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.

Upcoming Discussion: U.S. Involvement in Venezuela

Register for the discussion here.

Though I belong to Braver Angels, a national nonprofit committed to depolarization through civil dialogue and action, I’m also a member of my local Braver Angels alliance here in Silicon Valley.

Every quarter we arrange an online discussion via Zoom to talk through timely, often difficult, subjects with people of different viewpoints.

The topic for the next discussion is America’s recent military action in Venezuela.

I’ll be part of the conversation and invite you to attend as well by signing up. You don’t have to be a Braver Angels member or live locally.

Here’s the information:

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

If you can’t attend, I’ve gathered some basic background below and invite you to share your perspective.

One of the core principles of Braver Angels is that democracy works better when citizens wrestle honestly with facts, uncertainty, and disagreement, rather than letting conflict entrepreneurs do our thinking.

If you’d like to find your local Braver Angels alliance, you can do so here.

Venezuela: A Brief Snapshot

Venezuela is located on the northern coast of South America and is bordered by Colombia to the west, Brazil to the south, Guyana to the east, and the Caribbean Sea to the north. Its geographic position gives it access to major Atlantic shipping routes.

The country has a population of roughly 28 million people, though that number has fluctuated in recent years due to a mass migration. According to the United Nations and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), nearly 7.9 million Venezuelans had fled and were living abroad as refugees or migrants by mid-2025, with the vast majority in neighboring Latin American and Caribbean countries. That represents roughly 20% of Venezuela’s population, making it one of the largest emigration in the world.

Venezuela possesses some of the world’s most extensive mineral and natural resource reserves. Most notably, it holds the largest proven oil reserves on the planet, concentrated largely in the Orinoco Belt. Venezuela also has significant deposits of natural gas, gold, iron ore, bauxite, coltan, and diamonds, making it one of the most resource-rich countries in the Western Hemisphere.

Historically, Venezuela’s economy has depended heavily on oil exports, which at times accounted for more than 90 percent of export revenue. Other exports have included petroleum products, petrochemicals, iron ore, steel, aluminum, and, to a lesser extent, agricultural goods such as coffee and cacao.

As for its democratic history, Venezuela functioned as a representative democracy for approximately 40 years, from 1958 to the late 1990s, following the fall of military dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez. Democratic institutions began to erode after Hugo Chávez’s election in 1998. Many scholars and international organizations argue that Venezuela ceased to be a full democracy by the mid-2000s and had transitioned into an authoritarian system by the 2010s.

How Nicolás Maduro Came to Power

Hugo Chávez was elected president in 1998 on a populist, anti-elite platform and soon set about remaking Venezuela’s political system. Through constitutional changes, nationalizations, and an increasingly centralized executive, Chávez concentrated power in the presidency while tying the country’s fortunes tightly to oil revenues. For a time, high oil prices masked deeper structural problems.

When Chávez died of cancer in 2013, his chosen successor, Nicolás Maduro, narrowly won a special election. Unlike Chávez, Maduro lacked both charisma and broad legitimacy. As oil prices fell and mismanagement worsened, Venezuela entered a prolonged economic crisis marked by hyperinflation, shortages of basic goods, and the exodus of millions of citizens.

Over time, Maduro consolidated power by sidelining opposition-led institutions, jailing or disqualifying rivals, and relying heavily on the military and security services. Elections continued to be held, but many international observers—including the U.S. and European Union—argued they no longer met basic democratic standards.

A timeline of U.S. Involvement

Tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela have existed for decades, particularly after Hugo Chávez aligned the country with our adversaries and explicitly framed his political project as a rejection of American influence in Latin America.

In the years following Nicolás Maduro’s rise to power in 2013:

• The U.S. imposed targeted sanctions on Venezuelan officials accused of corruption, human rights abuses, and the erosion of democratic institutions.
• Broader economic sanctions followed, especially on Venezuela’s oil sector, with the stated goal of pressuring the Maduro government to negotiate political reforms or step aside.
• In 2019, the U.S. recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó, then head of the National Assembly, as Venezuela’s legitimate interim president, arguing that Maduro’s re-election was unconstitutional. This move deepened Venezuela’s internal legitimacy crisis and split international recognition.
• Diplomatic pressure intensified, alongside overt and covert efforts to weaken Maduro’s support among military and political elites.

The situation escalated further after the 2024 presidential election, which the opposition and many international observers argue was won by Edmundo González Urrutia, the unity candidate backed by Venezuela’s democratic opposition. Venezuela’s electoral authorities nevertheless declared Maduro the winner, a result rejected by the opposition and several foreign governments.

A central figure in this period is María Corina Machado, a longtime Venezuelan opposition leader who was barred from running in 2024 but played a key role in unifying the opposition behind González.

Machado was awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her sustained, nonviolent efforts to restore democratic governance in Venezuela. She has publicly supported U.S. pressure—and President Trump’s decision to remove Maduro—as a means of enforcing what she and others view as the legitimate outcome of the 2024 election.

Was it against international law for the U.S. to depose Nicolás Maduro?

Most international law experts and institutions say the U.S. action in Venezuela likely violated international law, primarily because it involved the use of force against a sovereign state without lawful justification. Here’s how that is assessed under key legal frameworks:

The U.N .Charter states that all U.N. member states—including the United States—can’t use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state unless:

• the action is taken in self-defense against an armed attack, or
• the U.N. Security Council explicitly authorizes force.

