Citizen Spotlight: Coalition Builder Ada Salami

To view the interview on the Vigilant Positivity YouTube channel, click here.

During chaotic political times, it’s easy for citizens to assume a dystopian future awaits. But such seismic shift are common throughout history and poses the opportunity to build a pro-topian future. So says Ade Salami, program director for Pro-democracy Political Coalitions at Democracy 2076. Founded in 2023, the organization works long-term to change our constitution, political culture, and political parties.

Ade most recently served as a senior policy aide for two Minneapolis City Council members and as a lobbyist at Park Street Public, where she led bipartisan lobbying efforts on policy and funding at the state, local, and federal levels. She received her BA from the University of Minnesota.

Transcript of interview

Martha Engber: Hello, Ade!

Ade Salami: Hello! How are you today, Martha?

Martha Engber: Very good. Thanks for joining me.
As I understand it, Democracy 2076 aims to ward off authoritarianism in America. For those of us who have only known democracy, what are the signs of authoritarianism?

Ade Salami: Of course. I want to start by slightly reframing that. Democracy 2076 wasn’t created specifically to stop authoritarianism. It was created because something in our democracy feels broken to many people. It doesn’t feel effective, responsive, or representative.

When people feel that way, they’re more open to strongmen and shortcuts. Our work is really about helping people imagine and build a democracy that actually works for them. When that gap isn’t filled, authoritarianism tends to fill it. That said, I think many Americans have had a real-world crash course in what authoritarianism looks like, even if they don’t always call it that.

One resource I often reference is Protect Democracy’s authoritarian playbook. It identifies tactics like corrupting elections, including attacks on the legitimacy of free and fair elections. The Big Lie is a clear example. It encouraged people to doubt the 2020 election results.

Another tactic is quashing dissent, using state power to silence criticism. What happened with Jimmy Kimmel last year is a good example. There’s also politicizing independent institutions, such as appointing leaders of institutions like the FBI or the Federal Reserve based on loyalty rather than expertise or the rule of law.

President Trump’s ongoing fight with Jerome Powell at the Fed, or his attacks on James Comey, are examples. Another tactic is scapegoating vulnerable communities. We’re seeing that nationally with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), including escalating violence, which is also part of the authoritarian playbook. Normalizing political violence creates unrest and fear.

There’s also the spread of disinformation and propaganda. COVID stands out for me, when President Trump was one of the biggest spreaders of COVID-related misinformation. Those are some of the key ways authoritarianism shows up.

Martha Engber: What’s interesting is that everything you mentioned is what Democrats often say about Republicans, and Republicans say about Democrats. Each side claims the other is corrupting politics, spreading disinformation, and behaving badly.

So is authoritarianism reflected in that level of polarization? Does it pit citizens against one another and make the other side look like the villain?

Ade Salami: I don’t think that dynamic itself is part of the authoritarian playbook. I do think it’s a side effect. It shows up as authoritarianism begins to take root.

One important thing to remember is that authoritarianism doesn’t come from just one side. In the U.S., especially over the last decade, we’ve seen clear examples from the right, but that doesn’t mean it can’t come from the left. Overlooking that is concerning.

Martha Engber: That finger-pointing is interesting. Depolarizing that dynamic is something your organization and others are working on, but cutting through misinformation is difficult. What is Democracy 2076 doing in that regard?

Ade Salami: Much of our focus is on helping Americans build connections, relationships, and coalitions beyond the political binaries they’re used to. A lot of politics is rooted in a false binary. The work I’m focused on right now is about disrupting that comfort and expanding people’s ability to engage in unlikely partnerships as a way to build connection and make progress.

Martha Engber: Your organization also promotes the idea of a pro-topian future rather than a dystopian one. Dystopian means everything is bad, while pro-topian suggests hope. Can you explain that idea and why people might find a pro-topian future hard to imagine? And why we seem to dwell on dystopian futures? They dominate books, TV, and movies.

Ade Salami: I like the definitions you gave. Utopia is perfect and unrealistic. Dystopia is The Handmaid’s Tale, where everything is falling apart. Pro-topia sits in the middle. It’s a realistic, incremental path of continuous improvement. Things are getting better, even if they’re not perfect.

The term comes from Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine in 2009. A pro-topian future is not fantasy or collapse, but a pathway where society becomes more fair, functional, and humane. Our goal isn’t to sell people on a single pro-topian future, but to co-create one and move away from a nihilistic mindset where nothing matters.

We want people actively imagining what a better future could look like and what it would take to get there. It’s not about prescribing the destination. It’s about creating space for people across differences to imagine a better future for themselves and work toward it together. When people feel nothing can change, that’s when they disengage.

Dystopian futures are easier to imagine because they’re essentially today, just worse. They’re built around conflict, scarcity, and winners and losers. Our brains are wired for that. We have a built-in negativity bias, so those futures feel familiar. We’re always scanning for threats.

