Upcoming Discussion: U.S. Involvement in Venezuela

Register for the discussion here.

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.

Here’s the information:

• online
• 9 – 10:30 a.m. Pacific (11 a.m. Central / 12 p.m. Eastern)
• Sat., Jan. 31

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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 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.

Alex Pretti Death: Braver Angels Call to Action

Please share this post wide and far.

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.

— Maury Giles, CEO of Braver Angels

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 (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61570111718959) and YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ6XlUCmeBzZEXLPwegWuqQ).

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.

New Year’s 2026: More of Us United

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.

Where do you stand on birthright citizenship?

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Citizen Spotlight: Gen Z Activist Jason Vadnos

View interview on the Vigilant Positivity YouTube channel.

___

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 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.

Voice of the People: A Common Ground Quiz

Voice of the People (VOP) is a nonpartisan organization “working to improve democracy by giving the people a greater voice in policymaking.”

One way the org does that is by partnering with the Program for Public Consultation in the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. The alliance allows the org to do formal “public consultation surveys” where they ask Americans what they care about.

And VOP doesn’t play it safe. Their research has explored public opinion on regulating artificial intelligence, U.S. participation in multilateral institutions, and the 2025 federal budget. They’ve delved into clean-energy tax credits, Medicaid and SNAP benefits, and presidential authority. Other national surveys examined foreign aid, housing affordability, immigration policy, and energy and the environment—each revealing surprising areas of bipartisan common ground.

The results of the surveys are compiled and published in reports to show which issues a majority of Americans agree on

Don’t believe you’re one of those people, much less that the statement “a majority of Americans agree on” could be true?

Take the test!

COMMON GROUND TEST

1) How many policy positions has VOP (in partnership with PPC) identified as being supported by majorities of both Republicans and Democrats?


A. ~ 50


B. ~ 100


C. ~ 150


D. ~ 200+

2) In their “Swing Six” surveys in battleground states and nationwide, how many of the 66 federal issues asked about were ones where Republicans and Democrats agreed?


A. 10


B. 33


C. 55


D. 66

3) What is the method PPC uses in these surveys to help people form opinions before answering?


A. Respondents fill out their prior beliefs from memory


B. Respondents are given briefings, pro-/con arguments, then asked their views


C. Respondents are shown media headlines and decide which side they like


D. Respondents merely rank issues by importance

4) Which of the following issue areas is not listed by VOP as one where common ground has been found?

A. Criminal justice reform


B. Social Security and Medicare


C. Net neutrality


D. Passing more constitutional amendments

5) According to VOP’s description, which of these best describes how “common ground” positions are selected?


A. Ideas that 100% of voters across parties support


B. Ideas that a large minority supports but the other side is neutral


C. Ideas that elicit majority support from both Republicans and Democrats


D. Ideas that party leaders endorse and public opinion follows

6) True or False: The VOP / PPC project claims to have surveyed nearly 100,000 Americans via policymaking simulation

Answer Key & Explanations

1) D (~ 200+). VOP states it has identified “more than 200 policy positions … supported by majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.”

2) C (55). Their battleground-state survey asked about 66 issues and found bipartisan agreement on 55 of them.

3) B. The surveys use deliberative methods: respondents receive balanced briefings with pros and cons, then make recommendations.

4) D. Passing more constitutional amendments is not listed among the issue areas cited by VOP’s “common ground” summary.

5) C. The forum emphasizes ideas that get majority support from both Republicans and Democrats.

6) True. VOP describes nearly 100,000 citizens having gone through these simulations.

Starling conclusions

The reports are a treasure trove of information and startling conclusions. Here’s a sampling:

• AI oversight: majorities of both Republicans and Democrats support federal regulation of artificial intelligence—including mandatory bias audits and transparency rules—despite deep divisions on most tech issues.
• Foreign aid: Two-thirds of Americans favor maintaining or increasing US foreign aid, contradicting the common belief that most voters want steep cuts.
• Presidential power: Bipartisan majorities want Congress to reclaim authority to limit presidential military actions—an unexpected consensus on checking executive power.
• Social programs: Over 70% of respondents from both parties favor raising benefits for Medicaid and SNAP, even among many who identify as fiscally conservative.
• Energy and climate: In swing states, large bipartisan majorities back clean-energy tax credits and limits on offshore drilling, showing strong agreement on climate action often assumed to be partisan.