Legal scholars have pointed out that Venezuela did not launch an armed attack against the U.S. that would qualify as self-defense. There was no U.N. Security Council mandate authorizing the U.S. military operation or regime change.

U.S. Perspective: Potential Advantages/Disadvantages of Regime Change

Advantages

1. Reintegration of Venezuelan Oil into Global Markets
   Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves—more than 300 billion barrels—making it a potentially huge source of crude if production can be restored. Also, a friendly government might reopen access to these reserves for U.S. and allied firms, improving long-term energy supply and diversification.
2. Geopolitical and Energy Leverage
   Control over Venezuelan oil could strengthen U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere and reduce the sway of rival powers (e.g., China, Russia) that currently buy most Venezuelan exports. It could also support U.S. refiners—especially on the Gulf Coast—that are configured to process heavy crude like Venezuela’s.
3. Strategic and Economic Expansion
   U.S. energy companies could gain access to vast unconventional resources, potentially drawing significant investment and long-term economic activity. Increased production capacity could, over years, help buffer global supply and potentially lower fuel prices if infrastructure is rebuilt.

Disadvantages

1. Massive Cost and Time to Restore Oil Production
   Venezuela’s oil infrastructure has been severely degraded by mismanagement and sanctions. Restoring significant production would likely require *tens of billions of dollars and many years of investment. And even with regime change, meaningful increases in output wouldn’t be immediate, so short-term energy benefits are uncertain.
2. Humanitarian and Market Risks
   Forcible intervention to access oil could further disrupt Venezuela’s economy and deepen humanitarian suffering, fueling migration and instability. Sudden shifts in supply expectations can cause market volatility, affecting global prices and creating uncertainty for producers and consumers alike.
3. Legal and Ethical Concerns
   Using military force primarily to secure another country’s natural resources risks violating international norms and could damage U.S. credibility with allies. Violations of sovereignty can provoke diplomatic backlash.
4. Geopolitical Backlash
   Rivals like China and Russia—which have deep energy and financial ties to Venezuela—might resist U.S. efforts, potentially leading to broader geopolitical tension. A perception of resource-driven intervention could alienate neighboring Latin American states and undermine broader regional relationships.
5. Market and Environmental Complexities
   Venezuela’s crude is mainly heavy oil, which is more expensive to produce and refine, requiring additional processing and investment. Also, a ramp-up in production without strong environmental oversight could worsen pollution and ecological harm.

My questions for you

Are you in favor of the U.S. ousting Maduro, and if so, why?

Do you think the action was legal?

What do you think is the primary reason the current administration took this action?

Do you think this is a one-off maneuver for the administration, or that it might seek to remove leaders in other countries?

Join the Common Ground Movement!

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

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

Citizen Spotlight: Gen Z Activist Jason Vadnos

View interview on the Vigilant Positivity YouTube channel.

___

I’m always on the prowl to interview a wide variety of people within the Common Ground Movement to get perspectives I haven’t heard. When I was referred to Jason Vadnos, I leapt at the opportunity to talk with a college student who eloquently tuned me in to what he’s seeing and hearing regarding Gen Zers’ worries about—and hopes for—the future.

Jason is a junior at Vanderbilt University. Passionate about strengthening youth interest in civic engagement, he’s the campus leader for Let’s Be SVL,a pilot program launched this year by More Like US, a national nonprofit that works to close the change — for the better — the way people on different sides of the political spectrum look at one another. After college, he hopes to continue his work on depolarization and civic engagement through a career in either higher education or the nonprofit sector where he can provide students with the skills and knowledge they need to revitalize our democracy. Currently he’s both an Obama-Chesky Voyager Scholar for Public Service and a Riley’s Way Foundation Call for Kindness Fellow.

___

Martha Engber: I recently interviewed James Coan, the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. When did you get connected to the organization, and why?

Jason Vadnos: Great question, and thank you again for inviting me, Martha. I first met James two summers ago, in 2023. I was spending the summer in Washington, D.C., where James is based. At the time, I was interning with my university’s Office of Federal Relations, essentially our lobbying arm for the national government.

I’d developed an interest in civil discourse and dialogue after getting involved in a Vanderbilt initiative called Dialogue Vanderbilt, which helps students build the skills they need for productive conversations. So I started looking for DC-area organizations committed to productive dialogue and reducing political polarization. I came across James, we met that summer, and we’ve stayed in regular contact for the past two years. That relationship led to the launch of this new initiative.
fgen z

Martha Engber: As mentioned, the organization is piloting a program called Let’s Be SVL. SVL is an acronym for Stories, Values, and Listen. As the campus leader, can you tell us how it works and why it’s necessary?

Jason Vadnos: Absolutely. Let’s Be SVL was co-designed by James and me, and draws from a wide range of research on psychology, politics, and conversation. It’s essentially an easy, memorable framework people can use when they’re having contentious conversations or conversations across difference: use stories, connect through values, and listen.

We wanted to bring this to higher education, which in recent years has faced tough challenges, from the Israel-Palestine protests to concerns about a lack of conservative viewpoints being uplifted on campuses. Universities are launching dialogue programs, including the one at Vanderbilt, but those initiatives often have limited scope. They tend to involve long workshops, attract only a small segment of students, and require sustained commitment.

We asked ourselves, “What’s an effective way to teach many students how to have better conversations?” Let’s Be SVL became that framework. Our main investment is in mass media and messaging campaigns—social media, flyers, tabling in public spaces—ways to reach large groups of students at once. Students don’t have to self-select into workshops; the tools simply meet them where they are.