Martha Engber: Because if we don’t pay attention to threats, we could be killed. It’s our animal instinct.

Ade Salami: I agree.

Martha Engber: In support of deterring authoritarianism and promoting an achievable, brighter future, Democracy 2076 has three programs. The first is Imagining 2076, which fosters imagination and focuses on media that shows what a pro-topian future looks like.

The second pushes for a new constitution, including 68 amendments identified by past convention delegates to shore up democracy in the U.S., which is fascinating, but a topic for another show. The third is your program, which looks closely at political coalitions. Can you define what a coalition is, as opposed to a group or partnership, and tell us more about the program?

Ade Salami: Of course. When we say “coalition,” it’s not just a group. We’re talking about three things: who’s in it, what they believe, and what divides them from other groups. What are the wedge issues? If you look at politics, for example, in Congress, we already use this language all the time. We talk about the Squad, the Blue Dogs, MAGA, the Tea Party. Those are factions, but in many ways they’re also coalitions. The same thing exists among voters, organizations, and movements. It’s not something that only happens with politics and elected officials.

What makes this moment different is that the coalitions are shifting. They’re realigning along the three axes I mentioned. The people in our parties are changing, the issues that divide them are changing, and the ideas holding coalitions together are changing. That’s part of why so many people feel politically disoriented right now. You find yourself agreeing with people you were never aligned with before, people you thought you had nothing in common with.

At the same time, you may clash with people who were once your allies, people you were always on the same side as. That can feel unsettling, but it’s also where opportunity exists.

When coalitions start to move, a lot more possibilities open up. You can build majorities that didn’t exist before. You can move legislation that’s been stuck for decades because there’s now a group willing to coalesce around a shared cause.

On the flip side, there’s also risk. Some of the changes we’re seeing are pulling people in a more authoritarian direction.

My program is about naming what’s changing, tracking what new coalitions are forming and what they could accomplish, and also watching where democratic norms begin to break down so we can intervene before it’s too late.

Martha Engber: As you were talking, I kept thinking about a political earthquake. And it’s not just happening in our country, it’s global. When an earthquake hits, people get scared. They duck, they take evasive action, and the instinct is to follow the one person saying, “Follow me, I know what to do.”

That’s essentially the appeal of authoritarianism. You go to the person who insists they know what’s going on. But you’re also saying that at the same time, there’s opportunity. That’s what people don’t always see. Things are chaotic, everything feels like it’s rolling around, and people miss the opportunity in that. So is the idea that people like you can help surface that opportunity?

Ade Salami: I think so. And I think this moment is especially ripe for that.

When you look at voter identification over the last several years, the number of people identifying as independent has grown significantly. Many people say they no longer feel aligned with a party or that they don’t have good options. A common refrain is that they feel like they’re choosing between two evils.

Your earthquake analogy fits. Authoritarianism can emerge as the figure who promises certainty and action. And the reason that’s appealing is because the system people are being moved through doesn’t feel like it works. No one seems in charge. No one seems to have a direction. When that’s missing, people attach themselves to whatever feels most certain, and someone who insists they can fix things feels certain.

Martha Engber: That’s fascinating. When I was researching your organization, I noticed your website says American political coalitions realign roughly every 30 years, and that we’re living through another realignment now. What was the last realignment? And how long do these typically take? Are we talking a year, a decade? And why 30 years?

Ade Salami: That’s a great question. There’s actually a lot of debate among political scientists about when the last realignment even happened. Some point to the 1980s, others to the 1990s. One moment that’s often used as a marker is 1994, the so-called Republican Revolution, when Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in about 40 years.

That period also solidified the South as a Republican stronghold and brought cultural and religious issues to the center of politics in a new way.

What’s important to understand is that these political shifts don’t happen all at once. You don’t wake up one day and everything is different. They unfold slowly over time, and they’re much clearer in hindsight.

A big part of my work is asking whether we can see these shifts as they’re happening and shape them, rather than only writing about them later in history books.

As for the 30-year rhythm, I don’t think it’s a magic formula. My best guess is that it roughly aligns with a generation. Every couple of decades, new voters come in. They have new leaders, new experiences, different values. Their culture is different, their priorities are different, and eventually politics has to reorganize around that energy. That’s why those timelines tend to cluster around 30 years.

Martha Engber: That’s interesting, because when people think about coalitions, they usually think Republicans and Democrats, the two-party system. And because of laws passed by both parties over the years, it’s almost impossible for a third party to emerge. So how do you change the two main parties? Neither one seems to listen to the people within them, and a lot of people are unhappy.

Of course, there are cheerleaders on both sides, but many people want both parties to change. So how do you actually do that?

Ade Salami: I have a lot of ideas. I don’t know that I have definitive answers. One thing I think about is the growing number of independent voters. Ideas like open primaries, where candidates have to campaign on issues because they can’t rely on party loyalty alone, become really important.