With so much evidence of widespread bipartisan support for so many issues, the VOP and advisory board and team offer the following conclusion on their website:

“Research indicates that polarization and government dysfunction primarily arise from the increasing role of competing special interests seeking to influence government through partisan channels, buoyed by the increasing role of money in the political process and the exponential growth of lobbyists in government.”

My three questions for you

Before taking the test, were you someone who believed Americans on the other political side of the spectrum shared little or no support of most issues?

Now that you have at least some feedback that’s not the case, what conclusions do you draw about the messages Americans are receiving about who’s responsible for polarization?

Are you more motivated to push politicians to solve these issues that share widespread bipartisan support?

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.

How I Became a Braver Angel

I recently attended “Dignity Over Violence: A Unified Civic Response,” an online Braver Angels panel discussion about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and the growing political violence in America.

The event — attended by 1400 Americans — was hosted by Maury Giles, the new CEO of the national nonpartisan organization dedicated to depolarization and civil discussion. The event included twelve speakers from a variety of other bridge-building organizations such as BridgeUSA and CommonSense American.

The program addressed the need for all Americans to stand up to say that political violence is unacceptable.

To grow make that message louder, we need to grow the number of people who belong to the Common Ground Movement.

With that in mind, at the end of the online event, Maury invited us to send our stories about how we had become members of BA, in the hopes that by telling others about our journeys, we can persuade them to join the ranks of Americans of all political viewpoints who’ve joined together to discuss how to make our country less divisive.

You can send your story to stories@braverangels.com.

Here’s my story.

---

If I’ve learned one thing in life, it’s that meaningful change seems to stem solely from a breathtakingly painful ah-ha moment of seeing our own failings with utter clarity.

Such an instant of agony is what led me to become a Braver Angel.

*

Last fall I heard a radio program in which two friends — a female Democrat and a male Republican — decided to spend election day together. The woman said she felt a sense of calm. That even if her preferred candidate didn’t win, she knew she could talk to her friend about any actions the new president might take that she found questionable.

And I thought, Yeah, right.

Yet even then I envied her surety because she had someone of a different political viewpoint with whom to talk.

*

After the last election, I felt bereft of hope. A normally even-keeled person, I couldn’t sleep and felt nauseous and panicky at the thought of the leaders who would take power on inauguration day. Every day my emotions would roller coaster from outrage to despair and then bitterness, that America deserved whatever bad might happen.

I thought about the woman on the radio and wished more than ever that I had a friend with a different political viewpoint, but I had no idea of how to meet someone like that since I live in a region that’s primarily represented by one political party.

Then my sister told me the pastor at her church recommended joining an organization known as Braver Angels. I read the mission statement about bringing people together for civil discussion. Within two weeks I had become a member, connected with my local alliance and attended two online workshops and one in-person event.

But it wasn’t until a month later that I actually transitioned from being just a member, to embodying the Braver Angel spirit.

*

The catalyst for the mind-blowing transformation stemmed from a simple action: I reposted a video of a man who voiced his grief at the outcome of the election because he seemed to voice everything I felt.

After posting, I received comments of agreement from friends who share the same political beliefs. But one person said she thought I was wrong in voicing such negativity and that the future would be fine.

I didn’t respond immediately, and am glad I didn’t, because I realized this was a person who had politely let me know that she was of a different political viewpoint. We got into a conversation online, and while I won’t list specific issues, this is the gist:

Me: I think that’s white.

Her: Actually, it’s clearly black.

Me: You have to go west.

Her: No, east is the way.

Me: But surely you have to go up.

Her: You’d think so, but you go down instead.

How could the divide between what we believed to be true could be so stark?

Rereading the exchange, I saw a second pattern, that whatever we say about those of other political viewpoints is what they’re saying about us.

You’re an idiot.

No, you’re an idiot.

You’re being manipulated.

Actually, you’re being manipulated.

You’re selfish and have no compassion.

Look who’s talking. You’re selfish and without compassion.

Why were we Americans parroting the same negative messages?

And that’s when I realized that all of us — not just me, not just you, but all of us — are being manipulated by people who are purposely dividing us in order to gain power and money, and that made me feel sick.

Since delving deeper into that subject, I now know those people and organizations are conflict entrepreneurs, a term coined by journalist Amanda Ripley in her book “High Conflict” and referenced recently in “Beyond the Politics of Contempt” by Braver Angels members Doug Teschner, Beth Malow and Becky Robinson.