Martha Engber: So if programs are too involved, they attract only people who already have the time or interest. You’re trying to reach a much wider population.

Jason Vadnos: Precisely.

Martha Engber: And what kinds of messages are you putting out?

Jason Vadnos: Let’s be civil is the core message. It embodies the strategy: use storytelling as a point of connection, relate to shared values, because to have a persuasive conversation, you need to know what the other person cares about. And, of course, listen. Truly listening helps you understand and show respect for the person you’re engaging with.

On social media and flyers, we’ll have a big graphic that says something like, “Having a difficult conversation? Be SVL,” followed by prompts to use stories, values, and listening. We also share related messages, such as “The other side is more civil than you think,” or “People are more curious and open to common ground than you assume.” But Let’s be SVL is our anchor.

Martha Engber: What changes have you been seeing, if any?

Jason Vadnos: We’re in the middle of studying that. As part of the pilot, we’re running surveys to understand the dialogue environment at Vanderbilt. We’ve launched a pre-test measuring dialogue skills, habits, attitudes, and levels of affective political polarization. As our messaging rolls out, we’ll conduct a post-test to see how exposure to the campaign affects students’ willingness to talk across differences, actual behavior—whether they’re engaging more with people from the other side—and whether they’re feeling less fear or hostility. We don’t have analysis to share yet, but the process is underway.

Martha Engber: Have you personally shared stories? Are there videos circulating of people talking to each other?

Jason Vadnos: Yes. Instagram is one of our primary tools. It’s the dominant youth platform and widely used at Vanderbilt for news and updates. We’re building content that includes man-on-the-street–style interviews about politically divisive topics, modeled using the SVL framework so both people feel respected and productive in the conversation.

We also have videos explaining what Let’s Be SVL is, why it works, and the research behind it. We’re actively expanding that social media presence.

Martha Engber: Have you seen any anecdotal evidence of people changing their perceptions? Maybe a roommate or someone down the hall? What transformations have you witnessed?

Jason Vadnos: Absolutely. Universities are hotbeds for contentious issues. Most recently, Vanderbilt was one of nine universities selected by the federal government to potentially sign a proposed compact that would change university policies in exchange for preferential access to federal grant funding. The moment this became public, campus reaction was fast and intense. Some students said, “We must reject this.” Others said, “Let’s negotiate.” Some thought the compact sounded great. It quickly split the student body, sparking protests and marches.

We used the SVL framework to help students talk through their perspectives on the compact and explore what a productive university response might look like. We brought students with a range of views into conversations—sometimes at events, sometimes informally outside the main cafeteria—and gave them a simple structure for discussing a politically divisive issue.

Afterward, students reported that they better understood how someone could hold a different perspective. They gained insight into how people’s backgrounds shaped their views and felt less immediate hostility toward one another. Suddenly, someone who supported the compact wasn’t “evil,” and someone who opposed it wasn’t “ignorant.” They were simply fellow students trying to figure out the best path forward.

Martha Engber: That leads into the perception gap, which you touched on. Many people don’t know that term. Can you explain what the perception gap is and give an example?

Jason Vadnos: Absolutely. The perception gap is central to the work of More Like US. It describes the tendency for people to assume that those on the other side of the political aisle hold more extreme beliefs than they actually do.

For example, there are lots of studies—and on the More Like US website there’s a whole list of topics—showing where the perception gap appears. Take gun control. Many Democrats believe that around 80% of Republicans oppose all gun control laws. But in reality, it’s closer to 40–50%. I don’t remember the exact number off the top of my head, so definitely check the More Like Us website for specifics. But the point is that only about half of Republicans believe gun control should be very limited, and most actually support common-sense measures like safe ammo storage.

That’s the perception gap: one side assumes the other holds far more extreme views than they really do.

Martha Engber: And I don’t think people believe that until they see the statistics, do they?

Jason Vadnos: Right. We’re all stuck in our own partisan echo chambers where we’re told, “Everyone on the other side believes X.”

Without actual conversations across the aisle, it’s easy to assume the worst—that the other side is more extreme, more unanimous, more rigid than they truly are. But the data doesn’t support that, and when you do talk to people with different viewpoints, you see the gap for what it is.

Martha Engber: Have you ever experienced a perception gap yourself? And if so, what changed your view?

Jason Vadnos: I think everyone experiences it because none of us have perfect information. One example for me in the last couple of years involved institutional neutrality. This is the policy where universities say they won’t take public stances on political or social issues not directly tied to their mission.

I’ve always had some qualms about that. I thought that some supporters of institutional neutrality were simply trying to platform divisive or even hateful viewpoints. But I had the chance to sit in a dialogue circle with about 20 other students, and we spent 90 minutes talking about why we did or didn’t support the policy and what our concerns were.

I realized most people had much more nuanced views than I expected. And I saw that most of them were approaching the issue with good intentions. We all wanted to improve our community; we just had different ideas about how to do that. They had facts, experiences, and data that informed their views. I didn’t necessarily change my own position, but I came away with a much better understanding of why others believed what they did.

Martha Engber: And having that information makes you better able to negotiate solutions?

Jason Vadnos: Exactly. You need at least some common ground to work together.

If you assume the other side is extremely far from you, why even try? But once you understand the perception gap—and see that it doesn’t reflect reality—you’re able to collaborate toward solutions that actually work for everyone.

