This is a followup interview with Dr. Beth Malow, a neurologist, and former Rep. Doug Teschner, R-New Hampshire, both of whom I spoke with earlier this year (see Citizen Spotlight: Beth Malow and Citizen Spotlight: Doug Teschner).
I featured Beth and Doug on separate occasions, and brought them together for an update on their recently-released book, “Beyond the Politics of Contempt: Practical Steps to Build Positive Relationships in Divided Times,” which they co-wrote with Becky Robinson. All are members of Braver Angels, a national nonprofit dedicated to uniting Americans through civil discussion, and maintain the Together Across Differences Substack newsletter. You can find the review of their book here.
Read the transcript below or watch the full interview on the Vigilant Positivity YouTube channel.
Martha Engber: Beth, can you start by giving us an update on the book? How’s it being received?
Beth Malow: Very well. We released it on September 9th, and we’ve been excited by how many people have reached out and invited us to do events. We’re still trying to break into national exposure, so if any of your listeners have ideas about that, we’d love to hear them. Locally, things are going really well. I think that speaks to New England’s strong interest in these kinds of issues.
We’ve been to several libraries, bookstores, and discussion groups. In fact, I was at one this weekend—not about the book—and someone came up to me and said, “Hey, my book club is talking about your book tomorrow.” I was really tickled by that. It’s been wonderful hearing from so many people who say there’s such a need for this book right now. That just really warms my heart.
Martha Engber: Wonderful. Doug, what are some of the comments you’ve been hearing from readers?
Doug Teschner: We’ve seen a lot of positive support. People are hungry for this kind of message. Sure, there are skeptics. Some folks just don’t think they can talk to people on the other side. I appreciate that honesty, because at least we know where they’re coming from. But overall, I think people are really hungry for hope. And that’s what we’re hoping to deliver.
Martha Engber: To get us going, let me start with one of the bigger questions. When new phenomena first appear in our culture, it’s often hard to grasp what’s happening. Americans have long known that polarization is getting worse, but we haven’t been able to pinpoint why. That’s what I appreciated most about your book—learning the specific terms and root causes behind the divide. I learned, for example, the term conflict entrepreneurs: those who profit by dividing Americans. They include politicians, political parties, and hostile foreign actors, to name a few. They spend billions each year on toxic messaging designed to stir outrage and hate, which often drives people to act negatively—whether donating money they can’t afford, haranguing those with different views, or even committing political violence. What role do you see your book playing in helping Americans understand how we’re being manipulated, especially regarding the lie that if we don’t hold a certain political viewpoint, we’re the enemy?
Beth Malow: First, I think one of our superpowers in this messy, challenging time is that Americans don’t like being taken advantage of. They don’t want to be duped. In fact, one of our Substack posts—togethernow.substack.com—is called We’re Better Than This! It explores the idea that there have always been conflict entrepreneurs. It may be more prevalent now because social media amplifies their messages, but as Americans, we can look at that and say, “We’re better than this.” We don’t have to become conflict enablers who spread what these entrepreneurs want us to spread within our silos or bubbles.
Doug Teschner: I’d add that we want people to understand what conflict entrepreneurs are. Many people aren’t familiar with the term or even the concept. Once you recognize it, you can step back and think differently. In our book, we use graphics to make ideas like this easy to grasp. For example, we depict a conflict entrepreneur as a crocodile eating the American flag.
These conflict entrepreneurs aren’t doing this for the country or to make our lives better. They’re doing it for themselves, and in most cases, they’re harming the country.
The most important thing is for people to really understand it. Helping people see that is part of our goal. And as Beth mentioned, social media algorithms keep pushing us down these rabbit holes—often driven by conflict entrepreneurs. So self-awareness is key to managing this challenge.