These conflict entrepreneurs who rake in donations and strategize to retain power at any cost are the ones who’ve conditioned us to hate one another. They’re politicians, political parties, hostile foreign nations and outright scammers who craft carefully edited messages that are inaccurate and designed to make us Americans afraid, worried and mad at one another.

What an awful thought, of the billions these people and organizations must spend every year to pay writers, editors, influencers, social media strategists, radio/TV/cable/streaming hosts and AI specialists, all with the purpose of keeping our population confused and emotionally distraught enough that we don’t think clearly.

We’re too busy pointing fingers at one another to notice the harm our country has sustained, not for a few years, but decades, during which major issues have not been substantively addressed: immigration, federal spending, social programs, crime, education, interference by bad foreign actors.

But what struck me deepest was that I fell for that negative messaging, too.

I, as a journalist, who thought myself to be logical and neutral, fell for the emails and social media posts that got me upset enough to donate money or write furious letters to my representatives.

*

The moment I recognized I’d been duped was when I became a real Braver Angel, because in that instant I thought, I refuse.

I refuse to hate my fellow Americans.

I refuse to share, comment on, post, read or listen to any messages or articles that make me feel fear, outrage and hate.

I refuse to believe people with other political viewpoints are my enemy.

In short, I’ve turned my back on conflict entrepreneurs and now openly face my fellow Americans to say I hear you, I’m with you and we need one another to take back our country from those who’ve forgotten their job is to have our back.

We Americans don’t have the billions of dollars to fight the negative messaging of conflict entrepreneurs. But we do have one another, a group of hundreds of millions. So that’s my mission every day, to welcome one more of the “exhausted majority” (https://hiddentribes.us/) into the growing group of us who stand together to listen to and support one another. A group that I hope will rapidly grow big enough that we’ll have the power to demand that our government work for us rather than against us.

That’s going to be a tough haul, but I have no doubt We, the People, will succeed.

And that’s why I’m a Braver Angel.

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 (https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61570111718959) and YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ6XlUCmeBzZEXLPwegWuqQ).

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.

Citizen Spotlight: Wilk Wilkinson

About six months ago someone told me about Derate the Hate, a podcast hosted by Minnesota conservative, Wilk Wilkinson. One episode and I was hooked on his calm demeanor and fierce belief in the ability of all of us to change for the better, especially when it comes to unhooking from negative messaging in order to talk to one another at a time when unity is scare, but increasingly important.

Wilk’s journey from adversity to success in his career, marriage, and parenting exemplifies the transformative power of perseverance and self-improvement. As the new Director of Media Systems and Operations at Braver Angels—America’s largest cross-partisan, grassroots movement working to bridge political and social divides—Wilk plays a pivotal role in shaping national dialogue through conversations, storytelling and strategic media. His podcast complements this mission by offering practical tools and authentic conversations that inspire personal growth and civil engagement.

You can view the interview on the Vigilant Positivity YouTube channel.

Q&A

Martha: I’m a member of Braver Angels and was really excited to hear about your new role as the Director of Media Systems and Operations. Can you tell us more about what it means to shape national dialogue through conversations, storytelling, and strategic media?

Wilk: Sure, thank you, Martha. I’d say this: a big part of the national conversation right now is actually the part that isn’t happening.

Too often, when it comes to contentious topics, even in this day and age where we’re more connected than ever—everyone has a phone in their pocket, you can jump on Zoom and talk to anyone—we’re also more alone than we’ve been in a long time. Many of us have lost our ability to really have the conversations that need to be happening.

There are a lot of reasons for that, but the bottom line is shaping those conversations is incredibly important. How do we bring people together to have non-contentious conversations about contentious issues?

That matters, because a lot of people right now are frustrated. Nothing seems to get done. We don’t seem to be able to work through our differences the way we used to. And it’s organizations like Braver Angels that are showing people how to do that again—how to come to common ground and find solutions to the problems we all share.

When we don’t have the conversation, that’s when we get stuck. We have to be able to talk, so shaping that conversation is incredibly important.

And then, using strategic media… Well, think about it: we live in the most connected time in human history. Yet what we see online is often just ugliness. The media we consume, especially through social media and mainstream outlets, is shaped in a way that keeps us either scared, angry, or constantly focused on our real or perceived grievances.

