My most effective aids right now are family, exercise and study routines, breathing practices, meditation, and think time. Find yours.
In these times, I find there is no replacement for this idea: keep on keeping on… put one foot in front of the other. Sometimes those steps are fast, sometimes we need to slow down (and I ask the same of you). Recognize the challenges, celebrate the victories big and small, give each other the grace these times require. Through it all, let’s keep our eyes on the vision of an America at peace with itself, where courageous citizenship is the norm.
I choose to pray. You may or may not have that practice. But I believe you’ll understand my intent: I pray for peace, wisdom, strength, courage, and patience. Then I get to work.
Walk with me. One foot in front of the other. Shoulder to shoulder.
It’s worth it.
I am so proud to be on this mission with you. Even, and especially, right now. Look for a series of convenings we will be leading with others in our sector.
To view the interview on the Vigilant Positivity YouTube channel, click here.
During chaotic political times, it’s easy for citizens to assume a dystopian future awaits. But such seismic shift are common throughout history and poses the opportunity to build a pro-topian future. So says Ade Salami, program director for Pro-democracy Political Coalitions at Democracy 2076. Founded in 2023, the organization works long-term to change our constitution, political culture, and political parties.
Ade most recently served as a senior policy aide for two Minneapolis City Council members and as a lobbyist at Park Street Public, where she led bipartisan lobbying efforts on policy and funding at the state, local, and federal levels. She received her BA from the University of Minnesota.
Transcript of interview
Martha Engber: Hello, Ade!
Ade Salami: Hello! How are you today, Martha?
Martha Engber: Very good. Thanks for joining me. As I understand it, Democracy 2076 aims to ward off authoritarianism in America. For those of us who have only known democracy, what are the signs of authoritarianism?
Ade Salami: Of course. I want to start by slightly reframing that. Democracy 2076 wasn’t created specifically to stop authoritarianism. It was created because something in our democracy feels broken to many people. It doesn’t feel effective, responsive, or representative.
When people feel that way, they’re more open to strongmen and shortcuts. Our work is really about helping people imagine and build a democracy that actually works for them. When that gap isn’t filled, authoritarianism tends to fill it. That said, I think many Americans have had a real-world crash course in what authoritarianism looks like, even if they don’t always call it that.
One resource I often reference is Protect Democracy’s authoritarian playbook. It identifies tactics like corrupting elections, including attacks on the legitimacy of free and fair elections. The Big Lie is a clear example. It encouraged people to doubt the 2020 election results.
Another tactic is quashing dissent, using state power to silence criticism. What happened with Jimmy Kimmel last year is a good example. There’s also politicizing independent institutions, such as appointing leaders of institutions like the FBI or the Federal Reserve based on loyalty rather than expertise or the rule of law.
President Trump’s ongoing fight with Jerome Powell at the Fed, or his attacks on James Comey, are examples. Another tactic is scapegoating vulnerable communities. We’re seeing that nationally with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), including escalating violence, which is also part of the authoritarian playbook. Normalizing political violence creates unrest and fear.
There’s also the spread of disinformation and propaganda. COVID stands out for me, when President Trump was one of the biggest spreaders of COVID-related misinformation. Those are some of the key ways authoritarianism shows up.
Martha Engber: What’s interesting is that everything you mentioned is what Democrats often say about Republicans, and Republicans say about Democrats. Each side claims the other is corrupting politics, spreading disinformation, and behaving badly.
So is authoritarianism reflected in that level of polarization? Does it pit citizens against one another and make the other side look like the villain?
Ade Salami: I don’t think that dynamic itself is part of the authoritarian playbook. I do think it’s a side effect. It shows up as authoritarianism begins to take root.
One important thing to remember is that authoritarianism doesn’t come from just one side. In the U.S., especially over the last decade, we’ve seen clear examples from the right, but that doesn’t mean it can’t come from the left. Overlooking that is concerning.
Martha Engber: That finger-pointing is interesting. Depolarizing that dynamic is something your organization and others are working on, but cutting through misinformation is difficult. What is Democracy 2076 doing in that regard?
Ade Salami: Much of our focus is on helping Americans build connections, relationships, and coalitions beyond the political binaries they’re used to. A lot of politics is rooted in a false binary. The work I’m focused on right now is about disrupting that comfort and expanding people’s ability to engage in unlikely partnerships as a way to build connection and make progress.
Martha Engber: Your organization also promotes the idea of a pro-topian future rather than a dystopian one. Dystopian means everything is bad, while pro-topian suggests hope. Can you explain that idea and why people might find a pro-topian future hard to imagine? And why we seem to dwell on dystopian futures? They dominate books, TV, and movies.
Ade Salami: I like the definitions you gave. Utopia is perfect and unrealistic. Dystopia is The Handmaid’s Tale, where everything is falling apart. Pro-topia sits in the middle. It’s a realistic, incremental path of continuous improvement. Things are getting better, even if they’re not perfect.
The term comes from Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine in 2009. A pro-topian future is not fantasy or collapse, but a pathway where society becomes more fair, functional, and humane. Our goal isn’t to sell people on a single pro-topian future, but to co-create one and move away from a nihilistic mindset where nothing matters.
We want people actively imagining what a better future could look like and what it would take to get there. It’s not about prescribing the destination. It’s about creating space for people across differences to imagine a better future for themselves and work toward it together. When people feel nothing can change, that’s when they disengage.
Dystopian futures are easier to imagine because they’re essentially today, just worse. They’re built around conflict, scarcity, and winners and losers. Our brains are wired for that. We have a built-in negativity bias, so those futures feel familiar. We’re always scanning for threats.
Martha Engber: Because if we don’t pay attention to threats, we could be killed. It’s our animal instinct.
Ade Salami: I agree.
Martha Engber: In support of deterring authoritarianism and promoting an achievable, brighter future, Democracy 2076 has three programs. The first is Imagining 2076, which fosters imagination and focuses on media that shows what a pro-topian future looks like.
The second pushes for a new constitution, including 68 amendments identified by past convention delegates to shore up democracy in the U.S., which is fascinating, but a topic for another show. The third is your program, which looks closely at political coalitions. Can you define what a coalition is, as opposed to a group or partnership, and tell us more about the program?
Ade Salami: Of course. When we say “coalition,” it’s not just a group. We’re talking about three things: who’s in it, what they believe, and what divides them from other groups. What are the wedge issues? If you look at politics, for example, in Congress, we already use this language all the time. We talk about the Squad, the Blue Dogs, MAGA, the Tea Party. Those are factions, but in many ways they’re also coalitions. The same thing exists among voters, organizations, and movements. It’s not something that only happens with politics and elected officials.
What makes this moment different is that the coalitions are shifting. They’re realigning along the three axes I mentioned. The people in our parties are changing, the issues that divide them are changing, and the ideas holding coalitions together are changing. That’s part of why so many people feel politically disoriented right now. You find yourself agreeing with people you were never aligned with before, people you thought you had nothing in common with.
At the same time, you may clash with people who were once your allies, people you were always on the same side as. That can feel unsettling, but it’s also where opportunity exists.
When coalitions start to move, a lot more possibilities open up. You can build majorities that didn’t exist before. You can move legislation that’s been stuck for decades because there’s now a group willing to coalesce around a shared cause.
On the flip side, there’s also risk. Some of the changes we’re seeing are pulling people in a more authoritarian direction.
My program is about naming what’s changing, tracking what new coalitions are forming and what they could accomplish, and also watching where democratic norms begin to break down so we can intervene before it’s too late.
Martha Engber: As you were talking, I kept thinking about a political earthquake. And it’s not just happening in our country, it’s global. When an earthquake hits, people get scared. They duck, they take evasive action, and the instinct is to follow the one person saying, “Follow me, I know what to do.”
That’s essentially the appeal of authoritarianism. You go to the person who insists they know what’s going on. But you’re also saying that at the same time, there’s opportunity. That’s what people don’t always see. Things are chaotic, everything feels like it’s rolling around, and people miss the opportunity in that. So is the idea that people like you can help surface that opportunity?
Ade Salami: I think so. And I think this moment is especially ripe for that.
When you look at voter identification over the last several years, the number of people identifying as independent has grown significantly. Many people say they no longer feel aligned with a party or that they don’t have good options. A common refrain is that they feel like they’re choosing between two evils.
Your earthquake analogy fits. Authoritarianism can emerge as the figure who promises certainty and action. And the reason that’s appealing is because the system people are being moved through doesn’t feel like it works. No one seems in charge. No one seems to have a direction. When that’s missing, people attach themselves to whatever feels most certain, and someone who insists they can fix things feels certain.
Martha Engber: That’s fascinating. When I was researching your organization, I noticed your website says American political coalitions realign roughly every 30 years, and that we’re living through another realignment now. What was the last realignment? And how long do these typically take? Are we talking a year, a decade? And why 30 years?
Ade Salami: That’s a great question. There’s actually a lot of debate among political scientists about when the last realignment even happened. Some point to the 1980s, others to the 1990s. One moment that’s often used as a marker is 1994, the so-called Republican Revolution, when Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in about 40 years.