Martha Engber: I was curious—how do you think your generation differs politically from others?

Jason Vadnos: Gen Z is fascinating, and there’s lots of reporting on this because everyone wants to know: What is Gen Z thinking? What’s the future of democracy?

Personally and anecdotally, I think Gen Z is just as passionate—if not more passionate—about public issues, community problems, and global challenges as older generations. But the kinds of action we take look different.

Historically, civic engagement was measured by things like voting rates, and youth voting has been low for decades. Sometimes fewer than 40–50% of students vote even in national elections.

But while we may show up less at the ballot box, we’re creating change through social media activism, community problem-solving, and issue-based organizing. We’re deeply engaged—we’re just engaging differently.

Martha Engber: Is that passion driven by being confronted with so much more? Maybe like the 1960s, when there were many hot-button issues?

Jason Vadnos: That’s part of it. Climate change, for example, looms large for our generation. But I think the bigger factor is access to information. With the internet and social media, we constantly see everything that’s going wrong in the world. Historically, you might hear about major issues on the evening news, but your awareness was rooted in your local community. Now, information moves instantly. That makes Gen Z far more aware of global issues—and, as a result, more motivated to address them.

Martha Engber: Are they also aware of how that information is spun depending on who puts it out?

Jason Vadnos: Yes, though it’s a big challenge. Media literacy is essential, and young people know that.

Most Gen Zers are skeptical of anyone claiming to provide purely “fact-based” news. We understand that everyone—news outlets, influencers, commentators—has an agenda or narrative they’re trying to advance.

Gen Z has a pretty strong awareness of misinformation and disinformation, especially now with AI and deepfakes. Most young people know these things exist and feel we have to be critical and cautious about the information we consume.

Martha Engber: As someone who listens well and works on these issues, what worries do you hear most from your generation?

Jason Vadnos: We have a lot of worries. One major concern is that democracy isn’t working and hasn’t worked for us. We grew up in an era of extreme political division, minimal bipartisanship, and constant political conflict. And government has been less effective. Congress, for example, is passing historically few bills.

So many young people feel government isn’t serving us, and that we need to take action ourselves. That’s where community problem solving and mutual aid come in.

Another worry is about the survival of the American Dream, especially economically. Youth homeownership feels almost impossible. Compared to 50 years ago, it’s incredibly expensive and unrealistic for many my age.

And of course, global crises like climate change weigh heavily on us. People are thinking hard about what the world will look like in 40 or 50 years.

So yes, there’s a lot on our minds. But I’m hopeful because we’re working to change things.

Martha Engber: I’d love to communicate more regularly with people of your generation and younger. Do you have ideas about how to improve intergenerational discourse?

Jason Vadnos: Great question. And there are some people doing fantastic work on intergenerational connection. From our perspective as Gen Z, I think a few things need to happen.

One big issue is the narrative that Gen Z is apathetic—that we don’t care or we’re disengaged. Most young people know that isn’t true, but we hear it constantly from the media and from older generations. So if someone comes to the table saying, “Your generation doesn’t care about what’s happening in the world,” why would we want to engage or work toward solutions with them? Breaking down that narrative of apathy is really important.

It’s also essential to understand that Gen Z grew up in a radically different environment—technologically, socially, economically—than past generations. There have been plenty of reports claiming Gen Z is impossible to work with. People say, “We can’t get through to them,” or “They have different habits.”

But that doesn’t mean Gen Z is worse at working. We’re just different. Coming into conversations with a sincere desire to understand, recognizing the distinct challenges we’ve grown up with, and saying, “We value your voice and want to work with you,” is incredibly important. A lot of young people feel unheard.

Especially when we look at government and see leadership dominated by people in their seventies and eighties; people who don’t necessarily represent youth perspectives. All of these factors shape intergenerational dialogue.

Martha Engber: If you ever develop a program around this and get involved in that work, please let me know. I think it would be fascinating.

Jason Vadnos: Absolutely.

Martha Engber: What do you think would greatly decrease polarization in America? You must have ideas, since you’re so immersed in this.

Jason Vadnos: That’s a big question. I think there are three things worth highlighting. First, the work More Like US is doing on the perception gap shows that we’re not nearly as divided on issues and policies as we think we are. What we do have is a lot of affective polarization, the belief that the other side is evil, the enemy, ignorant, or totally unreasonable.

How we solve that is complicated. There’s no single solution. We need multiple interventions at different scales and in different places. But one of the most important foundations is education. That’s why I’m so passionate about Let’s Be SVL on college campuses.

We have to teach people how to engage with those who are different from them. Affective polarization grows from a lack of meaningful interaction with people who have different backgrounds, identities, lived experiences, and perspectives. The only way to bridge that gap is to give people the skills and knowledge to do it. We need to teach how to engage across difference productively, how to have better conversations about hot-button issues, and how to walk away feeling heard rather than angry or discouraged.

Education is at the heart of combating polarization. And it doesn’t only happen in schools. I’m a student, so I focus on my campus, but this learning can happen in workplaces, homes, churches, community centers—any communal space.

We should invest in programs that teach people how to have better conversations, how to engage across difference, and most importantly, why it matters.

If people don’t believe that conversation can lead to meaningful change, they won’t engage. And polarization won’t lessen. We have to show examples of people working across difference to create something positive in their communities.

Martha Engber: Do you think that effort would be enough to push back against the overwhelming negative messaging from conflict entrepreneurs?