I call that FOG. I think it’s important to show people there’s a better way to engage. There’s better media they can consume; content that helps them come to better answers and ultimately leaves them feeling more hopeful at the end of the day, instead of scared, mad, or aggrieved.

Martha: And those would be through social media? Through newsletters? What modes of media are you aiming for?

Wilk: I’d say all of the above. There has to be a multi-front strategy. With Braver Angels specifically, we have a number of mission-aligned podcasts that we’ll be promoting soon as part of a broader media network.

We’ve got a Braver Angels YouTube channel where people can find local debates, media clips, and conversations we’ve hosted. There are also newsletters, both national ones that come out weekly and alliance- or state-specific newsletters throughout the country.

And, of course, social media. That’s a big part of our strategy going forward. If you’re on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, or X, please engage with our content. If you see Braver Angels tagged in something positive—and it should be positive if it’s connected with us—share that content. Interact with it. Spread it within your sphere of influence.

That’s the best way we can grow our message of positivity and social cohesion: by encouraging people to engage with and amplify the content we put out.

Martha: I was talking recently with Swati Srivastava (transcript of interview, YouTube link), who’s a Braver Angels member and also Director of Media for Crossing Party Lines, another national depolarization organization. She pointed out that Americans are receiving a barrage of negative messaging that paints those who don’t share our views as the enemy.

She said that for those of us determined to unite Americans, the only way to counteract that is by creating a new story. What story would you like to tell Americans that would convince them to give up their FOG, which, as you’ve said, stands for fear, outrage, and grievance? After all, those emotions are so much easier to access than generosity and kindness.

Wilk: Yeah. Swati is absolutely wonderful. She’s putting out great content, and she’s absolutely right. There has to be a better story. And the stories we need to tell, Martha, are from people who say, “I’d been in a bad place. I couldn’t talk to my brother, or my sister-in-law, or my mother-in-law. I lost a childhood friend I’d known forever because politics drove a wedge between us. But I came to Braver Angels, and I saw that there’s real possibility in the right kind of conversation—a structured conversation.”

Those are the stories we need to share. Because it’s heartbreaking to hear about people who can’t have Thanksgiving dinner with a relative because politics has gotten in the way. Or stories of marriages dissolving over political divides. Or neighborhoods where people have just lost the ability to work things through.

Those stories can be remedied. We can work through those things. And the power of storytelling is huge.

Rather than pulling at people’s heartstrings to make them feel guilty or bad—which is what so much media does—we can highlight hope. You’ve heard the phrase, “If it bleeds, it leads.” We don’t often see the truly feel-good things in the media. Instead, we’re bombarded with doom, gloom, and ugliness. And when that’s all we see, we begin to believe that’s all there is. But that’s not true.

There is so much more out there—the ability to navigate difficult situations and conversations. In fact, Navigating Difficult Conversations is one of the many beautiful workshops Braver Angels offers.
When we tell the stories of people who’ve been positively impacted by our work, it matters. It gives people back some hope. Because so many feel they’ve lost their agency—that they’re powerless to change anything. But they’re not powerless.

You can affect change even in a small circle of influence. And if you have a bigger circle, you can affect even more. The point is, every person can make a difference.

Martha: Videos are incredibly convincing because people watch them. So what you’re saying is that you may start featuring these people and telling their stories in that way, which I haven’t seen before. That members are our greatest asset. Is that correct?

Wilk: Yes, I’d like to. That’s definitely part of it. On my Derate the Hate podcast, for example, I have conversations with people on all kinds of topics. We share stories of trauma to triumph, adversity to awesomeness—we try to highlight those kinds of journeys.

And one of the big things under our new CEO, Maury Giles, is that we’re going to be focusing much more on building alliances. For those who may not be familiar, an alliance is a Braver Angels group in a particular geographical area. Each has balanced co-chairs—one red, one blue—so there’s shared leadership and perspective.

But I want to go back to a word you used earlier, Martha: “asset.” Our people are absolutely our greatest asset. This organization was built from the ground up, and it remains a grassroots movement. Our members are the heart of Braver Angels, and we’ll be leaning heavily on them.

There are only a handful of us on staff, but the organization is filled with beautiful stories of people who’ve crossed partisan lines, bridged divides, and learned how to have those meaningful conversations. Those are the stories we want to highlight, because they show what’s possible through structured conversations, our workshops, and our educational materials.