That period also solidified the South as a Republican stronghold and brought cultural and religious issues to the center of politics in a new way.
What’s important to understand is that these political shifts don’t happen all at once. You don’t wake up one day and everything is different. They unfold slowly over time, and they’re much clearer in hindsight.
A big part of my work is asking whether we can see these shifts as they’re happening and shape them, rather than only writing about them later in history books.
As for the 30-year rhythm, I don’t think it’s a magic formula. My best guess is that it roughly aligns with a generation. Every couple of decades, new voters come in. They have new leaders, new experiences, different values. Their culture is different, their priorities are different, and eventually politics has to reorganize around that energy. That’s why those timelines tend to cluster around 30 years.
Martha Engber: That’s interesting, because when people think about coalitions, they usually think Republicans and Democrats, the two-party system. And because of laws passed by both parties over the years, it’s almost impossible for a third party to emerge. So how do you change the two main parties? Neither one seems to listen to the people within them, and a lot of people are unhappy.
Of course, there are cheerleaders on both sides, but many people want both parties to change. So how do you actually do that?
Ade Salami: I have a lot of ideas. I don’t know that I have definitive answers. One thing I think about is the growing number of independent voters. Ideas like open primaries, where candidates have to campaign on issues because they can’t rely on party loyalty alone, become really important.
I also think about recent campaigns, like Zohran Kwame Mamdani, the new major of New York City, where a coalition was built by addressing people’s needs and focusing on what they shared as priorities, rather than party labels.
I think we’re entering a moment, especially with younger voters, where the two parties not only don’t appeal to them, but don’t feel representative. That’s what makes this moment ripe for realignment. I don’t think the current configuration is sustainable. We’re already seeing signs of that.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we moved toward a multiparty future. I wouldn’t be surprised if more people stopped identifying with any party at all and voted issue by issue. All of those possibilities are on the table.
Martha Engber: That’s very interesting. I consider myself an independent now, and I believe strongly in the common ground movement, the broad middle of America, the large majority who are unhappy with both parties and want to come together around shared values. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Can you explain more about your Foresight cohort of 14 leaders? Who are they? What political perspectives do they represent? And why did you intentionally seek such a broad range of viewpoints?
Ade Salami: That’s a great question. The Foresight cohort helped us write and stress-test the research in our reports. What we were trying to understand was the type of political realignment we’re living through right now.
There’s a lot of good writing about voter groups, like Latino voters or college-educated voters, but by the time those books or reports come out, the shifts have often been happening for years.
We wanted something closer to real time. So we asked: who is in constant contact with large numbers of people right now? Who is seeing changes before they show up in polls or headlines? That led us to leaders of large, membership-based organizations, people working with cross-ideological communities, across regions, identities, and backgrounds.
We’re also in a very different media environment than we used to be. Political beliefs used to be shaped in a very top-down fashion. I don’t think that’s how they work anymore. Now people’s political beliefs are shaped by social media, YouTube, WhatsApp groups, TikTok. You can’t just read The New York Times and say you know what people think. That’s why we wanted to bring people together and track different communities: Jewish voters, Asian voters, rural voters, urban voters, people who are watching extremism.
Those are all Americans, and they’re all part of the coalitions forming in this moment. They’re ultimately the ones who will shape what our parties look like over the next few decades. We didn’t want pundits. We didn’t want people with a very set idea of how things should work who want to impose that on others. We wanted to be intentional about finding people who are in their communities, talking to their neighbors, and seeing change happen in real time.
Martha Engber: I think it’s worthwhile to go back for a moment. When you say political viewpoints used to be formed from the top down, that meant there were three networks on TV saying certain things, and it funneled down to viewers. Newspapers worked the same way. But with social media, anyone at the bottom can push a message upward.
Ade Salami: Exactly. One hundred percent. You can go on TikTok today and see a video with 4.1 million views from someone you’ve never heard of before.
Martha Engber: And that person might not even be American, which I understand is now happening on both sides politically, with parties outsourcing messaging. Very interesting.
On your organization’s website, I meant to ask about the report you mentioned. Which report are you referring to, so I don’t get it wrong?
Ade Salami: There are reports for all of our programs, but the one I’m referencing is the inaugural report for the Pro-Democracy Political Coalitions in 2076 program. It was released in November of 2025.
Martha Engber: I was also fascinated by the five scenarios your organization outlined on how political parties might realign over the next 30 years. Can you explain those scenarios, and how your organization might help stimulate democracy even if both parties become authoritarian, which is one of the scenarios?
Ade Salami: To start, when we do this work, we hear a lot about short time frames: two-year grant cycles, four-year election cycles. But changes to democracy, authoritarianism, or party realignments happen over decades. That makes it hard to know whether progress is actually happening.
If you look at our current national political environment, Donald Trump came to power in 2016, Joe Biden won in 2020, and then Trump won again in 2024. That can be confusing. People ask, does this mean Americans want authoritarianism? Are they supporting it more now than in 2016? How do we make sense of that?
Progress isn’t linear. There’s backsliding. Globally, progress toward democracy has never been linear.
There’s always a push and pull between democracy and authoritarianism. Understanding that helps us recognize that chaos in the information environment doesn’t mean progress isn’t happening at the same time.
The scenarios were designed to help us look 30 years ahead and imagine how parties could evolve. One scenario has both parties authoritarian. Another has both parties pro-democracy. Another imagines a multiparty bloc. The goal isn’t to predict which one is most likely, but to understand the full range of possibilities, identify the ones we clearly don’t want, and think about how to intervene early to prevent them.
Martha Engber: So don’t wait to find out.
Ade Salami: Exactly. There’s been a lot of focus on right-wing authoritarianism, but the risk is ignoring the possibility of left-wing authoritarianism. That could emerge if people aren’t paying attention. We included that scenario because we felt it was being overlooked, even though it’s absolutely possible.
You also asked how we stimulate democracy if both sides become authoritarian. That’s not really how we think about using the scenarios. The goal is to avoid that outcome altogether. We want to identify warning signs and intervene before it happens.
The reason the scenarios look 30 years out isn’t so we can prepare for them once they arrive. It’s so we can look at today, determine which direction we’re headed, and decide whether that’s a direction we want. If it is, we reinforce it. If it isn’t, we intervene.
Martha Engber: What does intervention actually look like? From the perspective of the average American? We already have laws that reduce opportunities to change our government, and that expand presidential power and deter third parties. What does intervention mean in practice?
Ade Salami: That’s a great question. Intervention isn’t about huge, abstract forces beyond our control. There are individual actions we can take today that either strengthen or weaken democratic defenses. It’s about making informed choices.
For each scenario, we identified signposts we’re already seeing, or might expect to see, that indicate which direction we’re heading. We also offered recommendations showing how smaller groups can have outsized influence. We made recommendations for local government, for community organizations like food banks, and for different sectors of society where people can step in and have a real impact.
I think it’s important for everyday Americans to understand that. I’ll use a simple analogy. At the beginning of the year, people make New Year’s resolutions, often about weight loss. Losing 50 pounds sounds overwhelming. Most people think, I don’t know if I can do that.
But if instead you start with something smaller, like walking 5,000 steps a day, it feels achievable. You don’t focus on the entire 50 pounds. You focus on the next step and see where it gets you.
Martha Engber: There are a lot of really good ideas out there. But as you know, we live in a place where the noise is so high that getting good ideas out is difficult. So what does it look like for your organization to say, “Okay, here are our ideas,” and actually get them out to the public, to people like me? Is that the coalition-building part? Are you working with groups to methodically disseminate these ideas through social media?
Ade Salami: It’s less about us dispersing our ideas and more about focusing on people who want to collaborate on making effective change to ensure a representative and responsive democracy, and figuring out whether we have tools or information that can support them in that work.
For example, with our scenarios work, there may not be many organizations looking 50 years into the future. But there are organizations that have identified issues they care about that are emerging now.
Helping them understand that there are small actions their members can take today, actions individuals can take today, that have long-term impact, is often something they’re interested in. We’re happy to help them on that journey.
Martha Engber: As I mentioned before, I’m a member of Braver Angels, which operates in this space, and even there, just getting ideas out is a big challenge.
Ade Salami: One hundred percent. Braver Angels is a great example. Much of their work focuses on helping people bridge difference and disagreement. What I think could be really powerful is encouraging people to have conversations about issues that aren’t politicized yet.
Many of the issues we introduce in our 17 spectra aren’t yet locked into the current political binary. Someone on either side of the aisle could land on the same side of one of these spectra. Introducing those concepts and encouraging conversation across difference is often the first step.
Martha Engber: Your organization created an interactive tool that shows where people fall on 17 emerging wedge issues. For those who may not know, a wedge issue is a natural division that political parties exploit to intentionally divide Americans.
For example, your site asks if you see education as a social equalizer or a status enforcer; whether you lean toward identity-centered politics or issue-centered politics; whether you tend toward gender-role traditionalism or gender-role fluidity. Who came up with that idea?
Ade Salami: We created the interactive tool because we were really struck by More in Common’sperception gap research. It shows that people tend to believe those with opposing political views think much more differently than they actually do. People often exaggerate how extreme their opposition is.