I also think about recent campaigns, like Zohran Kwame Mamdani, the new major of New York City, where a coalition was built by addressing people’s needs and focusing on what they shared as priorities, rather than party labels.

I think we’re entering a moment, especially with younger voters, where the two parties not only don’t appeal to them, but don’t feel representative. That’s what makes this moment ripe for realignment. I don’t think the current configuration is sustainable. We’re already seeing signs of that.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we moved toward a multiparty future. I wouldn’t be surprised if more people stopped identifying with any party at all and voted issue by issue. All of those possibilities are on the table.

Martha Engber: That’s very interesting. I consider myself an independent now, and I believe strongly in the common ground movement, the broad middle of America, the large majority who are unhappy with both parties and want to come together around shared values. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Can you explain more about your Foresight cohort of 14 leaders? Who are they? What political perspectives do they represent? And why did you intentionally seek such a broad range of viewpoints?

Ade Salami: That’s a great question. The Foresight cohort helped us write and stress-test the research in our reports. What we were trying to understand was the type of political realignment we’re living through right now.

There’s a lot of good writing about voter groups, like Latino voters or college-educated voters, but by the time those books or reports come out, the shifts have often been happening for years.

We wanted something closer to real time. So we asked: who is in constant contact with large numbers of people right now? Who is seeing changes before they show up in polls or headlines? That led us to leaders of large, membership-based organizations, people working with cross-ideological communities, across regions, identities, and backgrounds.

We’re also in a very different media environment than we used to be. Political beliefs used to be shaped in a very top-down fashion. I don’t think that’s how they work anymore. Now people’s political beliefs are shaped by social media, YouTube, WhatsApp groups, TikTok. You can’t just read The New York Times and say you know what people think. That’s why we wanted to bring people together and track different communities: Jewish voters, Asian voters, rural voters, urban voters, people who are watching extremism.

Those are all Americans, and they’re all part of the coalitions forming in this moment. They’re ultimately the ones who will shape what our parties look like over the next few decades. We didn’t want pundits. We didn’t want people with a very set idea of how things should work who want to impose that on others. We wanted to be intentional about finding people who are in their communities, talking to their neighbors, and seeing change happen in real time.

Martha Engber: I think it’s worthwhile to go back for a moment. When you say political viewpoints used to be formed from the top down, that meant there were three networks on TV saying certain things, and it funneled down to viewers. Newspapers worked the same way. But with social media, anyone at the bottom can push a message upward.

Ade Salami: Exactly. One hundred percent. You can go on TikTok today and see a video with 4.1 million views from someone you’ve never heard of before.

Martha Engber: And that person might not even be American, which I understand is now happening on both sides politically, with parties outsourcing messaging. Very interesting.

On your organization’s website, I meant to ask about the report you mentioned. Which report are you referring to, so I don’t get it wrong?

Ade Salami: There are reports for all of our programs, but the one I’m referencing is the inaugural report for the Pro-Democracy Political Coalitions in 2076 program. It was released in November of 2025.

Martha Engber: I was also fascinated by the five scenarios your organization outlined on how political parties might realign over the next 30 years. Can you explain those scenarios, and how your organization might help stimulate democracy even if both parties become authoritarian, which is one of the scenarios?

Ade Salami: To start, when we do this work, we hear a lot about short time frames: two-year grant cycles, four-year election cycles. But changes to democracy, authoritarianism, or party realignments happen over decades. That makes it hard to know whether progress is actually happening.

If you look at our current national political environment, Donald Trump came to power in 2016, Joe Biden won in 2020, and then Trump won again in 2024. That can be confusing. People ask, does this mean Americans want authoritarianism? Are they supporting it more now than in 2016? How do we make sense of that?

Progress isn’t linear. There’s backsliding. Globally, progress toward democracy has never been linear.

There’s always a push and pull between democracy and authoritarianism. Understanding that helps us recognize that chaos in the information environment doesn’t mean progress isn’t happening at the same time.

The scenarios were designed to help us look 30 years ahead and imagine how parties could evolve. One scenario has both parties authoritarian. Another has both parties pro-democracy. Another imagines a multiparty bloc. The goal isn’t to predict which one is most likely, but to understand the full range of possibilities, identify the ones we clearly don’t want, and think about how to intervene early to prevent them.

Martha Engber: So don’t wait to find out.

Ade Salami: Exactly. There’s been a lot of focus on right-wing authoritarianism, but the risk is ignoring the possibility of left-wing authoritarianism. That could emerge if people aren’t paying attention. We included that scenario because we felt it was being overlooked, even though it’s absolutely possible.

You also asked how we stimulate democracy if both sides become authoritarian. That’s not really how we think about using the scenarios. The goal is to avoid that outcome altogether. We want to identify warning signs and intervene before it happens.