At the end of the day, it comes down to each of us as individuals. That’s the essence of “We the People.” Together, we can do a lot.

Martha: Even if Braver Angels manages to come up with a clear, pithy message to convey outside the organization and across America, it’s still one of about 400 groups working on depolarization, civil dialogue, and strengthening democracy. In your role as media director, do you see an opportunity to align Braver Angels’ messaging with others to create a bigger, more unified message that Americans can really rally around?

Wilk: I would say nothing is off the table. There are a lot of excellent organizations doing meaningful work in this bridge-building space. Many are very mission-aligned with Braver Angels, though they may go about it in different ways.

When we start thinking about strategic partnerships, coalitions, and ways to amplify impact, that’s going to be guided by the vision our CEO, Maury Giles, sets. But yes, media will be a huge part of that, whether it’s sharing Braver Angels’ stories alone or in collaboration with others.

Martha: Well, to get any message heard—whether Braver Angels’ on its own or united with others—how do you plan to cut through the massively well-funded negative messaging put out by conflict entrepreneurs, who purposely divide Americans for their own benefit: politicians, political parties, hostile foreign nations, and billionaires? After all, most common-ground organizations, like Braver Angels, are volunteer-led and operate on small budgets.

Wilk: Yeah, and that’s the million-dollar question, no pun intended. They are very well-funded because they are effective. Let’s face it, conflict sells. That fear, outrage, and grievance model is proven to produce profits. It’s very sad that people have prioritized profit over people.

I’m somebody who appreciates profits—I’m a strong capitalist conservative in nature—but this industry is painful to watch. So many have become wealthy and powerful through conflict.

As organizations trying to battle that narrative, that ugliness pushed constantly by outrage entrepreneurs and grievance grifters, we have a hard-fought battle ahead. We don’t have the same budgets. What we put out is better for the people, but it doesn’t generate the profits that fear and outrage do. It’s going to be tough, but the value is in the message.By showing people we are much better together than divided, we can accomplish so much more as a cohesive unit than as isolated individuals or tribes. We have to appeal to the nature of our better angels. People need to see that we are stronger together.

It is my hope—and my life’s mission—to show that there is a better way to engage. While forces will always want to keep us separated, we must appeal to our better angels, come together, and work through our differences so that we might flourish as a nation and as a human race.

Martha: Do you feel a sense of urgency for getting such a message out into the world?

Wilk: Absolutely. Yeah, urgency is of the utmost importance, because—again, as I said earlier, Martha—we are in the most connected age we’ve ever been in, yet people feel more lonely than ever. Those two things together are dangerous, and it’s an exponential problem.

As we become more connected, people paradoxically become more alone. That trend won’t slow down unless we, as humans, create real human connection. It’s our responsibility. There’s huge urgency here, because if we continue to grow apart and fail to work together, that loneliness and lack of agency can eventually turn into something much uglier—violence and other forms of aggression.
We have to recognize that urgency in everything we do—what we consume, what we say, and what we choose to act on.

Martha: Before joining Braver Angels, I, too, was someone who would get extremely anxious about political news. When I got involved, I felt an immense sense of relief and felt I could make a difference, and therefore I could sleep at night. But even when I tell people my experience, they don’t always believe it and continue to live with anxiety. So what might you do to combat the disbelief that things can be better?

Wilk: Yeah, there will always be skeptics and cynics, and that’s a tough wall to climb. A lot of it comes back to basic human needs that people are missing. Many have lost agency. They feel powerless in their ability to affect change. And the more powerless and lonely people feel, the more depressed and angry they become. Sometimes it’s a combination of both. As people grow more anxious, like you mentioned, Martha, they become more cynical about the idea that change is possible. They doubt that we can really make a difference moving forward.

It’s especially difficult now, when so much of our politics has been nationalized. People forget that we—the people—have power, and the most tangible way to effect change is usually within our own communities.

We have to retrain people to understand that the best place to start is at home. I can affect change in my home, my community, and to some degree, in my state. But people are often so focused on Washington, D.C., where they feel powerless. That paradigm shift has to happen: I can’t control everything happening far away, but I can affect change where I am.

Once someone starts making change at home or in their community, it has an exponential effect. Small wins build momentum, encouraging continued engagement and deeper involvement. That’s why civic renewal and rebuilding societal connections is so important.