Jason Vadnos: That’s a major challenge. In an ideal world, if we could reach all Americans at scale and depolarize through education, that would be a strong solution. But we know that’s not how reality works. Conflict entrepreneurs and political elites drive much of the narrative. They model our behavior.

So another thing we must do is change the incentive structure. Social media algorithms need to reward content that shows productive engagement across division—people working together—rather than hateful or spiteful rants. We also need our political leaders to model working across the aisle and to invest in bipartisan collaboration instead of calling each other evil. That kind of shift is critical. And it reinforces what I said earlier: there won’t be a single answer. We need multiple solutions working together.

Martha Engber: How hopeful are you that your work will have an impact? And what gives you that hope? You have a naturally positive attitude. But beyond that, what fuels your optimism? What have you seen or heard?

Jason Vadnos: What gives me hope is the everyday interactions I have with my peers on campus and beyond. Having the kinds of conversations I want others to have across the aisle, and seeing that young people who disagree with me or come from totally different backgrounds still want to improve the world. We’re all working on this together.

Those day-to-day experiences of working across differences are meaningful. They show me that if I can collaborate with someone I radically disagree with to solve a problem in our community, anyone can.

And in the past few months, there’s been great reporting showing that Gen Z truly does care deeply about our communities.

I mentioned the narrative of Gen Z apathy earlier, but now we’re seeing the opposite: clear evidence that young people are passionate about public issues and want to improve the world.

Knowing that people across the country—not just on my campus or in my hometown—are engaging with these issues gives me hope. We’re seeing youth-led solutions, youth-led projects, and initiatives that are improving communities every day. Reading about those efforts and seeing them firsthand gives me so much optimism.

And conversations like this give me hope too; knowing there are people everywhere who value youth voices and want Gen Z to help build a better world.

Martha Engber: I’ve really enjoyed talking with you. And again, if you develop an intergenerational program, put me on the list. I think you’re right—it’s incredibly important for us to talk to one another. One of the biggest things I’ve seen is the lack of youth voices in the programs I’ve been part of. So good on you for advancing that.

And thanks to those who listened to this episode. You can find a post and transcript of today’s interview on my blog, vigilantpositivity.wordpress.com. Please join our cause.

Join the Common Ground Movement!

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

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

Citizen-Led Solutions: Braver Angels’ Take on Deliberative Democracy

Have you ever wished your community could tackle local problems without waiting for officials, agencies, or elected leaders to tell you what matters? Presumably you not only know, but have ideas about the solutions you’d like to see. Maybe your neighbors have the same ideas and aspirations, too, but don’t know where to start.

If that’s the case, what do you do?

What do we do?

One answer is to stop waiting for officials to offer solutions, and instead, see ourselves as the experts of our own communities.

That’s the spirit behind deliberative democracy, a process I wrote about in April (“Deliberative Democracy: The Anecdote to America’s Depolarization”), in which representative groups of community members get together to learn, discuss, and ultimately recommend solutions together.

The model makes sense, but we often get stuck on how to start. Who gathers the people and guides the process? How do we turn good conversations into real, on-the-ground action?

The leaders at Braver Angels, a national nonprofit dedicated to uniting Americans through civil discussion and action, think they’ve found a way forward called Citizen-Led Solutions (CLS) . The simple, yet ambitious, framework is built around the assumption that ordinary people, working with humility and trust, can solve local challenges better than anyone else.

The basics

Through CLS, Braver Angels makes the case that talk alone isn’t enough. While dialogue helps us understand one another, we want eventually want to do something, as in fix what’s broken. So why not to let us, but in the process, give us direction regarding the how?

The framework rests on the idea that though we citizens might not have gotten college degrees in how to run our local, state and national governments, that doesn’t mean we’re unskilled. Instead, we bring our knowledge, talents and enthusiasm into the process.

The first step is to build trust by finding common ground on what we want for our community. Once determined, the planning can commence. While experts can be brought in to provide data and resources, it’s our job to negotiate and craft solutions that honor everyone’s experience. The last step is to get the support necessary to get our solutions implemented.

The goal is to build “civic muscle” over time through those cycles of trust, design and action.
Examples of the system might be solving a dangerous traffic intersection issue or turning a contested homeless shelter project into an affordable housing plan.

The concept upon which CLS rests is that democracy isn’t something we watch or consume. It’s something we do.

The challenges

Fragility of citizen-led projects

Braver Angels acknowledges that citizen-led work can be messy. There are false starts, confusing meetings and breakthroughs that go bust. Institutions more experienced in problem-solving might see chaos, rather than progress, and want to help by taking over, rather than offering help when it’s asked for and trusting the group will steer its own ship.

Overcoming polarization and trust

Polarization adds another layer of complexity. You can’t just gather neighbors and expect instant collaboration when half the room is convinced the other half is the problem. And even when experts join the effort with good intentions, they can inadvertently overshadow the very people the project is meant to empower. Maintaining true citizen leadership is a delicate balance.

Legitimacy and support

Citizen-led projects can be dismissed as small or symbolic: nice stories, but not “serious” work. Funders often want scale, predictability and measurable outcomes. Deliberative democracy doesn’t always offer that. What it does offer is community ownership and civic renewal, something not every institution knows is able to recognize.

The benefits

If the challenges look daunting, the good news is that they’re outweighed by the benefits.

A cultural shift


CLS is designed to shift civic culture and help communities move from hate to trust, hopelessness to agency, and from being — and I love this — “consumers of democracy” to “co-creators of democracy.”