The reason the scenarios look 30 years out isn’t so we can prepare for them once they arrive. It’s so we can look at today, determine which direction we’re headed, and decide whether that’s a direction we want. If it is, we reinforce it. If it isn’t, we intervene.

Martha Engber: What does intervention actually look like? From the perspective of the average American? We already have laws that reduce opportunities to change our government, and that expand presidential power and deter third parties. What does intervention mean in practice?

Ade Salami: That’s a great question. Intervention isn’t about huge, abstract forces beyond our control. There are individual actions we can take today that either strengthen or weaken democratic defenses. It’s about making informed choices.

For each scenario, we identified signposts we’re already seeing, or might expect to see, that indicate which direction we’re heading. We also offered recommendations showing how smaller groups can have outsized influence. We made recommendations for local government, for community organizations like food banks, and for different sectors of society where people can step in and have a real impact.

I think it’s important for everyday Americans to understand that. I’ll use a simple analogy. At the beginning of the year, people make New Year’s resolutions, often about weight loss. Losing 50 pounds sounds overwhelming. Most people think, I don’t know if I can do that.

But if instead you start with something smaller, like walking 5,000 steps a day, it feels achievable. You don’t focus on the entire 50 pounds. You focus on the next step and see where it gets you.

Martha Engber: There are a lot of really good ideas out there. But as you know, we live in a place where the noise is so high that getting good ideas out is difficult. So what does it look like for your organization to say, “Okay, here are our ideas,” and actually get them out to the public, to people like me? Is that the coalition-building part? Are you working with groups to methodically disseminate these ideas through social media?

Ade Salami: It’s less about us dispersing our ideas and more about focusing on people who want to collaborate on making effective change to ensure a representative and responsive democracy, and figuring out whether we have tools or information that can support them in that work.

For example, with our scenarios work, there may not be many organizations looking 50 years into the future. But there are organizations that have identified issues they care about that are emerging now.

Helping them understand that there are small actions their members can take today, actions individuals can take today, that have long-term impact, is often something they’re interested in. We’re happy to help them on that journey.

Martha Engber: As I mentioned before, I’m a member of Braver Angels, which operates in this space, and even there, just getting ideas out is a big challenge.

Ade Salami: One hundred percent. Braver Angels is a great example. Much of their work focuses on helping people bridge difference and disagreement. What I think could be really powerful is encouraging people to have conversations about issues that aren’t politicized yet.

Many of the issues we introduce in our 17 spectra aren’t yet locked into the current political binary. Someone on either side of the aisle could land on the same side of one of these spectra. Introducing those concepts and encouraging conversation across difference is often the first step.

Martha Engber: Your organization created an interactive tool that shows where people fall on 17 emerging wedge issues. For those who may not know, a wedge issue is a natural division that political parties exploit to intentionally divide Americans.

For example, your site asks if you see education as a social equalizer or a status enforcer; whether you lean toward identity-centered politics or issue-centered politics; whether you tend toward gender-role traditionalism or gender-role fluidity. Who came up with that idea?

Ade Salami: We created the interactive tool because we were really struck by More in Common’s perception gap research. It shows that people tend to believe those with opposing political views think much more differently than they actually do. People often exaggerate how extreme their opposition is.

That insight made us curious about emerging wedge issues and the assumptions we make about what people who align with us believe, and what people who don’t align with us believe.

We also wanted to show people that some of their beliefs differ from others within their own party. Some Democrats don’t agree with other Democrats on certain issues. Some Republicans don’t agree with other Republicans. We wondered what would happen if we applied that insight to emerging wedge issues.

Many people assume everyone in their party agrees with them on things like education, identity, or gender. That’s often not true. Some of the biggest disagreements you have are actually with people on your own side. We thought it would be powerful for people to discover that for themselves.
To realize, “I’m not as aligned with my party as I thought,” or, “I have unexpected things in common with people across the aisle.”

One piece of feedback we received was that many of these wedge issues feel like false binaries. And honestly, that’s the point. Political divides are simplified into binaries. We’re just used to the old ones. This tool helps people see that many of the lines we fight over are constructed, and the reality is far more nuanced.

Martha Engber: I’ve done programs where people talk about perception gaps. You see the other side as completely evil, and they see you the same way. But when you actually talk about issues, you’re often fairly close in belief.

Ade Salami: Exactly.

Martha Engber: It’s kind of crazy to see that happen.
Does the tool give a scale, like telling you you’re more independent, more Republican, or something like that?

Ade Salami: What we did instead was create a GPT-based prompt that generates a response based on what someone submits. You can answer as many or as few of the spectra as you want. Then you answer a few demographic questions, like party affiliation, gender, age, and education.

The GPT then looks at your responses and compares them with responses from others who share similar demographic characteristics. For example, it might say, “You identify as a Democrat, you completed all 17 spectra, and you agree with other Democrats on nine of them. On eight, you don’t.”
That insight has been really impactful.