Focusing only on what’s happening in D.C. leaves people feeling powerless. Focusing on home and community allows them to start winning—and continue winning.

So, Martha, it’s crucial that people focus on what’s within their control, start building those wins, and that’s how the paradigm shift truly happens.

Martha: Well, I guess this next question goes to your point and also references your podcast and your interviews with others. I really like how you talk with guests about the human psyche and how we can improve ourselves.

I wanted to get your take on a behavior that seems widespread among humans, and I assume I fall prey to it as well. It’s the notion that when people get together, we’re typically respectful and kind, and we agree on a lot. But when we part company, we may do things that are cruel or disrespectful of others.

For example, we may value family—or say we do—but then make a snide remark about a family member with a different political viewpoint. Or we may attend a place of worship and hear how we should love one another, yet when we get home, we forward a social media meme that’s insulting to others.

Have you experienced this disconnect yourself, and if so, why do you think it occurs and how can we reconcile our values with our behavior?

Wilk: That’s a phenomenal question, and yes, I’ve experienced this. I’ve not only perpetuated this kind of thing in the past, but I still see it from people I know every day. It’s horrible for society. It’s one of the dregs that came with the onset of the internet ecosystem that so many of us spend so much time in.

There’s a certain amount of anonymity online—or at least a perceived anonymity—and people have courage to say things online that they would never say to another person’s face. That may go back to the idea that saying things behind someone’s back is completely different, because if you said it to their face, you might get punched. It’s one of those ugly behaviors people have taken advantage of on social media.

People will post things far uglier than they ever would have in a true, face-to-face interaction. And it’s ultimately very damaging—not just in our country, but worldwide.

What I would say, though, Martha, is when you see someone post something clearly ugly, and maybe it doesn’t reflect their true character, try to give them some latitude. Keep in mind that context. As you mentioned, you used to fall prey to a lot of these polarizing things and became anxiety-ridden because of them.

Braver Angels is in the business—make no mistake about it—of courageous connections. We have to have the courage to speak with people about uncomfortable things.

Memes, especially, try to oversimplify things into a small phrase or image, and they are bombastic, hyperbolic, and often ugly to catch attention quickly. They oversimplify complex topics with almost no context or sourcing. It’s just trash in most respects.

When people post those things, it’s usually not something they would say to another person’s face. It just caught them in a certain moment. I’d say let your emotions cool before reaching out to someone directly. Think back to the early days of text messaging, when messages were so easily misconstrued. That same dynamic is happening now with memes—they often don’t change minds, they just make people mad and harm relationships.

Martha: That leads to my last question, which, oddly enough, relates to your love of hunting and camping. What lesson from your experience in nature led you to this focus on spreading positivity rather than angst?

Wilk: Nature taught me to keep my wits about me, to remain calm no matter the situation. From a young age, I spent time alone in the woods, sometimes for days, with no communication. If you didn’t keep your wits about you, you could get hurt. That taught me an essential principle: never allow your emotions to dictate your actions.

Whether alone in the woods or in a conversation with someone, so much happens outside your control. How you react matters. I want to make it home safely to my family each day, and the same applies to our personal interactions. We must remain whole, calm, and deliberate, even when triggered, to ensure constructive outcomes.

Martha: I think it’s a great way to end this interview. Thank you so much for your time and attention—it’s been a lovely conversation.

Wilk: Thank you, Martha, I appreciate it.

Connect Wilk Wilkinson

You can connect with Wilk through any of the following:

• Website
• Podcast
• Instagram
• Facebook
• Linkedin
• X
• Youtube
  

Subscribe

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.

Gerrymandering: Where All Americans Lose

I live in California, so my state’s fight with Texas’ mid-census redrawing of voting districts, known as gerrymandering, in order to gain more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives is an issue that’s only growing bigger.

I didn’t really learn about the practice until I read a Harper’s Magazine article in the early 2000s. I remember wondering how gerrymandering could be legal. The system sounded like an absolute usurping of citizen representation.

I assume most of us agree that the voting district boundaries where we live should reflect already-established geographical locations, such as counties, towns or rural areas. If those places have more voters of one political party over another, that fact should be expressed in the number of U.S. House seats allotted. Over time, if the area naturally shifts politically, then the representation should, as well.