That insight made us curious about emerging wedge issues and the assumptions we make about what people who align with us believe, and what people who don’t align with us believe.
We also wanted to show people that some of their beliefs differ from others within their own party. Some Democrats don’t agree with other Democrats on certain issues. Some Republicans don’t agree with other Republicans. We wondered what would happen if we applied that insight to emerging wedge issues.
Many people assume everyone in their party agrees with them on things like education, identity, or gender. That’s often not true. Some of the biggest disagreements you have are actually with people on your own side. We thought it would be powerful for people to discover that for themselves. To realize, “I’m not as aligned with my party as I thought,” or, “I have unexpected things in common with people across the aisle.”
One piece of feedback we received was that many of these wedge issues feel like false binaries. And honestly, that’s the point. Political divides are simplified into binaries. We’re just used to the old ones. This tool helps people see that many of the lines we fight over are constructed, and the reality is far more nuanced.
Martha Engber: I’ve done programs where people talk about perception gaps. You see the other side as completely evil, and they see you the same way. But when you actually talk about issues, you’re often fairly close in belief.
Ade Salami: Exactly.
Martha Engber: It’s kind of crazy to see that happen. Does the tool give a scale, like telling you you’re more independent, more Republican, or something like that?
Ade Salami: What we did instead was create a GPT-based prompt that generates a response based on what someone submits. You can answer as many or as few of the spectra as you want. Then you answer a few demographic questions, like party affiliation, gender, age, and education.
The GPT then looks at your responses and compares them with responses from others who share similar demographic characteristics. For example, it might say, “You identify as a Democrat, you completed all 17 spectra, and you agree with other Democrats on nine of them. On eight, you don’t.” That insight has been really impactful.
I know people who were confident they were in lockstep with their party and then learned they only agreed on about half the issues.
Opening that conversation has been meaningful, and we hope the tool has been beneficial for those who’ve taken the survey.
Martha Engber: I did take it. People love surveys. You get one and think, “I have to know where I stand.” It was really fun. For people reading or viewing this interview, if you haven’t done it, go to their website and try it. What I want to ask next is: how worried are you about authoritarianism?
Ade Salami: That’s the million-dollar question. I’m probably more worried than I’ve ever been, but I’m not fatalistic.
Part of that is because more people see what’s happening now. In 2016, conversations about authoritarianism felt alarmist. That’s not the case anymore. You see it in discussions of niche policy issues, like the War Powers Act, becoming part of mainstream conversation.
You see it in places like the Minneapolis, in how people respond to ICE, the protests, and the pushback. I’m worried about what the government is doing, but I’m also more encouraged than I’ve ever been by how aware and engaged the public is.
People aren’t just watching anymore. They’re responding and engaging, and that matters.
Martha Engber: So this upheaval is forcing people to be more civically minded, more engaged, more knowledgeable. Everyone now understands misinformation in a way we weren’t talking about even eight or ten years ago.
Ade Salami: Exactly. People also aren’t content anymore to be told not to worry. They want to understand what’s happening. They want information so they can decide whether they like what’s happening or believe something different could work. They need to understand the system before they can change it.
Martha Engber: What would you like to see in the future, and what gives you hope that we’ll get there?
Ade Salami: What I want is a democracy where it’s normal to disagree, where we expect to persuade one another instead of trying to rig the system so one side always wins.
One idea we’ve lost is that our visions of the future don’t have to match. That’s the whole point of democracy. We’re not arguing about survival. We’re arguing about what kind of life we want.
I joke that I’m a refined, non-alcoholic champagne socialist. Fundamentally, I want everyone’s basic needs met. But also, once your needs are met, maybe you want something extra. Maybe you want something nice. Maybe you want guac at Chipotle. That’s normal.
And what gives me hope is that there are new coalitions already starting to form around things most Americans actually agree on. Most Americans want control over their bodies. Most Americans want leaders who understand their struggles.
We want freedom from religious persecution. We want to trust the news. We want responsible leadership. People may come at those ideas from different places, but they’re shared ideals. They’re shared outcomes that we have in common.
I don’t think people who support President Trump are there because they want authoritarianism. I think they’re there because they want change. They know the system is broken, just like people who don’t support Donald Trump.
We disagree on why the system is broken and how to fix it.
Another thing that gives me hope is candidates who actually speak to that brokenness and offer concrete ways to improve people’s lives. I’m thinking of Mayor Mamdani’s recent election and campaign. When candidates offer real solutions, voters respond, even if the candidates themselves seem imperfect.
In many 2025 elections, we saw people voting for different kinds of leaders than they typically would, because they were hungry for something to shift and look different.
The fact that people across the political spectrum are saying, “This isn’t working, we need to do something different,” makes me optimistic.
That recognition, that shared understanding, shows we do have a collective affirmative vision. And I think that’s the first step.
Martha Engber: Wonderful. I’m all for hope. Thanks, Ade.
Ade Salami: Thank you, Martha.
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
Though I belong to Braver Angels, a national nonprofit committed to depolarization through civil dialogue and action, I’m also a member of my local Braver Angels alliance here in Silicon Valley.
Every quarter we arrange an online discussion via Zoom to talk through timely, often difficult, subjects with people of different viewpoints.
The topic for the next discussion is America’s recent military action in Venezuela.
I’ll be part of the conversation and invite you to attend as well by signing up. You don’t have to be a Braver Angels member or live locally.
If you can’t attend, I’ve gathered some basic background below and invite you to share your perspective.
One of the core principles of Braver Angels is that democracy works better when citizens wrestle honestly with facts, uncertainty, and disagreement, rather than letting conflict entrepreneurs do our thinking.
If you’d like to find your local Braver Angels alliance, you can do so here.
Venezuela: A Brief Snapshot
Venezuela is located on the northern coast of South America and is bordered by Colombia to the west, Brazil to the south, Guyana to the east, and the Caribbean Sea to the north. Its geographic position gives it access to major Atlantic shipping routes.
The country has a population of roughly 28 million people, though that number has fluctuated in recent years due to a mass migration. According to the United Nations and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), nearly 7.9 million Venezuelans had fled and were living abroad as refugees or migrants by mid-2025, with the vast majority in neighboring Latin American and Caribbean countries. That represents roughly 20% of Venezuela’s population, making it one of the largest emigration in the world.
Venezuela possesses some of the world’s most extensive mineral and natural resource reserves. Most notably, it holds the largest proven oil reserves on the planet, concentrated largely in the Orinoco Belt. Venezuela also has significant deposits of natural gas, gold, iron ore, bauxite, coltan, and diamonds, making it one of the most resource-rich countries in the Western Hemisphere.
Historically, Venezuela’s economy has depended heavily on oil exports, which at times accounted for more than 90 percent of export revenue. Other exports have included petroleum products, petrochemicals, iron ore, steel, aluminum, and, to a lesser extent, agricultural goods such as coffee and cacao.
As for its democratic history, Venezuela functioned as a representative democracy for approximately 40 years, from 1958 to the late 1990s, following the fall of military dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez. Democratic institutions began to erode after Hugo Chávez’s election in 1998. Many scholars and international organizations argue that Venezuela ceased to be a full democracy by the mid-2000s and had transitioned into an authoritarian system by the 2010s.
How Nicolás Maduro Came to Power
Hugo Chávez was elected president in 1998 on a populist, anti-elite platform and soon set about remaking Venezuela’s political system. Through constitutional changes, nationalizations, and an increasingly centralized executive, Chávez concentrated power in the presidency while tying the country’s fortunes tightly to oil revenues. For a time, high oil prices masked deeper structural problems.
When Chávez died of cancer in 2013, his chosen successor, Nicolás Maduro, narrowly won a special election. Unlike Chávez, Maduro lacked both charisma and broad legitimacy. As oil prices fell and mismanagement worsened, Venezuela entered a prolonged economic crisis marked by hyperinflation, shortages of basic goods, and the exodus of millions of citizens.
Over time, Maduro consolidated power by sidelining opposition-led institutions, jailing or disqualifying rivals, and relying heavily on the military and security services. Elections continued to be held, but many international observers—including the U.S. and European Union—argued they no longer met basic democratic standards.
A timeline of U.S. Involvement
Tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela have existed for decades, particularly after Hugo Chávez aligned the country with our adversaries and explicitly framed his political project as a rejection of American influence in Latin America.
In the years following Nicolás Maduro’s rise to power in 2013:
The U.S. imposed targeted sanctions on Venezuelan officials accused of corruption, human rights abuses, and the erosion of democratic institutions.
Broader economic sanctions followed, especially on Venezuela’s oil sector, with the stated goal of pressuring the Maduro government to negotiate political reforms or step aside.
In 2019, the U.S. recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó, then head of the National Assembly, as Venezuela’s legitimate interim president, arguing that Maduro’s re-election was unconstitutional. This move deepened Venezuela’s internal legitimacy crisis and split international recognition.
Diplomatic pressure intensified, alongside overt and covert efforts to weaken Maduro’s support among military and political elites.