I know people who were confident they were in lockstep with their party and then learned they only agreed on about half the issues.

Opening that conversation has been meaningful, and we hope the tool has been beneficial for those who’ve taken the survey.

Martha Engber: I did take it. People love surveys. You get one and think, “I have to know where I stand.” It was really fun. For people reading or viewing this interview, if you haven’t done it, go to their website and try it. What I want to ask next is: how worried are you about authoritarianism?

Ade Salami: That’s the million-dollar question. I’m probably more worried than I’ve ever been, but I’m not fatalistic.

Part of that is because more people see what’s happening now. In 2016, conversations about authoritarianism felt alarmist. That’s not the case anymore. You see it in discussions of niche policy issues, like the War Powers Act, becoming part of mainstream conversation.

You see it in places like the Minneapolis, in how people respond to ICE, the protests, and the pushback. I’m worried about what the government is doing, but I’m also more encouraged than I’ve ever been by how aware and engaged the public is.

People aren’t just watching anymore. They’re responding and engaging, and that matters.

Martha Engber: So this upheaval is forcing people to be more civically minded, more engaged, more knowledgeable. Everyone now understands misinformation in a way we weren’t talking about even eight or ten years ago.

Ade Salami: Exactly. People also aren’t content anymore to be told not to worry. They want to understand what’s happening. They want information so they can decide whether they like what’s happening or believe something different could work. They need to understand the system before they can change it.

Martha Engber: What would you like to see in the future, and what gives you hope that we’ll get there?

Ade Salami: What I want is a democracy where it’s normal to disagree, where we expect to persuade one another instead of trying to rig the system so one side always wins.

One idea we’ve lost is that our visions of the future don’t have to match. That’s the whole point of democracy. We’re not arguing about survival. We’re arguing about what kind of life we want.

I joke that I’m a refined, non-alcoholic champagne socialist. Fundamentally, I want everyone’s basic needs met. But also, once your needs are met, maybe you want something extra. Maybe you want something nice. Maybe you want guac at Chipotle. That’s normal.

And what gives me hope is that there are new coalitions already starting to form around things most Americans actually agree on. Most Americans want control over their bodies. Most Americans want leaders who understand their struggles.

We want freedom from religious persecution. We want to trust the news. We want responsible leadership. People may come at those ideas from different places, but they’re shared ideals. They’re shared outcomes that we have in common.

I don’t think people who support President Trump are there because they want authoritarianism. I think they’re there because they want change. They know the system is broken, just like people who don’t support Donald Trump.

We disagree on why the system is broken and how to fix it.

Another thing that gives me hope is candidates who actually speak to that brokenness and offer concrete ways to improve people’s lives. I’m thinking of Mayor Mamdani’s recent election and campaign. When candidates offer real solutions, voters respond, even if the candidates themselves seem imperfect.

In many 2025 elections, we saw people voting for different kinds of leaders than they typically would, because they were hungry for something to shift and look different.

The fact that people across the political spectrum are saying, “This isn’t working, we need to do something different,” makes me optimistic.

That recognition, that shared understanding, shows we do have a collective affirmative vision. And I think that’s the first step.

Martha Engber: Wonderful. I’m all for hope. Thanks, Ade.

Ade Salami: Thank you, Martha.

Join the Common Ground Movement!

If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.

Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.

Evangelism and the Common Ground Movement

I was very inspired by an email sent last week by Braver Angels’ CEO Maury Giles regarding the recent death of U.S. citizen Alex Pretti during an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protest in Minneapolis. (You can read the entire letter at the bottom of this post.)

“Intense conflict requires an equal force in response to be resolved; and that force can take very different forms. It can be domination (power and control) or connection (patience, perseverance, and perspective).”

I really appreciated the words of encouragement. At the same time, I thought, “You’re preaching to the choir.”

So I posted Maury’s letter on Facebook, Threads and Bluesky to encourage others to join the Common Ground Movement, and specifically member of Braver Angels, a nonprofit dedicated to civil discussion that leads to action.

In short, I became what I once more despised: an evangelizer.

What is evangelism?

The word evangelize comes from roots meaning “to bring good news.” In religious contexts it means to spread a message of salvation.

In secular use it’s come to mean to convert others to a belief or cause, sometimes with intensity and judgment, sometimes aggressively trying to win converts rather than foster understanding.

Because of that history, to me, evangelize carries negative connotations of zealotry, which is claiming the moral certainty and superiority to bulldoze over the experience and opinions of others. Zealotry implies a refusal to listen and typically focuses on winning rather than understanding.

So what does that mean for those of us who want to spread a positive message without bullying people? In this case the message that we Americans can draw together to change our country at the local, state and federal levels in the name of creating a stronger democracy and a happier life for all of us.

What I’ll offer is the idea of receptive evangelism, which I’d define as actively inviting people to discussion. And to clarify, “people” refers to those who new to the subject, rather than part of the choir.