After my research for this post, my attitude has not changed: redrawing of voting district boundaries to keep one political party in power over another seems is an outright cheat..

History

The term “gerrymander” comes from 1812 Massachusetts, when Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a redistricting bill that created an oddly shaped district to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. A cartoonist said the district looked like a salamander, hence “Gerry-mander.”

Proponents claimed gerrymandering was a constitutionally legal, efficient, and practical tool for the ruling party to protect its agenda and reflect the state’s majority politics.

Opponents immediately saw it as manipulation. They said it undermined fair representation and allowed politicians to “choose their voters” instead of the other way around.

Actual Alternatives

There are four modern methods of redrawing districts that:

• reflect actual political representation
• respect logical/geographic borders
• protect against partisan abuse

Independent Redistricting Commissions

These commissions are created by nonpartisan citizen panels rather than by state legislatures. In varying forms, they’re used in California, Arizona, Colorado, and Michigan. The strengths are that such commissions remove the direct self-interest of lawmakers, increase transparency and often include public hearings.

Unfortunately, they’re still subject to political pressure in how members are appointed, and commissions can deadlock.

Criteria + Algorithmic Maps

Maps are drawn by computer programs that following strict rules, such as:

• equal population
• compact districts rather than oddly shaped
• districts that are whole, rather than not split apart
• respect for existing political/geographic boundaries
• compliance with the Voting Rights Act, which protects protecting minority representation

An advantage is that a variety of maps can be created and then an independent body can choose the one that’s most balanced.

This presents a transparent system that’s fast, scalable and reduces bias. The trick is that the criteria, such as “compactness” vs. “partisan fairness,” can be politicized.

Proportional Representation (PR) Systems

This system means that a state awards seats based on vote share. If a party wins 40% of votes statewide, it gets about 40% of seats. That eliminates gerrymandering and gives representation to minority parties in every state.

But — it’s a big but — the system would require changing federal law, and possibly the Constitution, since wording now states that there can be only one House member per district.

Hybrid Models

Some reformers suggest keeping single-member districts, but making them follow strict geographic borders, like those of counties. Or we could use algorithms to test maps for partisan bias, which is known as an “efficiency gap” or “mean-median test,” and reject the biased ones. A last idea is to involve public map submissions and have transparent debates.

But Alas, Politicians Love Our Current System…

…because the current system allows for legal abuse.

It’s bad enough that over time, Republican and Democratic lawmakers have passed laws that purposely whittled down the number of political parties to only two, and that most Americans are unhappy with.

The Current Situation

President Trump’s request that Republican-dominated states redraw their districts to ensure tht Republicans keep control of the House has triggered a redistricting war where all Americans lose.

Let’s look at California where I live.

As a voter, I want Congressional districts to be as fair as possible. If a person moves to a district where a certain political party dominates, that person should be assured their vote will be represented.

I’m also a huge believer in deliberative democracy and am proud that my state has a California Citizens Redistricting Commission the includes 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 4 unaffiliated or other party members. They’re selected through a multi-step process involving a state auditor, legislative strikes, and random draws to keep the group independent.

Lastly, I feel democracy depends on at least two parties having an equal chance to gain voter trust.

So the situation is thus: the president’s move pits my love for democracy against my appreciation for CCRC and the fairness it represents. If I don’t want to have one party dominate in America, which would be like China, North Korea and Vietnam, then I have to choose against a fair and democratically-created system. And the last is what’s led to Governor Gavin Newsom’s Prop 50, which would set aside the CCRC for three years in order to redistrict the state to keep Republicans from a significant advantage.

I hate the thought that Republicans in current Republican-dominated districts are faced with having their votes forfeited. But I hate the idea of a one-party America even more.

My question for you

How do you think we Americans can get Congress to outlaw gerrymandering and institute more fair systems for redistricting?

Subscribe

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.

RepublicEN: Can a Conservative Climate Change Org Influence a Republican Government?

About RepublicEN

Whether we Americans agree on whether humans caused climate change or not, it’s clear the climate is changing and that we humans will need to adapt, and if possible, reduce the severity by taking action.

Climate change has been politicized to such a degree that I was happy someone referred me to RepublicEN, an organization that stems from the Energy and Enterprise Initiative at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA.

Those who belong call themselves the EcoRight and “believe in the power of American free enterprise and innovation to solve climate change. Together, we encourage, embolden, and applaud conservative climate leadership.”