The situation escalated further after the 2024 presidential election, which the opposition and many international observers argue was won by Edmundo González Urrutia, the unity candidate backed by Venezuela’s democratic opposition. Venezuela’s electoral authorities nevertheless declared Maduro the winner, a result rejected by the opposition and several foreign governments.
A central figure in this period is María Corina Machado, a longtime Venezuelan opposition leader who was barred from running in 2024 but played a key role in unifying the opposition behind González.
Machado was awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her sustained, nonviolent efforts to restore democratic governance in Venezuela. She has publicly supported U.S. pressure—and President Trump’s decision to remove Maduro—as a means of enforcing what she and others view as the legitimate outcome of the 2024 election.
Was it against international law for the U.S. to depose Nicolás Maduro?
Most international law experts and institutions say the U.S. action in Venezuela likely violated international law, primarily because it involved the use of force against a sovereign state without lawful justification. Here’s how that is assessed under key legal frameworks:
The U.N .Charter states that all U.N. member states—including the United States—can’t use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state unless:
the action is taken in self-defense against an armed attack, or
the U.N. Security Council explicitly authorizes force.
Legal scholars have pointed out that Venezuela did not launch an armed attack against the U.S. that would qualify as self-defense. There was no U.N. Security Council mandate authorizing the U.S. military operation or regime change.
U.S. Perspective: Potential Advantages/Disadvantages of Regime Change
Advantages
Reintegration of Venezuelan Oil into Global Markets Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves—more than 300 billion barrels—making it a potentially huge source of crude if production can be restored. Also, a friendly government might reopen access to these reserves for U.S. and allied firms, improving long-term energy supply and diversification.
Geopolitical and Energy Leverage Control over Venezuelan oil could strengthen U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere and reduce the sway of rival powers (e.g., China, Russia) that currently buy most Venezuelan exports. It could also support U.S. refiners—especially on the Gulf Coast—that are configured to process heavy crude like Venezuela’s.
Strategic and Economic Expansion U.S. energy companies could gain access to vast unconventional resources, potentially drawing significant investment and long-term economic activity. Increased production capacity could, over years, help buffer global supply and potentially lower fuel prices if infrastructure is rebuilt.
Disadvantages
Massive Cost and Time to Restore Oil Production Venezuela’s oil infrastructure has been severely degraded by mismanagement and sanctions. Restoring significant production would likely require *tens of billions of dollars and many years of investment. And even with regime change, meaningful increases in output wouldn’t be immediate, so short-term energy benefits are uncertain.
Humanitarian and Market Risks Forcible intervention to access oil could further disrupt Venezuela’s economy and deepen humanitarian suffering, fueling migration and instability. Sudden shifts in supply expectations can cause market volatility, affecting global prices and creating uncertainty for producers and consumers alike.
Legal and Ethical Concerns Using military force primarily to secure another country’s natural resources risks violating international norms and could damage U.S. credibility with allies. Violations of sovereignty can provoke diplomatic backlash.
Geopolitical Backlash Rivals like China and Russia—which have deep energy and financial ties to Venezuela—might resist U.S. efforts, potentially leading to broader geopolitical tension. A perception of resource-driven intervention could alienate neighboring Latin American states and undermine broader regional relationships.
Market and Environmental Complexities Venezuela’s crude is mainly heavy oil, which is more expensive to produce and refine, requiring additional processing and investment. Also, a ramp-up in production without strong environmental oversight could worsen pollution and ecological harm.
My questions for you
Are you in favor of the U.S. ousting Maduro, and if so, why?
Do you think the action was legal?
What do you think is the primary reason the current administration took this action?
Do you think this is a one-off maneuver for the administration, or that it might seek to remove leaders in other countries?
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant PositivityFacebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
If you’re looking for a positive way forward in these troubled times in America, join the 80% of us Americans — Democrats, Republicans, Independents — who are saddened and disgusted by current events and join the Common Ground Movement and Braver Angels in particular, a bipartisan nonprofit dedicated to civil discussion and action.
Below are the powerful call-to-action comments of Maury Giles, the CEO, about the killing of Alex Pretti. He sent them as an email to those on the BA mailing list, but we need to get the message out to those who don’t know about the organization and are looking for a positive alternative to our current political parties.
Jan. 26 message from Maury Giles
I had just finished drafting this message when I read and watched videos of Alex Jeffrey Pretti being shot to death by ICE agents in Minneapolis. I felt a rush of anxiety, fear, and sadness; but, still, I was hoping it wasn’t true. It was; and it is our reality today.
Dr. Dimitri Drekonja, Pretti’s co-worker at the VA Medical Center, expressed the point on which I hope we all agree, no matter how you view ICE: “There is no reason for a guy like that to be dead, let alone to be killed by the agents of a government that employed him.”
➔ Two deaths in three weeks in Minneapolis.
➔ U.S. federal officers killing American citizens.
➔ Protestors storming church services with families and young children present.
➔ Local and federal officials arguing instead of talking, and leading, together.
So many reactions. So many questions. So many feelings.
Two things are on my mind right now about what is happening in Minneapolis:
What it means for our country and Braver Angels; and
The impact this reality, and the work we do, is having on each of us individually.
I want to start here: What we see in Minneapolis right now is a harsh but true reflection of us as a people.
Intense conflict requires an equal force in response to be resolved; and that force can take very different forms. It can be domination (power and control) or connection (patience, perseverance, and perspective).
I believe it is that simple.
Right now, “we the people” seem to prioritize “tribal interests” over the interests of all. With every emergent conflict, we are choosing domination (or apathy) over connection. It doesn’t matter if the point is destroying the “other side” or checking out as if one has no individual part in the play of our national drama. In both, we choose a path that does not lead to a better America.
Braver Angels’ quest is to inspire people to embrace a way of being because they see it as a genuine pathway to heal society and make a better world. While other groups rightfully advocate for specific solutions or organize protests, Braver Angels focuses on the methods of how we reach those answers. We do it with discipline.
Within our membership people have very different ideas about public policy solutions. That is by design. We aspire to the hard work of engaging across differences to build together. We choose connection over domination.
Think about it. Our individual choices are what matter. No public official, political party, or institution can or will make this change alone without us. They can lead, invite and teach. Or they can, as most seem to do today, incite more anger and more division.
We can choose to go against the grain. Find those with whom we disagree and do the difficult work of learning, sharing, and building. Together. The more intense the conflict, the more effort is required to build a common solution. This is the Braver Angels Way.
Let me close on the very personal, human impact on trying to do this work.
I can’t help but feel the strain. I am as stretched as I’ve ever felt, right now. I know you must feel variations of the same. For me, it is a daily (and sometimes hourly) battle to keep things in perspective, determine what is in my control, and act. My most effective aids right now are family, exercise and study routines, breathing practices, meditation, and think time. Find yours.
In these times, I find there is no replacement for this idea: keep on keeping on… put one foot in front of the other. Sometimes those steps are fast, sometimes we need to slow down (and I ask the same of you). Recognize the challenges, celebrate the victories big and small, give each other the grace these times require. Through it all, let’s keep our eyes on the vision of an America at peace with itself, where courageous citizenship is the norm.
I choose to pray. You may or may not have that practice. But I believe you’ll understand my intent: I pray for peace, wisdom, strength, courage, and patience. Then I get to work.
Walk with me. One foot in front of the other. Shoulder to shoulder.
It’s worth it.
I am so proud to be on this mission with you. Even, and especially, right now. Look for a series of convenings we will be leading with others in our sector.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
When I started watching 13th, a documentary by Ava DuVernay, I had to turn it off because her handling of why America has the highest incarceration rate per capita in the world is brutal. Or rather, the history she exposes is brutal. I forced myself to watch the movie in 10-minute segments over the course of a few months.
I’m still processing what I learned.
The premise of the movie is this: the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was meant to abolish slavery, included a single phrase that’s allowed slavery to continue through our prison system. In specific, the amendment, which passed in January of 1865 after the Civil War, includes this loophole:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
That meant if anyone in authority needed free labor, they simply had to find reasons to imprison people.
5 Reasons for Watching the Movie
While my introduction may have discouraged you from watching the movie, I’ll suggest you do so anyway—and recommend the movie to political movie discussion clubs—for the following reasons. Understanding the current numbers
13th makes clear the extreme nature of America’s incarceration problem
With about 2 million people imprisoned, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any country, including China, which has a billion more people. Our prison population represents 20 percent of the total world’s incarcerated population (195 countries).
Tens of millions more Americans live with criminal records that affect their ability to work, vote, or find housing.
Race sits at the center of these numbers. Black Americans make up about 13 percent of the U.S. population but roughly 38 percent of the prison population. Latino Americans are also incarcerated at disproportionately high rates. Black men, in particular, face a lifetime likelihood of imprisonment that is several times higher than that of white men.
The film doesn’t argue that crime doesn’t exist. Instead, it asks why enforcement, sentencing, and punishment fall so unevenly—and why those disparities have remained stubbornly consistent across decades and political administrations.