So I’ll suggest another interpretation of evangelize: actively invite others to learn from one another and discuss solutions.
I feel compelled toward this type of evangelism because if the choice is between letting chaos and violence grow — as we’re witnessing in Minneapolis, where two U.S. citizens have been fatally shot by federal immigration agents in separate incidents this month — or choosing a more peaceful path, I’m hell-bent on what’s behind Door Number 2.

The ways to evangelize

Here are the ways I evangelize for the Common Ground Movement.

Social media

Create posts about people and organizations that are taking positive actions to make change and encourage others to repost.
We can also repost the messages of people who are working to decrease polarization and unite Americans, as well. Who cares if they’re not in the same organization. If they’re encouraging positive change, make friends and back them up!

Introduce the topic whenever the opportunity arises

I was at a farmer’s market booth to promote a state referendum. While talking to voters, I actively mentioned Braver Angels and encouraged them to join with fellow Americans, rather than remaining loyal to any one political party.

And either in-person or online, which people express their despair, be there to promote the Common Ground Movement and the hope expressed by those we know that if the 80% of Americans who are sad and disgusted by our current political system can draw together, we can make real change.

I’ll estimate that I reach out to people beyond my choir five times a week.
You can start by forwarding this post to friends who may not know there’s an option other than to react to the daily craziness that ensues.

Are you willing to be “that” person?

The problem with evangelizing is that most of us don’t like reaching out to strangers. We think that doing will open us up to attack. What I’ve found is the opposite, that people are waiting for the opportunity to engage with someone who shows them kindness and promotes hope.

But the real reason to extend yourself beyond your comfort zone is because the stakes are high. Putting ourselves on the front line to gain the trust of the “exhausted majority” is key to turning our country away from violence and toward reclaiming and changing democracy to create a more just society.

Join the Common Ground Movement!

If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant 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.

Letter from Maury Giles sent Jan. 25, 2026

I had just finished drafting this message when I read and watched videos of Alex Jeffrey Pretti being shot to death by ICE agents in Minneapolis. I felt a rush of anxiety, fear, and sadness; but, still, I was hoping it wasn’t true. It was; and it is our reality today.

Dr. Dimitri Drekonja, Pretti’s co-worker at the VA Medical Center, expressed the point on which I hope we all agree, no matter how you view ICE: “There is no reason for a guy like that to be dead, let alone to be killed by the agents of a government that employed him.”

➔ Two deaths in three weeks in Minneapolis.

➔ U.S. federal officers killing American citizens.

➔ Protestors storming church services with families and young children present.

➔ Local and federal officials arguing instead of talking, and leading, together.

So many reactions. So many questions. So many feelings.

Two things are on my mind right now about what is happening in Minneapolis:

1. What it means for our country and Braver Angels; and
2. 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

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.

Special Election 2025: How Do You Feel?

Now that the Nov. 4 special election is over, I want to get your feedback.

Summary of the results

• In Arizona’s 7th congressional U.S. House district, Democrat Adelita Grijalva won the special election to succeed her late father Raúl Grijalva.
• In Virginia’s 11th congressional U.S. House district, Democrat James Walkinshaw won decisively (75 % to 25 %) to replace retiring Democrat Gerry Connolly.
• In Florida’s 1st congressional U.S. House district, Republican Jimmy Patronis won the special election following the resignation of Matt Gaetz. While the GOP held the seat, Democrats made substantial gains in margin.
• On the Georgia Public Service Commission, Democrats flipped two seats, a notable shift in what has historically been Republican-dominated.
• Proposition 50 asked California voters whether to replace the state’s independent redistricting commission-drawn congressional maps with maps drawn by the legislature (to be used starting 2026) until after the 2030 census. It was approved by California voters. The measure is projected to help Democrats potentially flip up to five U.S. House seats in California.
• Self-described Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani won the 2025 New York City mayoral election, defeating former governor Andrew Cuomo (who ran as an independent) and Republican Curtis Sliwa. He will become the city’s mayor beginning January 1, 2026. Mamdani is the first Muslim mayor of the city, the first South Asian to hold the post, and one of the youngest mayors in recent city history.

Concerns for Republicans

An aggregate of news sources list the following as possible concerns:

• With the passage of Prop 50 in California, GOP strategists now see a structural threat to their House majority.
• Forecasting models suggest that Republicans risk losing about 28 seats in the House in 2026.
• The special election results signal voter discontent with the GOP’s messaging or coalition in certain key demographics, like younger or independent voters.