Martha Engber: Everyone wants to believe they’re not the ones being manipulated. That was me, too. But when I realized there’s this third force influencing all of us, it allowed me to step beside any American, no matter their viewpoint, and say, “Hey, look what they’re doing to us.” In other words, the topic allows me to get on the same side as any American I talk to. How hard do you think it’ll be to help people see that we’re all being manipulated
Doug Teschner: It’s definitely challenging, especially in today’s media environment where “if it screams, it streams,” and “if it’s kind, pay no mind.” That’s how social media works, and to a large extent, the mainstream media, too. There’s so much competition for attention. The stories that draw audiences tend to be divisive and outrageous, which makes it harder for us to promote a book that’s about calm and connection instead of outrage. We’re encouraging people to step back, take a deep breath, and look at things differently. But that has to start inside each of us. When you were talking, Martha, I noticed the humility in what you said. Humility is so important, and it’s kind of out of fashion these days. We all want to be sure of ourselves, to know what’s right and assume others don’t. But humility and curiosity go hand in hand.
Beth Malow: Yes, and sometimes the hardest person to talk with isn’t someone who voted differently from you. It’s someone in your own echo chamber. Those are the people who’ll say, “Beth, that’s nice, but don’t you know they’re destroying our country?” And that can come from either side.
So sometimes the toughest conversations are with people who are closer to your own views, and who question why you’re doing this work; why you’re being curious when, in their minds, the house is burning down. That’s the missing piece, I think.
It’s like we say in Braver Angels: if we can get people to a workshop, we can teach them the conversational skills they need to connect. But how do you get people there? How do you get them to open their hearts, be curious, and be humble, like Doug is saying?
Martha Engber: Yeah, I don’t know whether it’s curiosity or humility, but I think mostly, when we are with people in our own bubbles, it’s really difficult. There’s a habit that forms. You all get together like a sports team, and everyone trash talks the other team. That’s what you do. So when someone moves away from that behavior, they suddenly become suspect: “Hey, whose team are you on?” That’s just been my experience.
Doug Teschner: I agree with that, and with what Beth’s saying too. People tend to be quiet because they don’t want to lose, or alienate their side. And if they do speak up, they suddenly find themselves isolated. There are a lot of incentives not to do the kind of work we’re talking about. Unfortunately.
But we think we can make the case that people will feel better about themselves, their lives, and their relationships if they take these steps.
Beth Malow: Right. I’m really glad about the timing of the book. If we’d released it earlier in 2025, it might have just echoed people retreating into their silos. But I think people are realizing, “I’ve got to try something different. What we’re doing isn’t working.” Maybe I’m speaking more from my left-leaning perspective, but there’s this sense that there’s got to be a better way. We really have to figure out how to talk with each other if we’re going to get past this moment in our nation’s history. Something has shifted in the last few months. People are recognizing that being an activist and being a bridge builder are not incompatible.
Martha Engber: That’s interesting. Since the last time we talked, I’ve thought about that too. You were mentioning that it’s very important to not just talk, you also have to take action. But how you take action matters. I’m still politically active, but the way I’m active is different. If I go to a protest or rally, my sign doesn’t say “F—-” and list a name. It says the point I want to make: “Please do X,” or “Please watch out for X.” How I word it matters. I also make sure the people I’m with know that certain things are not okay for me to say anymore. I consider those words or phrases negative, and I don’t want to hear them from others. What behaviors have you changed since writing this book?
Doug Teschner: That’s a great question. When we started writing, it was more like: “Come with us and help save the country.” But as we worked on it, we got into a deeper level. First, a lot of people are stressed about their mental health. Come to us, and we’ll help you feel better about yourself. People struggle with relationships too, so our message is also, come to us, and we’ll help you manage your relationship with Uncle Fred. Then we moved into activism and bridge building: advocate for your side, but don’t alienate people on the other side. Do it in a way that might win them over, or at least keep the doors open.
There are multiple levels to this. How do you find a project in your community that needs help and connect with people to solve the problem? In a way that transcends politics. These are the ways we see the book, and we didn’t start off with all these insights. What do you think, Beth?