Understanding how we got here
One of the most unsettling aspects of 13th is how methodically it traces the system’s evolution. After the Civil War, Southern states passed “Black Codes” that criminalized everyday behaviors, such as vagrancy, loitering, not having proof of employment. Arrests surged, and states leased prisoners to private companies for labor in mines, farms, and factories. Slavery, in practice, continued under a new legal name.
When overt racial laws became politically untenable, the mechanisms changed but the outcomes did not. Jim Crow laws enforced segregation through policing and incarceration. Later, the “law and order” politics of the 1960s and 1970s reframed racial fear as crime fear.
The War on Drugs accelerated everything. Mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes laws, and sentencing disparities—most famously between crack and powder cocaine—dramatically increased prison populations without reducing drug use. Private prisons emerged. Entire rural economies became dependent on incarceration. Tough-on-crime rhetoric replaced nuanced policy discussions.
The film’s central insight is that none of this was accidental. These systems were built, expanded, and defended through legislation, lobbying, and political messaging.
Realizing the economic reasons to make change
Beyond fairness and morality, there are practical reasons to rethink mass incarceration. Incarceration is extraordinarily expensive. States and the federal government spend tens of billions of dollars each year on prisons and jails. Housing one incarcerated person can cost anywhere from $30,000 to over $100,000 annually, depending on the state and the level of medical care required.
We taxpayers bear those costs, while the benefits often flow elsewhere. Private prison companies, surveillance and security contractors, and vendors supplying food, healthcare, and telecommunications profit from incarceration. Meanwhile, families lose income earners, children grow up with parents behind bars, and communities lose social stability.
Research consistently shows that alternatives—education, mental health treatment, substance-abuse programs, and reentry support—are far cheaper and far more effective at reducing recidivism. Keeping people productive and families intact isn’t just humane; it’s fiscally responsible.
Seeing how narratives shape policy
The film shows how media portrayals of crime—often racially coded—helped create public support for harsher laws. From campaign ads to nightly news broadcasts, fear became a political tool. Once crime was framed as a moral failing rather than a social problem, punishment became the default response.
This matters because policy follows perception. If incarcerated people are seen primarily as “criminals” rather than as citizens, neighbors, or family members, it becomes easier to justify systems that warehouse them indefinitely.
Understanding the need to take action
Often when we watch history that makes us feel bad about our country, the temptation is to blame our ancestors, one political party, one region, one ideology.
But blame achieves nothing.
Here are ideas about how to change the system.
Change what we reward politically
Mass incarceration didn’t grow because voters demanded prisons; it grew because “tough on crime” reliably won elections. To change that outcome:
Vote in local elections, especially for district attorneys, judges, sheriffs, and county supervisors. These offices control charging decisions, plea bargains, bail practices, and jail budgets.
Support prosecutors who commit to data-driven reforms, such as diversion programs, declining to prosecute low-level offenses, and ending cash bail for nonviolent charges.
Pay attention to judicial races, which often fly under the radar but shape sentencing for decades.
Shrink the system at its entry points
The most effective way to reduce incarceration is to stop feeding people into the system in the first place. Here are policy changes we can make.
End cash bail for nonviolent offenses, which criminalizes poverty rather than danger.
Decriminalize low-level offenses, especially drug possession and status crimes.
Expand pre-arrest diversion, allowing police to refer people to treatment, mediation, or social services instead of jail.
Raise the age of juvenile prosecution and eliminate juvenile transfers to adult court.
Replace punishment with prevention where evidence is clear
Decades of research show that many drivers of crime are predictable and treatable.
We can encourage less incarceration by supporting leaders who support these measures:
Mental health and addiction treatment
Stable housing and supportive services
Early childhood education and after-school programs
Violence interruption and community mediation programs
Reduce the length of sentences, not just admissions
America doesn’t just imprison people, but also keeps them incarcerated for unusually long periods.
Here are ideas about how to change that:
Eliminate mandatory minimums
Expand earned-time credits for education and rehabilitation
Restore parole and meaningful sentence review
Make elderly and medical parole routine, not exceptional
Cut the financial incentives behind incarceration
The “prison industrial complex” persists because incarceration is profitable for some and politically safe for others.
Consider voting for leaders in favor of the following:
Ban or sharply restrict private prisons and detention centers
End per-diem jail contracts that reward higher occupancy
Require transparency around prison labor and vendor contracts
Oppose rural prison expansion projects disguised as “economic development”
Restore rights and pathways after incarceration
Once American repay their debt to society, they should be able to re-enter society without the stigma of being a convict.
Key reforms include:
Automatic record sealing for nonviolent offenses
Restore voting rights upon release
Ban discrimination in housing and employment for old convictions
Change the narrative about crime and accountability
Fear-based narratives sustain punitive systems going. We can shift that culture via the following:
Challenge language that dehumanizes incarcerated people
Support journalism and storytelling that shows complexity, not caricature
Frame reform as public safety plus fairness, not one versus the other
My questions for you
Do you think our criminal justice system needs to be reformed, and if so, how? How carefully do you examine a candidate’s stance on criminal justice during elections?
Conclusion
13th is not an easy watch, and it’s not meant to be. It challenges viewers to confront a history that is uncomfortable precisely because it is ongoing. But discomfort can be clarifying. By understanding how the system works, how it was built, and who it serves, we gain the ability to imagine—and demand—something better.
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant PositivityFacebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
I first heard about Australia’s new ban on social media for kids under 16 via NPR on Dec. 10, the day it went into effect. Amazed, I found myself asking deeper questions: Would something like this make sense for American children? Would American parents agree with it? And if most parents said yes, could U.S. lawmakers — especially those with ties to social-media companies and ad-driven business interests — actually pass such a law?
Australia
Australia’s groundbreaking law—born of the Online Safety Amendment passed in late 2024—prohibits children under 16 from creating or maintaining social media accounts on major platforms, including TikTok, Facebook/Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, X, Threads, Twitch, and more. Platforms that fail to verify age and block under-16 access can face fines of millions of Australian dollars.
The goal is to protect young people from the many problems we all know about: online bullying, harmful content exposure, grooming behavior, addictive design features, and mental health risks.
These risks were highlighted in government-commissioned research that found the vast majority of children aged 10–15 used social media and many had encountered harmful content.
Polls in Australia showed broad public support for the legislation, with some surveys finding as many as 70–77% of Australians backing the ban at the time of its enactment.
Critics argue the ban may be technically difficult to enforce, could push teens toward more hidden or unregulated online spaces, and may isolate vulnerable youth, like those who identify as LGBTQ+, who rely on digital communities for support.
Other Countries
While Australia is the first to implement a nationwide ban, other countries are pondering how to curtail problems related to social media use by kids.
France has proposed stricter controls with parental consent, though not a full ban yet. Beyond Europe, ideas ranging from smartphone bans for younger children to content-time limits are being discussed.
America
Proven harm and public health concerns
Decades of research—including advisories from the U.S. Surgeon General—show strong associations between social media use and a range of mental health challenges for children and teens. This includes links to depression, anxiety, poor sleep, and exposure to harmful content. While causation is complex, the correlations are well documented. (“Social Media and Mental Health in Children and Teens,” Johns Hopkins Medicine).
The issue creates a generational divide. Youths are often less likely to support restrictive policies than adults.
Would American Parents Back a Ban?
Survey data suggests a significant portion of U.S. parents support restrictions on kids’ social media use, though not necessarily a full ban like Australia’s.
Around 58% of U.S. parents said they would support a ban on social media for children under 16 (Family Online Safety Institute).
Other polls show broad support of 70–80% for parental consent and strict age verification before minors can sign up for social media (Pew Research Center).
Separate research indicates many parents believe legislation is needed to protect children online.
These numbers illustrate that a majority of parents are concerned and would likely back stricter limits, but there is still nuance and not universal agreement on an outright ban (Security.org).
Proposals like the Kids Off Social Media Act have been introduced in Congress, aiming to prohibit kids under 13 from social media and restrict algorithmic recommendation systems for older teens. These bills have bipartisan support in committee stages but have not yet become law.
However, a national ban on social media use for kids under 16 in the U.S. faces major hurdles:
Tech industry influence: Social media companies and advertising networks wield significant political and economic clout, and they tend to lobby against sweeping restrictions (Business Insider).
Legislative complexity: Age verification raises privacy concerns and technical challenges that lawmakers and companies are still debating.
Business interests: Platforms profit heavily from youth engagement because younger users represent a large, tightly targeted ad market.
Who Would Oppose It?
Big Tech companies and their trade groups, which argue that parental empowerment and education are better solutions.
Civil liberties advocates who warn about censorship, surveillance, and digital rights.
Some parents and teens who worry about cutting off supportive online communities.
My two cents
Australia’s ban is definitely a global test of how far governments might go to protect children in the digital age. In the U.S., a majority of parents might be open to stricter rules, but the dynamics of politics, corporate power, civil liberties, and youth culture make a direct copy of the Australian model improbable.
But I do think here in America we could develop comprehensive legislation and enforcement safeguards that protect kids from the kind of heinous damage we’ve already seen.