The organization argues that regulating emissions don’t work because applying such rules to American businesses will encourage them to move elsewhere. And while incentivizing clean energy is a good idea, poorer countries often can’t afford cleaner technologies.

Instead, RepublicENs believe pricing is the answer. By attaching a cost to the negative impacts of emissions, any dirty means of generating electricity would become more expensive that solar, wind, hydro and nuclear power. Consumers would automatically choose the cheaper options.

The organization encourages the use of the well-known carbon tax. Whatever carbon decreases a company manages to make would be paired with a dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxes, or even a dividend to be returned to Americans. The tax would be applied to imports from countries that don’t have a set price on carbon dioxide.

The organization encourages members to write their elected officials; share content that helps navigate conversations with other conservatives; and take action by organizing EcoRight events. They also believe voters would be more likely to choose Republican candidates if they prioritized climate change solutions.

Some stats on conservative views on climate change

The following statistics come from a variety of polls, many of which also include stats regarding Democratic viewpoints.

RE: concern about climate change

Yale/George Mason University 2024 study: Around 52% of Republicans are either alarmed, concerned, or cautious about global warming. About half of that group is either alarmed or concerned.

Among Republicans under 35, 57% believe climate change is happening, while the percentage drops to 43% among those 55 and older.

RE: Level of threat

Chicago Council on Global Affairs: Only about 16% of Republicans see climate change as a critical threat, compared to 82% of Democrats.

Pew Research Center: About 23% of Republicans consider climate change a major threat to the country.

RE: Perceived affect on communities

Pew Research Center: 36% of Republicans say climate change is affecting their community a great deal or some.

AP-NORC poll: 48% of Republicans (versus 93% of Democrats) believe climate change contributed to recent extreme weather events.

RE: Policy Priority

Center for Climate Change Communication: As of spring 2025, about 22% of liberal/moderate Republicans, and 12% of conservative Republicans, say global warming should be a high or very high priority for Congress and the President.

RE: Support for government action

Resources for the Future’s “Climate Insights 2024: Partisan Views”:

• 57% of Republicans support at least a moderate role for the federal government in addressing global warming.
• 61% of Republicans support reducing emissions from power plants.
• 48% support improving appliance energy efficiency.

Current climate change policy

The above statistics seem to be in stark contrast to the actions President Trump has taken since taking office. They include:

• Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement (Executive Order 14162, Jan 2025).
• Exiting the UN’s Loss and Damage Fund (March 2025).
• Dismantling federal climate protections (targeted National Monuments, NOAA, U.S. Global Change Research Program; aligned with Project 2025).
• Declaring a national energy emergency; promoted coal, fast-tracked fossil fuel permits, reversed Alaskan restrictions and Clean Power Plan.
• Deregulating the EPA (31 major deregulations were announced in a single day).
• Proposing 27% budget cut to NOAA, eliminated most climate research programs, and moved to overturn the EPA “endangerment finding.”
• Installing Lee Zeldin as EPA administrator, who rolled back mercury and PFAS rules, closed the Office of Research & Development, and pursued endangerment finding reversal.
• Tightening Treasury rules on wind and solar subsidies (stricter eligibility for federal tax credits).
• Ending Biden-era EV mandates, paused EV charger funding, rolled back tailpipe emissions standards.
• Declaring energy emergency to expand fossil fuel production, reverse green policies, and eliminate climate accords/Green New Deal measures

Here are the actions Congress has taken:

• Introduced 26 resolutions under the Congressional Review Act to overturn Biden-era climate regulations (2 passed a chamber, 4 sent to Trump, 6 signed into law).
• Will end wind and solar credits (projects after mid-2026 / online after 2027).
• Phase out EV tax credits by Sept 2025.
• Ends EV charging credits by June 2026.
• Delays methane emission fees for 10 years.
• Extends biofuel credits through 2031.
• Cuts funding for green banks and alternative fuel vehicle grants

New legislation and resolutions include:

• H.Res. 568: Recognizes climate change as a public health threat (in committee).
• Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act: $1 trillion fund paid by fossil fuel polluters (reintroduced Jan 2025)
• Foreign Pollution Fee Act: Carbon tariffs on imports (steel, cement, solar components), reintroduced April 2025.

My question for you

If you’re a conservative, do you think climate change is being adequately addressed?

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.