Concerns for Democrats

• Brand weakness: Despite winning several high-profile races, the party’s overall public image remains fragile: more than two-thirds of Americans say Democrats are out of touch.
• Internal ideological tensions: The party is still grappling with tensions between its moderate and progressive wings. The wins included both a progressive insurgent, Zohran Mamdani in NYC, and moderate safe-bets in Virginia and New Jersey. The diversity can be a strength, but poses a risk of mixed messaging heading into the midterms: what unites the party may be the opposition to certain GOP moves, but not necessarily a coherent vision.
• Midterm vulnerability: Even as Democrats picked up favorable results, these elections were largely in places already leaning Democratic. Analysts say that broader swing-district contests, especially at the national level in 2026, will be a lot more challenging.
• Policy and governance: Voters focused heavily on cost-of-living, housing affordability, public safety and education rather than solely ideological divides. Democrats will need to deliver concrete results or risk a backlash.

My take

I think the Republican leadership promised Americans the moon, but has not only not delivered, but is actively working against those who voted for them, so I’m not surprised at the losses.

Republicans pitched the President’s massive tax-cut bill as helping working families, but more Americans now realize the wealthy are the primary beneficiaries.

People who rely on Medicaid are seeing the GOP-controlled government push for deep cuts and new work requirements.

Rather than see prices go down, voters are seeing high grocery prices and the possible deletion of their health care coverage.

For my part, I’m most sorry about Prop 50. By pushing Texas to redistrict in an attempt to gain more House seats in the 2026 election, and California’s counter-response, the President canceled out the votes of thousands of Democrats in Texas and as many Republicans in California.

As for Democrats, they need a much stronger message beyond that of “oppose Trump.”

In turn, Republicans need to stop blaming the Democrats and work with them to reopen the government and work on the issues Americans care about: cost-of-living, health care and jobs.

Lastly, Americans need to work with Common Ground organizations like Braver Angels and it’s new Citizen-Led Solutions program to organize around common ground issues at the local, state and national level.

The last strikes me as the most important, because it’s clear our government is no longer working for us. Rather than wait for any particular candidate or political party to save us, we need to speak with one voice about what we want, and then see that our elected officials make it happen.

What’s your take?

Are you happy about the results, have mixed feelings, or scared?

What’s your next step in getting our elected officials to do their jobs?

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.

Citizen Spotlight: The Authors of “Beyond the Politics of Contempt”

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.

Instead, we can decide not to send that tweet or repost that inciting comment. That’s one of our strengths as Americans.

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.

The Common Ground Movement Gains Traction

Since joining Braver Angels, a national nonprofit focused on uniting Americans through civil discussion, I’ve longed to see the organization — along with hundreds of other such “bridging” groups — get together to strategize.

And specifically, discuss how to reach that elusive target: the 60% of Americans who make up the “exhausted majority” — those of us who are desperate for decency, calm and a good quality of life — with a clear message:

Let’s unite in a Common Ground Movement where:

• all Americans are welcome, no matter your political viewpoint
• we work together on what we want our society to look like: 1) greatly reduced polarization, 2) an effective means of blocking the negative messaging of conflict entrepreneurs, 3) citizen commissions to find common ground on major issues regarding immigration, housing, jobs and healthcare
• we develop a roster of Common Ground candidates dedicated to working together in a nonpartisan way to solve problems
• we have the clout to make our elected officials fulfill our desire for a healthier, happier, more democratic, less chaotic America

Imagine my delight when a subscriber and fellow political activist and friend sent me an article that mentioned an inaugural in-person “Bridging Movement Summit” in late September at Mount Vernon in Virginia. The event was organized by the Listen First Project, an event that involved the members of dozens of “bridging” organizations, or those dedicated to bridging the divide between differences.

Yes, 100 million people, because that’s what it’s going to take to fight back against the high-powered, monied and unscrupulous conflict entrepreneurs — politicians, political parties, hostile foreign nations and others who are purposely dividing us in the name of gaining wealth and power.

What’s at stake

James Coan, co-founder and executive director of More Like US, does a fabulous job in his article, “At the Bridging Movement Summit, Let’s Disagree With Each Other About How To ‘Bridge’” (Sept. 25, 2025, Fulcrum) of outlining why it’s so important to aim high.

• America is a big country, so only large-scale change in attitudes and behavior can shift social norms.
• Building trust one-on-one takes too long. Coan wrote that to engage 100 million people in that manner, at say 1000 conversations per day, would take 270 years.
• To have any broad influence, consistent, ongoing, targeted messaging needs to convey there is no “other side,” but instead we Americans are all on the same side. In specific, Coan advocates for evangelizing, i.e., aggressively reaching out to others with the goal of bringing them into the movement.
• Rather than state those messages just by word of mouth, they need to be broadcast widely throughout our society across all media platforms.

Coan, along with everyone I’ve talked to so far, admits that getting 100 million Americans on the same page will not be easy.

But they all say the need to move is now if we want to stave off authoritarianism, which people tend toward when they’re fearful. A recent Gallup poll found that only 29% of Americans are satisfied with America’s direction (“US Mood Sours as Crime, Unity Concerns Rise”).

The payoff

Coan argues that backed by the civic muscle of 100 Americans, the payoff will be huge.