We could gradually introduce the program over several years in consideration of kids who are already used to the technology, so they don’t feel cut off. We could also introduce community programs for LGBTQ+ kids, and other vulnerable populations, so they can connect with one another.
Whatever path we choose, it has to balance protection with freedom, parental authority with corporate influence, and youth wellbeing with digital opportunity.
No small task, but something should be done.
My question for you?
Which of the following options would you support, if any?
a ban on social media for kids under a certain age
tighter restrictions and better enforcement
no ban and no restrictions other than what’s currently in place
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
No matter your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, I hope you’re enjoying the holiday season, a time in our country where we give ourselves permission to lay back, relax, and spend time with others.
I’m doing the same as I delight in the arrival of my first grandchild.
I restarted this blog a year ago, before my grandson was conceived, with the purpose of making the world a better place by doing my part to help reverse the polarization perpetrated by so many people who do not have Americans’ best interest at heart. Because all kids should have the best possible future.
The journey has reinforced my belief that we humans are a tricky species that constantly think up new ways to decrease our chance of survival. That makes a certain amount of sense, given we’re 80% emotional and 20% logical, an approximate ratio underpinning a widely acknowledged core principle that emotions play a fundamental, often dominant, role in human behavior (“Emotion and Logic,” Psychology Today, July 12, 2012).
My hope that we can turn things around, despite our biology, stems from my experience of flipping my anger and outrage at those with different political views into understanding that we all share the desire to live happy, healthy lives with families we love. Therein lies my will to wake others to the benefits of exercising the goodness within us.
Over 52 posts later, and a dozen interviews with smart people about efforts to reverse course, here’s to another year of getting people to embrace their best selves.
Happy holidays!
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear Trump v. Barbara, a case that challenges birthright citizenship in America. That right was originally affirmed in 1898 in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which stated that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution makes anyone born in the U.S. a citizen. That includes children of foreign nationals.
Our leadership’s talk of ending birthright citizenship, which I’d always assumed was a cornerstone of U.S. law, got me curious to learn more.
The 14th Amendment
The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
That clause was put to the test in the 1898 case in which Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco, was denied reentry to America after visiting China. The Court ruled his citizenship legitimate and clarified that his parents’ citizenship status didn’t matter. The logic was straightforward: if you are born on U.S. soil and are subject to U.S. laws, you are a citizen. That interpretation has remained largely unquestioned.
But Trump v. Barbara signals that this once-settled foundation may be up for reevaluation.
Trump v. Barbara
Trump v. Barbara challenges a recent Executive Order 14160 , issued by the president on Jan. 20, 2025, that seeks to limit birthright citizenship in the United States.
Summary and Status of Executive Order 14160
The order aims to deny citizenship at birth to kids born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
Multiple federal district courts, including in Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, issued nationwide preliminary injunctions shortly after the order was issued, blocking its enforcement.
In one of the key lawsuits, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and allied groups filed for class-wide relief. On July 10, 2025, a federal judge in New Hampshire granted a nationwide class certification and enjoined the order’s enforcement for all people born, or about to be born, under the terms of the order.
On October 3, 2025, a federal appeals court upheld the block on the executive order in a related case. As of now, the order remains unenforceable for the people protected by the courts’ injunctions. The nationwide blocks prevent federal agencies from denying citizenship at birth under the terms of the order.
It should be noted that no federal agency collects or publishes data to track how many births occur to non‑citizen or non‑permanent‑resident parents. Therefore, any estimate used in the media or by advocacy groups, should be treated as speculative.
Why the Court Accepted the Case
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Trump v. Barbara likely stems from the case’s extraordinary constitutional and national stakes.
The Court has never fully resolved birthright citizenship with respect to children of undocumented or temporarily present immigrants.
As noted above, lower courts halted the order nationwide through a certified national class action, creating both procedural and separation-of-powers questions the justices may feel compelled to clarify.
The case also forces the court to address the contested meaning of the Citizenship Clause, the reach of executive authority over immigration, and the relationship between constitutional guarantees and statutory citizenship law.
In short, the court may see this moment as an unavoidable opportunity to settle a foundational question about who is an American.
Countries That Have Birthright Citizenship
Though many Americans like myself had assumed birthright citizenship is globally standard, it’s getting less prevalent. Only a minority of countries continue to grant unconditional jus soli (“right of the soil”) citizenship. Most are in the Americas—Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and nearly every Latin American country. America remains one of the few developed nations that maintains full birthright citizenship.
The U.K., Ireland, Australia, France, and New Zealand all ended or narrowed birthright citizenship between the 1980s and early 2000s. Many now require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal permanent resident. Globally, the shift reflects growing pressure to control immigration and ensure that citizenship aligns with legal or familial ties rather than geography alone.
Benefits and Costs of Birthright Citizenship
For supporters, birthright citizenship embodies clarity and fairness. A child’s legal identity is certain the moment they enter the world, meaning no risk of statelessness. That simplicity reduces administrative burdens for the government and gives families, especially those with mixed-status immigration situations, a secure foundation from the start.
Economically, children born in the U.S. generally grow up to contribute to the workforce, pay taxes, and participate fully in civic life. Many analysts note that unconditional citizenship helps integrate communities rather than push them into long-term marginalization.
But critics point to perceived costs. Some argue that the policy acts as a magnet for unauthorized immigration, encouraging people to enter the country illegally in hopes that their U.S.-born child will have a legal foothold. Others point to strains on healthcare, education, and social services in border states or high-migration regions. Whether these concerns are driven by data or politics depends on whom you ask, but they form the backbone of the modern challenge.
Arguments for Reevaluating Birthright Citizenship
The push to revisit birthright citizenship generally falls into three categories:
Interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Opponents argue that the 14th Amendment was never intended to cover children of people who entered the country illegally or who lack long-term ties to the nation. They claim Congress, not the courts, should clarify the law.
Modern immigration pressures Advocates for change point to increased global mobility. For them, citizenship should be linked to legal presence or allegiance, not simply geography.
Alignment with international norms. As more countries move away from unconditional birthright citizenship, some argue the U.S. should follow suit to reduce incentives for “birth tourism” and better harmonize with other developed nations.
My two cents
When researching this topic, I had a number of thoughts:
We humans get used to how things have always been done, but reevaluation of those ideas seems necessary to allow for changing realities.
To me, the idea of ending birthright citizenship seemed unkind and unwelcoming. Yet there are real costs associated with a policy that might encourage some non-citizens to emigrate to the U.S. with the intent of having children who are then granted automatic citizenship and the rights associated with that status.
The reason the Supreme Court may feel the need to take up Trump v. Barbara comes down to the same problem that currently plagues our country: Congress has abdicated its role to create new and better policies. Neither the president nor the Supreme Court should be deciding such foundational issues. Instead, Congress should do what so many of us Americans want, overhaul our immigration system where the rules are clear, logical, fair and transparent.
My Question For You
What are your arguments for ending, or continuing, birthright citizenship?
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
I’m always on the prowl to interview a wide variety of people within the Common Ground Movement to get perspectives I haven’t heard. When I was referred to Jason Vadnos, I leapt at the opportunity to talk with a college student who eloquently tuned me in to what he’s seeing and hearing regarding Gen Zers’ worries about—and hopes for—the future.
Jason is a junior at Vanderbilt University. Passionate about strengthening youth interest in civic engagement, he’s the campus leader for Let’s Be SVL,a pilot program launched this year by More Like US, a national nonprofit that works to close the change — for the better — the way people on different sides of the political spectrum look at one another. After college, he hopes to continue his work on depolarization and civic engagement through a career in either higher education or the nonprofit sector where he can provide students with the skills and knowledge they need to revitalize our democracy. Currently he’s both an Obama-Chesky Voyager Scholar for Public Service and a Riley’s Way Foundation Call for Kindness Fellow.
___
Martha Engber: I recently interviewed James Coan, the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. When did you get connected to the organization, and why?
Jason Vadnos: Great question, and thank you again for inviting me, Martha. I first met James two summers ago, in 2023. I was spending the summer in Washington, D.C., where James is based. At the time, I was interning with my university’s Office of Federal Relations, essentially our lobbying arm for the national government.
I’d developed an interest in civil discourse and dialogue after getting involved in a Vanderbilt initiative called Dialogue Vanderbilt, which helps students build the skills they need for productive conversations. So I started looking for DC-area organizations committed to productive dialogue and reducing political polarization. I came across James, we met that summer, and we’ve stayed in regular contact for the past two years. That relationship led to the launch of this new initiative. fgen z
Martha Engber: As mentioned, the organization is piloting a program called Let’s Be SVL. SVL is an acronym for Stories, Values, and Listen. As the campus leader, can you tell us how it works and why it’s necessary?
Jason Vadnos: Absolutely. Let’s Be SVL was co-designed by James and me, and draws from a wide range of research on psychology, politics, and conversation. It’s essentially an easy, memorable framework people can use when they’re having contentious conversations or conversations across difference: use stories, connect through values, and listen.
We wanted to bring this to higher education, which in recent years has faced tough challenges, from the Israel-Palestine protests to concerns about a lack of conservative viewpoints being uplifted on campuses. Universities are launching dialogue programs, including the one at Vanderbilt, but those initiatives often have limited scope. They tend to involve long workshops, attract only a small segment of students, and require sustained commitment.