Building “civic muscle”


As citizens go through repeated cycles of trust-building, designing solutions, and implementing them, they develop the real-world skills of facilitation, problem-solving and collaboration that help develop stronger relationships and confidence over time within the community.

Concrete, local change


Rather than just talking, CLS encourages action on projects we citizens identify as real problems.

Legitimizing Citizen Power


A key outcome is shifting how we think about democracy: not as something run by experts, but as something ordinary citizens own.

Other players in the field

If you’re looking beyond Braver Angels for organizations that facilitate citizen-led commissions, there’s a rich ecosystem out there.

Deliberative Democracy Lab

This is the leading organization in the U.S. and is based at Stanford University.

The Lab specializes in Deliberative Polling®, a method that marries rigorous public-opinion research with structured, in-depth citizen deliberations. Their projects include large-scale experiments like “America in One Room,” where a demographically representative sample of citizens gathers to deliberate on national policy questions.

Through its work, the Lab not only provides empirical evidence about how public opinion shifts in moderated discussion, but also helps inform how democratic institutions can better incorporate citizen-led input.

New Hampshire Center for Civic Life

This organization based at Franklin Pierce University shows what can be done at a state level to generate community dialogue and deliberative forums. They train facilitators, help citizens frame issues, and run public policy institutes.

National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI)

The institute has been a pioneer in hosting deliberative forums for decades. These forums bring together ordinary citizens to talk through tough public policy issues and try to find common ground.

National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)

This organization connects facilitators, organizers, and researchers who run citizen assemblies, public deliberations, and similar processes. Their work helps build the infrastructure and best practices for these kinds of democratic innovations.

Deliberative Democracy Consortium

Globally, the Consortium connects dozens of organizations, universities, and civic practitioners who run or study assemblies. Their network helps scale democratic innovation across borders and contexts.

World Wide Views Alliance

On the international stage, the World Wide Views Alliance convenes thousands of citizens across many countries to deliberate on global challenges like climate change. The results feed into major international policy discussions.

My questions for you

1. What issues would you like to see solved in your community?
2. Would you be willing to sit on a citizen commission?

Join the Common Ground Movement!

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

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

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.

Citizen Spotlight: James Coan of More Like US

A few weeks ago, I posted about the first in-person Bridging Movement Summit that took place in late September at Mount Vernon in Virginia, an event organized by the Listen First Project.

The event drew together representatives from dozens of bridging organizations, including James Coan, a former finance and data analytics expert who co-founded and now serves as executive director of More Like US, as in U.S. The national nonprofit educates Americans about how much common ground we share despite political differences. James has also served as the Washington, D.C. Alliance co-chair and Mid-Atlantic Regional Lead for Braver Angels, a nonprofit dedicated to uniting Americans through civil discussion.

An attendee, James wrote an article titled “At the Bridging Movement Summit, Let’s Disagree With Each Other About How To ‘Bridge’” that was published in Fulcrum. In the piece, he talks about why it’s so important to join forces and aim high by uniting 100 millions Americans in a Common Ground Movement to kill polarization and shore up our democracy.

(Read the interview transcript below or view the video on the Vigilant Positivity YouTube channel).

Martha Engber: Hello, James!

James Coan: Hi, Martha!

Martha Engber: Thank you so much for joining me. I have so many questions. Let’s start with this: what do you believe is the biggest threat to America at this time in history, and how much time do we have to turn things around?

James Coan: I can answer at least part of that. I focus a lot on the overly negative misperceptions Americans have of one another across the political spectrum.

There’s strong evidence showing that people think those who vote differently or belong to the other political party are more extreme, hostile, and threatening than they actually are; sometimes even inferior or stereotypical.

When you have that toxic mix of thoughts and feelings, all sorts of things can go wrong. People stop wanting to talk to each other. On a societal level, it becomes, “Why vote for someone who might collaborate if there’s nothing to collaborate on?” or “Maybe I need a strongman to protect me from those dangerous people on the other side.”

So, I don’t know if this is the biggest threat, but it’s the one I’m focused on. I can’t predict how much time we have, but my goal is to maximize the likelihood that our democracy remains strong.

Martha Engber: On your organization’s website and in your article, you talk about scaling common ground efforts to reach 100 million Americans and push back against what you call “conflict entrepreneurs”: politicians, political parties, foreign adversaries, and big businesses that spend billions to divide us for political gain.

You note that one-on-one conversations alone can’t get us there; that even if we held a thousand a day, it would take 270 years. So how do we scale without that personal interface, especially when most nonprofits don’t have major funding?

James Coan: The goal is to change how Americans think and feel about one another. It’s not about 100 million people fighting for one cause, it’s about cultivating trust and understanding.

That shift will come from a certain number of people taking proactive steps. As for cost, there’s already a massive ecosystem of entertainment and media. Not all messaging needs to come directly from nonprofits. Organizations like Braver Angels or More Like US can encourage larger platforms to portray people across the spectrum more accurately and positively.

Martha Engber: So, you’re talking about having ambassadors for this idea, i.e., people who show that Americans aren’t naturally angry at one another, but are being made to feel that way. Is that right?

James Coan: Exactly. There are a lot of perverse incentives in the media landscape. If you want clicks, attention, or ad revenue, it often pays to divide.

That leads to portraying Americans in negative, simplistic ways, as if the country is split into two irreconcilable sides. But the data show we’re not nearly that divided.