Beth Malow: I’ve become more curious about my own side. That’s been the biggest surprise for me. I’ve really tried to get people to tell me what they’re concerned about. I was at a Braver Angels workshop, teaching the skill of acknowledgment, a common skill not unique to Braver Angels. Any act of listening teaches it.
For example, you say something like, “I really believe in capitalism,” and I see it’s really important to you. I’m not agreeing with you, but I’m acknowledging that I heard you, and that makes you open up more. That’s the first step to a conversation.
At this workshop, one participant said, “I can’t acknowledge that, because then I’m giving weight to non-democratic norms.” I thought, what? I tried to stay curious. I didn’t get upset. I realized, that’s the answer. Something in what she said is the key. If I really want to be influential, I need to understand that better.
The chair of our Diversion, Equity and Inclusion Council and I are now playing pickle ball regularly where I live. It’s a way of connecting outside of politics, like Doug suggested, doing things besides just talking about politics.
And now it’s easier for me to talk with her about what she’s thinking and believing. That’s been the biggest surprise, to really feel like I’m trying to understand some of these barriers by connecting with folks I might have stayed silent around before we started on the book.
Martha Engber: I suppose that’s one of the most interesting things. I like to follow a lot of neuroscience podcasts, and it frustrates me when neuroscientists explain their studies and say things like, “You think you’re not being manipulated, but you are.” How do we overcome our biology? Neuroscience says the tendency you just mentioned earlier is real: “I don’t want to agree with you, because then I’m showing I’m wrong, and therefore vulnerable. And that can’t be good, because then I’m open to attack.”
Doug Teschner: Well, I’ve heard the same from people, that if you acknowledge what someone says, you’re somehow giving their ideas credence, or you become part of the problem. We feel it’s actually the opposite.
It’s ironic that people have so many friends on social media, but how many have real relationships do we have with people who have different points of view? We’re in our bubbles—tribes, silos—talking only to people who think like us. One piece of advice is to step out of that. If you’re at a demonstration, and someone from the opposite side is there, go up and say hi. Introduce yourself. Suggest coffee next week. Ask about their family, upbringing, hobbies. Maybe play pickleball. And ask how they came to their political views.
It’s a lot of work. It’s not easy. Sometimes people won’t accept it, won’t go there. But this is the work we think is critical.
Beth Malow: I’ll jump in. I’m a neurologist, and I’ve always been fascinated by this. I don’t think we’re doomed by habit and fear. We can break out of it. It’s not easy, as Doug said, but curiosity is key.
For example, in autism research, kids can be in their own little world, lining up all these red cars. You stick a green car in, and it makes them think. Breaking up patterns like that is actually part of autism treatment.
When we have a conversation with someone different from us, it opens up new neural pathways. I appreciated living in Tennessee for 21 years. Meeting people who were politically different than me helped. Some people don’t know anyone from the other side. They automatically assume everyone is a certain way based on the news. Breaking through that is really important. I think we absolutely can do it. Some neuroscientists say we’re stuck. I think they’re wrong.
Martha Engber: Let’s talk about a few things happening in the country as they relate to your book. It’s an amazing time right now, for better or worse.
We’ve talked about the extreme imbalance between conflict entrepreneurs and common Americans. They have money, know-how, and organization. How are we supposed to fight back when our own politicians and parties are part of the problem?
Doug Teschner: It has to start in your own heart. How you think about people. What are your values. Are you living those values when you think about people who disagree politically? Look inside yourself, avoid assumptions. People are quick to judge based on appearances or actions. I do it too, but I try to be aware.
When people don’t mingle with those with different views, it’s easy to develop dehumanizing “us vs. them” thinking. That’s destructive. In our Braver Angels workshops, when people talk, they find they have much more in common than they realized. We have to recognize that, start from that point of view, and show humility and curiosity about others.
Beth Malow: I’d add: do something that isn’t political. For me, that’s pickleball, singing, and music. In Nashville, I sang a cappella in a quartet and realize someone I sang with voted differently in 2016. We were already friends, and we respected each other because we practiced our music seriously.