We asked ourselves, “What’s an effective way to teach many students how to have better conversations?” Let’s Be SVL became that framework. Our main investment is in mass media and messaging campaigns—social media, flyers, tabling in public spaces—ways to reach large groups of students at once. Students don’t have to self-select into workshops; the tools simply meet them where they are.
Martha Engber: So if programs are too involved, they attract only people who already have the time or interest. You’re trying to reach a much wider population.
Jason Vadnos: Precisely.
Martha Engber: And what kinds of messages are you putting out?
Jason Vadnos: Let’s be civil is the core message. It embodies the strategy: use storytelling as a point of connection, relate to shared values, because to have a persuasive conversation, you need to know what the other person cares about. And, of course, listen. Truly listening helps you understand and show respect for the person you’re engaging with.
On social media and flyers, we’ll have a big graphic that says something like, “Having a difficult conversation? Be SVL,” followed by prompts to use stories, values, and listening. We also share related messages, such as “The other side is more civil than you think,” or “People are more curious and open to common ground than you assume.” But Let’s be SVL is our anchor.
Martha Engber: What changes have you been seeing, if any?
Jason Vadnos: We’re in the middle of studying that. As part of the pilot, we’re running surveys to understand the dialogue environment at Vanderbilt. We’ve launched a pre-test measuring dialogue skills, habits, attitudes, and levels of affective political polarization. As our messaging rolls out, we’ll conduct a post-test to see how exposure to the campaign affects students’ willingness to talk across differences, actual behavior—whether they’re engaging more with people from the other side—and whether they’re feeling less fear or hostility. We don’t have analysis to share yet, but the process is underway.
Martha Engber: Have you personally shared stories? Are there videos circulating of people talking to each other?
Jason Vadnos: Yes. Instagram is one of our primary tools. It’s the dominant youth platform and widely used at Vanderbilt for news and updates. We’re building content that includes man-on-the-street–style interviews about politically divisive topics, modeled using the SVL framework so both people feel respected and productive in the conversation.
We also have videos explaining what Let’s Be SVL is, why it works, and the research behind it. We’re actively expanding that social media presence.
Martha Engber: Have you seen any anecdotal evidence of people changing their perceptions? Maybe a roommate or someone down the hall? What transformations have you witnessed?
Jason Vadnos: Absolutely. Universities are hotbeds for contentious issues. Most recently, Vanderbilt was one of nine universities selected by the federal government to potentially sign a proposed compact that would change university policies in exchange for preferential access to federal grant funding. The moment this became public, campus reaction was fast and intense. Some students said, “We must reject this.” Others said, “Let’s negotiate.” Some thought the compact sounded great. It quickly split the student body, sparking protests and marches.
We used the SVL framework to help students talk through their perspectives on the compact and explore what a productive university response might look like. We brought students with a range of views into conversations—sometimes at events, sometimes informally outside the main cafeteria—and gave them a simple structure for discussing a politically divisive issue.
Afterward, students reported that they better understood how someone could hold a different perspective. They gained insight into how people’s backgrounds shaped their views and felt less immediate hostility toward one another. Suddenly, someone who supported the compact wasn’t “evil,” and someone who opposed it wasn’t “ignorant.” They were simply fellow students trying to figure out the best path forward.
Martha Engber: That leads into the perception gap, which you touched on. Many people don’t know that term. Can you explain what the perception gap is and give an example?
Jason Vadnos: Absolutely. The perception gap is central to the work of More Like US. It describes the tendency for people to assume that those on the other side of the political aisle hold more extreme beliefs than they actually do.
For example, there are lots of studies—and on the More Like US website there’s a whole list of topics—showing where the perception gap appears. Take gun control. Many Democrats believe that around 80% of Republicans oppose all gun control laws. But in reality, it’s closer to 40–50%. I don’t remember the exact number off the top of my head, so definitely check the More Like Us website for specifics. But the point is that only about half of Republicans believe gun control should be very limited, and most actually support common-sense measures like safe ammo storage.
That’s the perception gap: one side assumes the other holds far more extreme views than they really do.
Martha Engber: And I don’t think people believe that until they see the statistics, do they?
Jason Vadnos: Right. We’re all stuck in our own partisan echo chambers where we’re told, “Everyone on the other side believes X.”
Without actual conversations across the aisle, it’s easy to assume the worst—that the other side is more extreme, more unanimous, more rigid than they truly are. But the data doesn’t support that, and when you do talk to people with different viewpoints, you see the gap for what it is.
Martha Engber: Have you ever experienced a perception gap yourself? And if so, what changed your view?
Jason Vadnos: I think everyone experiences it because none of us have perfect information. One example for me in the last couple of years involved institutional neutrality. This is the policy where universities say they won’t take public stances on political or social issues not directly tied to their mission.
I’ve always had some qualms about that. I thought that some supporters of institutional neutrality were simply trying to platform divisive or even hateful viewpoints. But I had the chance to sit in a dialogue circle with about 20 other students, and we spent 90 minutes talking about why we did or didn’t support the policy and what our concerns were.
I realized most people had much more nuanced views than I expected. And I saw that most of them were approaching the issue with good intentions. We all wanted to improve our community; we just had different ideas about how to do that. They had facts, experiences, and data that informed their views. I didn’t necessarily change my own position, but I came away with a much better understanding of why others believed what they did.
Martha Engber: And having that information makes you better able to negotiate solutions?
Jason Vadnos: Exactly. You need at least some common ground to work together.
If you assume the other side is extremely far from you, why even try? But once you understand the perception gap—and see that it doesn’t reflect reality—you’re able to collaborate toward solutions that actually work for everyone.
Martha Engber: I was curious—how do you think your generation differs politically from others?
Jason Vadnos: Gen Z is fascinating, and there’s lots of reporting on this because everyone wants to know: What is Gen Z thinking? What’s the future of democracy?
Personally and anecdotally, I think Gen Z is just as passionate—if not more passionate—about public issues, community problems, and global challenges as older generations. But the kinds of action we take look different.
Historically, civic engagement was measured by things like voting rates, and youth voting has been low for decades. Sometimes fewer than 40–50% of students vote even in national elections.
But while we may show up less at the ballot box, we’re creating change through social media activism, community problem-solving, and issue-based organizing. We’re deeply engaged—we’re just engaging differently.
Martha Engber: Is that passion driven by being confronted with so much more? Maybe like the 1960s, when there were many hot-button issues?
Jason Vadnos: That’s part of it. Climate change, for example, looms large for our generation. But I think the bigger factor is access to information. With the internet and social media, we constantly see everything that’s going wrong in the world. Historically, you might hear about major issues on the evening news, but your awareness was rooted in your local community. Now, information moves instantly. That makes Gen Z far more aware of global issues—and, as a result, more motivated to address them.
Martha Engber: Are they also aware of how that information is spun depending on who puts it out?
Jason Vadnos: Yes, though it’s a big challenge. Media literacy is essential, and young people know that.
Most Gen Zers are skeptical of anyone claiming to provide purely “fact-based” news. We understand that everyone—news outlets, influencers, commentators—has an agenda or narrative they’re trying to advance.
Gen Z has a pretty strong awareness of misinformation and disinformation, especially now with AI and deepfakes. Most young people know these things exist and feel we have to be critical and cautious about the information we consume.
Martha Engber: As someone who listens well and works on these issues, what worries do you hear most from your generation?
Jason Vadnos: We have a lot of worries. One major concern is that democracy isn’t working and hasn’t worked for us. We grew up in an era of extreme political division, minimal bipartisanship, and constant political conflict. And government has been less effective. Congress, for example, is passing historically few bills.
So many young people feel government isn’t serving us, and that we need to take action ourselves. That’s where community problem solving and mutual aid come in.
Another worry is about the survival of the American Dream, especially economically. Youth homeownership feels almost impossible. Compared to 50 years ago, it’s incredibly expensive and unrealistic for many my age.
And of course, global crises like climate change weigh heavily on us. People are thinking hard about what the world will look like in 40 or 50 years.
So yes, there’s a lot on our minds. But I’m hopeful because we’re working to change things.
Martha Engber: I’d love to communicate more regularly with people of your generation and younger. Do you have ideas about how to improve intergenerational discourse?
Jason Vadnos: Great question. And there are some people doing fantastic work on intergenerational connection. From our perspective as Gen Z, I think a few things need to happen.
One big issue is the narrative that Gen Z is apathetic—that we don’t care or we’re disengaged. Most young people know that isn’t true, but we hear it constantly from the media and from older generations. So if someone comes to the table saying, “Your generation doesn’t care about what’s happening in the world,” why would we want to engage or work toward solutions with them? Breaking down that narrative of apathy is really important.
It’s also essential to understand that Gen Z grew up in a radically different environment—technologically, socially, economically—than past generations. There have been plenty of reports claiming Gen Z is impossible to work with. People say, “We can’t get through to them,” or “They have different habits.”