This exaggerated portrayal persists because, as the saying goes, “If it bleeds, it leads.” But it’s not what most people actually think or feel. By highlighting the truth—through data and storytelling—we can push back against those false narratives.

Martha Engber: What story would you tell to show that we’re not really angry with each other. That we share more than we realize?

James Coan: At More Like US, we’ve partnered with AllSides (a national nonpartisan news organization) to create something called the Similarity Hub. We’ve aggregated about 700 survey data points showing areas of agreement across political lines or among super-majorities of Americans.

Common ground is everywhere. It’s often portrayed as something we have to dig for, but it’s abundant. We just need to highlight it.

Organizations like More in Common have found similar results. One of their key findings is the “perception gap”: Americans believe people on the other side are far more extreme than they actually are. Other research shows most Americans reject political violence and behave civilly toward each other.
People are complex, and there are countless stories that defy stereotypes about Democrats or Republicans.

Martha Engber: How do you scale those messages? For every 20 negative headlines about polarization, there’s maybe one saying the opposite. How do you change that ratio?

James Coan: At More Like US, we’re focusing on college campuses. It’s a formative time in people’s lives, and campuses are semi-contained information environments.
You can reach thousands—or on large campuses, tens of thousands—just by putting up flyers with these messages.

Other groups are tackling the same challenge outside academia. Bridge Entertainment Labs, for example, and a division of Resetting the Table are working with Hollywood to improve how Americans are portrayed in TV and film.

Martha Engber: And Hollywood has traditionally expanded people’s perceptions, often in entertaining ways. So you’re saying we can draw on that expertise to make the message of Americans getting along more palatable, more engaging, and something people want to watch.

James Coan: Yes. The arts are an area of great interest for me—and for More Like Us. We’ve developed a framework I like to remember with a mnemonic: CAST, as in recasting fellow Americans in a better, more accurate light. It stands for showing people as Complex, Admirable, Similar, and worthy of Togetherness during collaboration and in friendships and other kinds of relationships.

The hope is to shift thoughts and feelings away from the opposites of those traits: seeing others as stereotypical, inferior, or entirely different, and therefore to be avoided.

Martha Engber: I was intrigued by that idea of “recast.” Is it a kind of powerhouse approach for getting the message across?

James Coan: I think so. It offers guidance for people in the arts. We’re grounding it in social science. Our advisory council includes experts in social psychology, particularly on us-versus-them dynamics.

The question is: how do we take that research and translate it for creative people who can reach hearts and minds through storytelling?

It’s about using what science tells us and infusing that into artistic content that truly connects with people and captures their attention in today’s crowded media landscape.

Martha Engber: You’re part of what’s often called the common ground or bridging industry. There are hundreds of organizations in this space; yours, Braver Angels, and many others. Each has hundreds or even thousands of members, yet none has broken through nationally or made major progress in showing Americans there’s an option outside of partisan loyalty.

If there are so many organizations, why don’t more Americans know about them? And how do we change that?

James Coan: Great question. So far, most organizations in this field have focused heavily on participatory actions: workshops, dialogues, or service events like “let’s plant trees together.” These can be valuable, but they require a lot of time, energy, and motivation to attend.

At More Like Us, we focus instead on the information environment, or what people see and hear about one another. Much of the field stems from what’s known as contact theory or the contact hypothesis, developed in the 1950s to study how people reduce prejudice.

Direct interaction—talking face-to-face—is one way. But what we see and hear about others through media, on our phones, or even flyers on a campus bulletin board also shapes how we think and feel. All of it is information that can either divide or unite us.

Martha Engber: How do we focus that information into a single, clear message that Americans will respond to? People get a lot from identifying with one political party: belonging, acknowledgment, a team to root for, even an opponent to blame.

So what’s the one message that could persuade Americans to leave that negativity behind?

James Coan: Keep the message simple: “We’re not as divided as we’re told.”

Group identity is actually a positive thing. Social science shows it doesn’t have to come with hostility toward others. You can strongly identify with your own group and still feel neutral, or even positive, toward others.

Historically, Americans’ warmth toward their own party hasn’t changed much in decades. What’s declined is warmth toward the other party. But that’s not inevitable.

At More Like Us, we focus on what’s called horizontal trust: trust between everyday Democrats and Republicans. That’s different from vertical trust, which deals with institutions and power structures. Both matter, but we’ve chosen to focus on rebuilding trust among ordinary people.

So yes, the message is: They’re better than we think. Our fellow Americans are complex, admirable, and similar to us, and so worthy of togetherness rather than fear.

Martha Engber: So you’re saying we need visuals to go with this: videos showing people from different parties talking and connecting. The tone and body language matter. Because when I tell people, “We have a lot in common,” they often say, “No, we don’t.”

So maybe just telling them isn’t enough. Maybe pictures, voices, and emotion can convey it better. Is that right?

James Coan: Yes, and that’s a really interesting empirical question.

At More Like Us, we’re more of an “air game” organization focused on messaging and the information environment. Much of the bridging field is a “ground game,” building local alliances and in-person dialogue.

Where these meet is where I get excited. If someone’s in a Braver Angels alliance, for instance, can they go out and share accurate information within their own networks? Can they spread the message that “people across the political spectrum are better than we think”?

For some audiences, that might mean sharing data, like our Similarity Hub, with 700 examples of common ground. Others will connect more with personal stories or videos. It’s all information, just packaged in different ways to reach different people.