I couldn’t demonize her, even though my friends were demonizing people who voted that way. We drove from Nashville to St. Louis for a competition: five hours talking about abortion, LGBTQ issues, climate change. It was incredible. She felt heard, I felt heard. We still disagreed, but we didn’t hate or demonize each other. That’s a great place to start.
Singing together, playing sports, gardening: there are so many ways to connect. Get out of your bubble and meet people who may be different. Then be brave and have conversations.
Martha Engber: Very interesting. What educational awareness campaigns and organizations are you hoping will take the lead to unite Americans against conflict entrepreneurs and against messaging that the other side is the enemy? I think the latter is outrageously dangerous, and getting more dangerous.
Beth Malow: Well, Braver Angels, for sure. One of our strengths is balance. At every level of leadership, we have someone who leans left and someone who leans right—the reds and the blues. That’s really important. Even with our book, we made sure of that: Doug being a former Republican state legislator, and me being more left-leaning.
But it’s not just Braver Angels. One of the things I love about this book is that we keep meeting new people. We met someone from a group called Listen First Project https://www.listenfirstproject.org/, which has more than 500 bridge-building organizations in it. And it’s only because of the book that we learned about them. There are plenty of other groups out there, all working hard to raise awareness that Americans are being manipulated, and there’s a way out of that.
It’s less about being on the left or right. It’s more about being in a realm Manu Meel (BridgeUSA) talks about: saying, “I’m going to talk to you, even if we disagree. I’m going to hear you out. I’m going to connect with you.” That’s what we have to do as Americans.
Doug Teschner: I’ll add that one concern is how central politics has become to people’s identities. How did that happen? It used to be people weren’t worried if their child married someone from the opposite party. Now, data shows many are. Politics has come to dominate identity, even though our hobbies, family, history, and geography matter too. We need to step back and look differently.
Our cause appeals to the hidden majority—the “exhausted majority,” as the Hidden Tribes report calls them. The extremes drive the agenda, but many people are shaking their heads, closing their eyes, looking for something better. If you’re looking for something better, join us. Rise up, demand better from political leaders, step up in your community, develop skills to talk to Aunt Jane in the other party. Small steps build hope and overcome negativity and despair.
Martha Engber: I’m glad you mentioned the exhausted majority. that was my next question. About 60% of Americans are tired of polarization and congressional dysfunction and want compromise to solve big issues. Yet most are still influenced by negative messaging, automatically choosing one party over another, instead of civil discussion. The number committed to finding common ground is still small. How do we reach fellow Americans quickly?
Doug Teschner: I worry about doing it quickly. This is hard work, and it will take time. People have to say, “Enough. We need something different.” Our book can help people pause and ask: “Something’s wrong here. Where do I turn?”
The book gives options: do a project in your community, develop skills to reconnect with an old friend you haven’t talked to for 20 years because of politics. Take small steps, rise up together. It’s not easy. When enough people are dismayed, they can demand better. We’re not quite there yet, but we’re trying.
Beth Malow: I agree with the grassroots, bottom-up approach, but there’s also a role for top-down. One thing I love about living where I do is helping with the Granite Bridge Legislative Alliance, a caucus of Republican and Democratic legislators who foster positive relationships across the political divide. Doug and his colleague, former Rep. Patricia Higgins, D-New Hampshire, have been influential in getting the legislature, which is nearly 50-50, to work together.
When people see politicians collaborating and solving problems—or even just talking diplomatically, hearing both sides, crafting stronger legislation—it serves as a powerful model for everyday Americans. I’m grateful to work with Doug and Patricia on these initiatives. It really makes a difference.
Doug Teschner: I appreciate that. It’s a work in progress. Last session was rough, but there’s a core group of legislators genuinely trying to make this work.
Martha Engber: Apparently, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and is also a champion of common ground. I don’t remember the program’s name, but it’s about making better decisions, based on soliciting information from both sides and hearing each other out. But there aren’t many programs like that.