We can get rid of the bad, namely, the polarization that’s led to so much mistrust and that threatens institutional legitimacy, social cohesion, public discourse, and even democratic stability

And we can increase the good, such as reducing anti-“other” animus, countering mis/disinformation, lowering support for political violence, curbing negative partisanship, and affecting how people vote.

Agreement

In “Bridging Movement Summit Recap,” David Beckemeyer summed up what he learned during the event:

Place-Based Work Matters

The most effective efforts to bridge divides start locally. Community-based programs that foster dialogue and trust have lasting real-world impact.

Collaboration Over Conversation

Dialogue is valuable, but true transformation happens when people work together on shared projects, building relationships that endure political and cultural tensions.

The Need for Better Public Understanding

Many Americans misunderstand what “bridging” means, often expecting partisan debates. The movement must communicate more clearly through compelling stories and outreach.

Navigating Cynicism and Skepticism

While some doubt that bridging can change minds, real examples show that kindness and reciprocity can ripple outward, proving progress is possible.

My question for you

While I’m all for doing what I can to help the Common Ground Movement gain momentum, I want to know what you think.

Are you ready to join the movement, or simply just inclined? If the latter, what would convince you to become one of the 100 million Americans necessary to reform our culture and government to serve people better?

If you’re not on board yet, what’s holding you back?

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.

Fact-checking Resources

After Charlie Kirk’s murder, a friend sent me a social media video. I’m glad she did. I was able to send her a fact-checking article published by the Associated Press, “FACT FOCUS: Assassination of Charlie Kirk prompts flood of false and misleading claims online,” that dispelled the premise of the video, which had been edited by conflict entrepreneurs for the purpose of inciting rage toward people of the opposite political viewpoint.

The interaction reiterated two truths about our times:

• All social media videos, posts and articles that leave viewers mad at “others” are the work of conflict entrepreneurs and ideally should be dismissed without reading, commenting on or sharing.
• We need to routinely consult fact-checking sources we trust.

The “we trust” is the difficult part in this era of mistrust.

Fortunately, there are now a lot of sources to choose from, as well as those that help educate us about misinformation. If possible, please let me know which you use, and which you don’t trust.

List of Resources

Fact-checking orgs

FactCheck.org

A non-profit, non-partisan “consumer advocate” for voters that monitors the factual accuracy of claims made by U.S. political figures in ads, debates, and news releases. It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

PolitiFact

This site, run by the Poynter Institute , a global nonprofit, rates the accuracy of statements made by elected officials and others involved in U.S. politics. Its “Truth-O-Meter” rates claims from “True” to “Pants on Fire.”

Snopes.com

Originally known for debunking urban legends, Snopes is one of the internet’s oldest and largest fact-checking sites. It now also investigates online rumors, news stories, and misinformation.

Media Bias/Fact Check

An online outlet that evaluates the bias and credibility of news sources to help users make informed decisions about the media they consume. 

Fact-checking journalism from news outlets

Associated Press (AP) Fact Check

This global news organization has a dedicated fact-checking team that works to combat misinformation and debunk false claims.

Reuters Fact Check

As one of the world’s largest news providers, Reuters has a fact-checking service that focuses on examining social media narratives and misinformation.

The Washington Post Fact Checker

This column assesses the factual accuracy of claims made by political figures and groups.

Broader resources for evaluating information

AllSides

This resource provides readers with a platform to compare how news stories are covered from different political perspectives—left, center, and right—to better understand potential bias.

Duke Reporters’ Lab

The lab maintains a database of fact-checking sites from around the world, allowing you to find reliable fact-checkers for international news

News Literacy Project

This non-partisan educational non-profit offers resources like its Rumor Guard feature to help people recognize and stop the spread of misinformation. 

How to fact-check a news story yourself

Consider the source

Don’t just read the headline. Investigate the website’s mission, contact information, and history. Check for unusual domain names or signs of low-quality writing.

Check the author

Search for the author’s name to determine their credentials and credibility
Look for supporting sources: Reputable articles will cite their sources. Click on links to see if they actually back up the claims made in the story.

Beware of sensational headlines

Exaggerated or emotional language is a red flag. If it seems too shocking to be true, it likely is.

Reverse image search

Use tools like Google Lens to verify the origin of images, as photos can be manipulated or used out of context.

Examine the evidence

Be skeptical of stories that rely on unnamed experts or lack verifiable evidence to support their arguments. 

More articles about fact-checking sources

Misinformation and Disinformation: Thinking Critically about Information Sources (College of Staten Island, City University of New York)

Real News/Fake News: Fact Checkers (Berkeley Library, University of California)

Reliable Sources of Fact Checking (League of Women Voters, Copper County, MI)

Resources for Reporting: Fact Checking (SMU Libraries)

News Literacy: how to evaluate news media (Penn State University Libraries)

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.

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.