But that doesn’t mean Gen Z is worse at working. We’re just different. Coming into conversations with a sincere desire to understand, recognizing the distinct challenges we’ve grown up with, and saying, “We value your voice and want to work with you,” is incredibly important. A lot of young people feel unheard.
Especially when we look at government and see leadership dominated by people in their seventies and eighties; people who don’t necessarily represent youth perspectives. All of these factors shape intergenerational dialogue.
Martha Engber: If you ever develop a program around this and get involved in that work, please let me know. I think it would be fascinating.
Jason Vadnos: Absolutely.
Martha Engber: What do you think would greatly decrease polarization in America? You must have ideas, since you’re so immersed in this.
Jason Vadnos: That’s a big question. I think there are three things worth highlighting. First, the work More Like US is doing on the perception gap shows that we’re not nearly as divided on issues and policies as we think we are. What we do have is a lot of affective polarization, the belief that the other side is evil, the enemy, ignorant, or totally unreasonable.
How we solve that is complicated. There’s no single solution. We need multiple interventions at different scales and in different places. But one of the most important foundations is education. That’s why I’m so passionate about Let’s Be SVL on college campuses.
We have to teach people how to engage with those who are different from them. Affective polarization grows from a lack of meaningful interaction with people who have different backgrounds, identities, lived experiences, and perspectives. The only way to bridge that gap is to give people the skills and knowledge to do it. We need to teach how to engage across difference productively, how to have better conversations about hot-button issues, and how to walk away feeling heard rather than angry or discouraged.
Education is at the heart of combating polarization. And it doesn’t only happen in schools. I’m a student, so I focus on my campus, but this learning can happen in workplaces, homes, churches, community centers—any communal space.
We should invest in programs that teach people how to have better conversations, how to engage across difference, and most importantly, why it matters.
If people don’t believe that conversation can lead to meaningful change, they won’t engage. And polarization won’t lessen. We have to show examples of people working across difference to create something positive in their communities.
Martha Engber: Do you think that effort would be enough to push back against the overwhelming negative messaging from conflict entrepreneurs?
Jason Vadnos: That’s a major challenge. In an ideal world, if we could reach all Americans at scale and depolarize through education, that would be a strong solution. But we know that’s not how reality works. Conflict entrepreneurs and political elites drive much of the narrative. They model our behavior.
So another thing we must do is change the incentive structure. Social media algorithms need to reward content that shows productive engagement across division—people working together—rather than hateful or spiteful rants. We also need our political leaders to model working across the aisle and to invest in bipartisan collaboration instead of calling each other evil. That kind of shift is critical. And it reinforces what I said earlier: there won’t be a single answer. We need multiple solutions working together.
Martha Engber: How hopeful are you that your work will have an impact? And what gives you that hope? You have a naturally positive attitude. But beyond that, what fuels your optimism? What have you seen or heard?
Jason Vadnos: What gives me hope is the everyday interactions I have with my peers on campus and beyond. Having the kinds of conversations I want others to have across the aisle, and seeing that young people who disagree with me or come from totally different backgrounds still want to improve the world. We’re all working on this together.
Those day-to-day experiences of working across differences are meaningful. They show me that if I can collaborate with someone I radically disagree with to solve a problem in our community, anyone can.
And in the past few months, there’s been great reporting showing that Gen Z truly does care deeply about our communities.
I mentioned the narrative of Gen Z apathy earlier, but now we’re seeing the opposite: clear evidence that young people are passionate about public issues and want to improve the world.
Knowing that people across the country—not just on my campus or in my hometown—are engaging with these issues gives me hope. We’re seeing youth-led solutions, youth-led projects, and initiatives that are improving communities every day. Reading about those efforts and seeing them firsthand gives me so much optimism.
And conversations like this give me hope too; knowing there are people everywhere who value youth voices and want Gen Z to help build a better world.
Martha Engber: I’ve really enjoyed talking with you. And again, if you develop an intergenerational program, put me on the list. I think you’re right—it’s incredibly important for us to talk to one another. One of the biggest things I’ve seen is the lack of youth voices in the programs I’ve been part of. So good on you for advancing that.
And thanks to those who listened to this episode. You can find a post and transcript of today’s interview on my blog, vigilantpositivity.wordpress.com. Please join our cause.
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant PositivityFacebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
Have you ever wished your community could tackle local problems without waiting for officials, agencies, or elected leaders to tell you what matters? Presumably you not only know, but have ideas about the solutions you’d like to see. Maybe your neighbors have the same ideas and aspirations, too, but don’t know where to start.
If that’s the case, what do you do?
What do we do?
One answer is to stop waiting for officials to offer solutions, and instead, see ourselves as the experts of our own communities.
The model makes sense, but we often get stuck on how to start. Who gathers the people and guides the process? How do we turn good conversations into real, on-the-ground action?
The leaders at Braver Angels, a national nonprofit dedicated to uniting Americans through civil discussion and action, think they’ve found a way forward called Citizen-Led Solutions (CLS) . The simple, yet ambitious, framework is built around the assumption that ordinary people, working with humility and trust, can solve local challenges better than anyone else.
The basics
Through CLS, Braver Angels makes the case that talk alone isn’t enough. While dialogue helps us understand one another, we want eventually want to do something, as in fix what’s broken. So why not to let us, but in the process, give us direction regarding the how?
The framework rests on the idea that though we citizens might not have gotten college degrees in how to run our local, state and national governments, that doesn’t mean we’re unskilled. Instead, we bring our knowledge, talents and enthusiasm into the process.
The first step is to build trust by finding common ground on what we want for our community. Once determined, the planning can commence. While experts can be brought in to provide data and resources, it’s our job to negotiate and craft solutions that honor everyone’s experience. The last step is to get the support necessary to get our solutions implemented.
The goal is to build “civic muscle” over time through those cycles of trust, design and action. Examples of the system might be solving a dangerous traffic intersection issue or turning a contested homeless shelter project into an affordable housing plan.
The concept upon which CLS rests is that democracy isn’t something we watch or consume. It’s something we do.
The challenges
Fragility of citizen-led projects
Braver Angels acknowledges that citizen-led work can be messy. There are false starts, confusing meetings and breakthroughs that go bust. Institutions more experienced in problem-solving might see chaos, rather than progress, and want to help by taking over, rather than offering help when it’s asked for and trusting the group will steer its own ship.
Overcoming polarization and trust
Polarization adds another layer of complexity. You can’t just gather neighbors and expect instant collaboration when half the room is convinced the other half is the problem. And even when experts join the effort with good intentions, they can inadvertently overshadow the very people the project is meant to empower. Maintaining true citizen leadership is a delicate balance.
Legitimacy and support
Citizen-led projects can be dismissed as small or symbolic: nice stories, but not “serious” work. Funders often want scale, predictability and measurable outcomes. Deliberative democracy doesn’t always offer that. What it does offer is community ownership and civic renewal, something not every institution knows is able to recognize.
The benefits
If the challenges look daunting, the good news is that they’re outweighed by the benefits.
A cultural shift
CLS is designed to shift civic culture and help communities move from hate to trust, hopelessness to agency, and from being — and I love this — “consumers of democracy” to “co-creators of democracy.”
Building “civic muscle”
As citizens go through repeated cycles of trust-building, designing solutions, and implementing them, they develop the real-world skills of facilitation, problem-solving and collaboration that help develop stronger relationships and confidence over time within the community.
Concrete, local change
Rather than just talking, CLS encourages action on projects we citizens identify as real problems.
Legitimizing Citizen Power
A key outcome is shifting how we think about democracy: not as something run by experts, but as something ordinary citizens own.
Other players in the field
If you’re looking beyond Braver Angels for organizations that facilitate citizen-led commissions, there’s a rich ecosystem out there.
This is the leading organization in the U.S. and is based at Stanford University.
The Lab specializes in Deliberative Polling®, a method that marries rigorous public-opinion research with structured, in-depth citizen deliberations. Their projects include large-scale experiments like “America in One Room,” where a demographically representative sample of citizens gathers to deliberate on national policy questions.
Through its work, the Lab not only provides empirical evidence about how public opinion shifts in moderated discussion, but also helps inform how democratic institutions can better incorporate citizen-led input.
This organization based at Franklin Pierce University shows what can be done at a state level to generate community dialogue and deliberative forums. They train facilitators, help citizens frame issues, and run public policy institutes.
The institute has been a pioneer in hosting deliberative forums for decades. These forums bring together ordinary citizens to talk through tough public policy issues and try to find common ground.
This organization connects facilitators, organizers, and researchers who run citizen assemblies, public deliberations, and similar processes. Their work helps build the infrastructure and best practices for these kinds of democratic innovations.
Globally, the Consortium connects dozens of organizations, universities, and civic practitioners who run or study assemblies. Their network helps scale democratic innovation across borders and contexts.
On the international stage, the World Wide Views Alliance convenes thousands of citizens across many countries to deliberate on global challenges like climate change. The results feed into major international policy discussions.
My questions for you
What issues would you like to see solved in your community?
Would you be willing to sit on a citizen commission?
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
Vigilant Positivity 