Doug Teschner: There are lots of disincentives. I first met Governor Cox at our Braver Angels convention in Gettysburg two years ago. It was wonderful. He asked about the term conflict entrepreneurs, which he’s used in public talks. As president of the National Governors Association, he initiated the Disagree Better initiative, holding meetings around the country, including New Hampshire.
Sadly, he didn’t get much press coverage. That’s part of the problem.
The press covers divisive stories, not positive ones. But he’s been at the forefront. He has strong political views, fairly conservative, which some people don’t like. But he’s been very insistent on doing it in a respectful way with people on the other side. He’s taken some pretty tough hits from people on his own side.
At, I believe, the Republican convention in Utah, he was heavily criticized. At one point, he said something like, “I see that you folks hate me because I don’t hate enough.”
It goes back to what we said earlier: it’s safer to just play along, denigrate the other side, and agree with those doing it.
It’s going to take leaders like Governor Cox to role model a better way. We appreciate that, and we hope more will follow.
But as Beth mentioned, when you’re talking to your own side, there’s pressure to toe the party line.
I’ve seen it in elected office. When I first ran for the legislature, there were pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. Nowadays, if you don’t toe the line, you get heavily criticized, or face a primary challenge. That makes stepping out to do this work harder. But if enough citizens demand better, we can create more space for common ground.
Beth Malow: I want to jump in that many journalists are conflict entrepreneurs, but not all. Some are trying to promote journalism and social media in a positive way. I want to give a shout out to Amanda Ripley, who coined the term “conflict entrepreneurs.” She’s an investigative journalist, and I loved her book “High Conflict.”
In one section, she brought together New York City Jews—I’m from Long Island, so I had that connection—with people who worked in Michigan jails. She called it “complicating the narrative,” because it broke down stereotypes. Some journalists are really trying to use their platform to point out conflict entrepreneurs and bring people together. I really commend them.
Martha Engber: Here’s my last question. I want to preface it by saying that I believe gerrymandering should be illegal. That’s my personal opinion. As we’ve seen, Texas redrew its Congressional district maps to gain five new Republican House seats. California is attempting to counter that through Prop 50, which would temporarily redraw districts to gain five Democratic seats. If California fails, Republicans retain control of the House even before the 2026 midterms, further undermining people’s belief in democracy.
My question is: when faced with that possibility, what should those of us in the Common Ground Movement focus on? What impact can a small fraction of the population have when faced with such a big problem?
Doug Teschner: It’s a challenging problem, and not a new one. There was a major gerrymandering case before the Supreme Court in 2019, but they didn’t take action. Gerrymandering has been around for a while. Depending on the legislature, many seats are manipulated. It’s just getting more attention now.
There was a Republican congressman, Don Bacon from Nebraska, who decided not to run again. He said he’s a Christian first, an American second, and a Republican third. Some criticized him, and he asked, “Are you more upset that I’m a Christian or an American ahead of being a Republican?”
That illustrates the reality: many political leaders are locked into an all-or-nothing mentality, thinking their way is the only way. That’s scary.
Beth Malow: I think practical solutions will either have to come from voters influencing legislators, or from legislators themselves valuing political difference.
Doug Teschner: Seeing differences in a positive light, rather than a negative one, is key. Like Abraham Lincoln’s “team of rivals”: when people challenge your ideas, your policy gets stronger.
Beth Malow: That’s what I want to see in our country. On a practical level, I don’t know how much it will convince politicians, but voters pushing back—like in Texas and California—can make a difference. Otherwise, elections feel predetermined by primaries, and individual votes seem meaningless.
Change has to come both from the bottom up and the top down. Right now, we’re slipping into a zero-sum game, straying from the true purpose of democracy: a marketplace of ideas.
Martha Engber: Yes. That marketplace of ideas seems to be shrinking quickly. But thank you for joining me in conversation. It’s been wonderful to talk with you and get an update.
And thanks to everyone who’s either reading the transcript or watching the video. 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 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 