Martha Engber: That’s really interesting. So you’re saying that to counter the deep, well-funded negative messaging out there, we need to fight fire with fire, focusing on media and storytelling, with multiple narratives that reach different audiences, cultures, and generations.

James Coan: Exactly. Returning to the CAST framework, many of these stories should show people across the political spectrum as complex, admirable, and similar—people we can collaborate or even be friends with.

Those are powerful messages, and they have to be targeted to different audiences. There’s no single story or slogan that will resonate with all 340 million Americans, but together, a range of authentic, human stories can.

Martha Engber: If you had to give people a sense of scale, how much do we need to ramp this up? Like, are we talking about 100 negative messages for every one positive? Just to give people an idea of how out of balance things feel right now.

James Coan: That’s a really interesting question.

First, I’ll say that More Like Us is focused on adding positive messages. But there’s also a need to reverse what I call “perverse incentives.” There are so many incentives in media that reward divisiveness. So both sides of that equation—adding positive content and changing incentives—need work.

I don’t have a precise data point comparing unifying versus dividing messages. But within what you call the common ground movement—or what I might describe as a movement toward trust—there’s been a heavy emphasis on conversation: “Let’s talk to each other.”

That’s valuable, but there hasn’t been a strong, unified push behind the message: “We’re actually more united than we think.”

The focus has been on talking, not necessarily on what we’re saying or showing in those conversations.

Also, a small number of people have an outsized influence online.

Research from Jay Van Bavel at NYU shows that about 6–7% of Americans produce 75% of political posts. And within that, sometimes just 0.1% of users drive a large share of misinformation.

So when people say, “Online discourse is so toxic,” they’re often seeing the behavior of a tiny fraction of users—who get amplified by algorithms. Most Americans don’t post about politics at all. But because that vocal minority dominates platforms, it gives the impression that everyone is angry and extreme.

Martha Engber: I assume a lot of those people are doing it professionally; they’re getting paid, or at least they’re very organized. So are you saying that we need to encourage ordinary Americans to post and share messages that counteract those voices?

James Coan: Yes, some of those divisive posters are paid, and the algorithms definitely reward them. Others are just deeply ideological and spend their free time sharing political content that happens to be divisive.

That’s where our “three N’s” framework comes in: helping people share positive messages within their Neighborhoods, Networks, and for a few, the Nation.

A lot of bridging organizations with more of a ground-game focus are already doing this: activating people to take an outward-facing approach, even “evangelizing” in a sense—spreading the word that we’re not as divided as we’re told.

It can start small—talking to a neighbor, or sharing examples of goodness across the political spectrum. Then it can move into networks: social media, religious communities, workplaces. For instance, what might a CEO say about politics that’s actually helpful? The idea is to activate all the “megaphones” people already have in their lives.

Martha Engber: Let’s say someone listening is inspired by this conversation and wants to help. They’d be happy to post a video of themselves with a friend from the other political party, showing they can disagree without hostility. But they’d need a little guidance, a kind of template or step-by-step website. Is there anything like that right now?

James Coan: Sort of. They’d need to be a little enterprising. Our focus is mostly on college students, so our programs are structured for that audience. But we do have some resources on our website—especially for creatives—based on our CAST framework.

If people focus on the “T” for Togetherness, they can share examples of friendship and collaboration.
Before the pandemic, I actually started something called Red Blue Together, which is still on Instagram. It highlights friendships and close relationships across the political spectrum and could serve as inspiration.

There’s also the Strengthening Democracy Challenge, a project run by Stanford University. One of the top-performing interventions there was a campaign ad featuring Utah’s Republican governor, Spencer Cox, and his Democratic opponent. That evolved into the Disagree Better initiative, which has created short videos promoting respectful disagreement.

So people could emulate those examples, or simply share the ones that already exist.

Martha Engber: That’s great. I’ll definitely include links to your programs. But as an everyday person, I still wish there were a simple “1-2-3” website, something anyone could use to join in easily. If you ever hear of one, please let me know.

Now, moving on, when the Bridging Summit took place, I was ecstatic. That’s exactly what I’ve wanted to see: bridging organizations coming together under one umbrella. I’ve been calling it the Common Ground Movement because I haven’t heard a better term.

Can I tell you what I, as an American, would love to see accomplished under that umbrella?

James Coan: Absolutely, and you’re the host, so please go ahead.

Martha Engber: You have to let me! Okay—here’s my vision:

1. A common ground pledge—a simple, clear statement of purpose across all bridging organizations.
   
2. A short list of common ground issues most Americans can rally behind, rather than the 200-plus listed by Voice of the People, just a handful that unite us.
3. A slate of common ground political candidates willing to work together across parties.
4. A strategy for clear, targeted messaging—like what you’re talking about—to present Americans with a compelling alternative to division.
5. And finally, an easy way for everyday Americans to get involved at the local, state, or national level.

So, do you think bridging organizations have the will to unite and create that kind of shared platform?

James Coan: Well, first of all, thanks for sharing those ideas. they’re great, and I’d probably have to write them down to fully digest them.

The question of willpower is key. In fact, one of the articles I wrote touched on this—the willpower or courage to be open to disagreeing about how to do things.

Ironically, this is a field about bridging, but it hasn’t done much internal bridging. There’s been a sort of tacit consensus that interpersonal dialogue and shared activities are the answer. But as you’ve probably gathered from listening to me, I’m a little skeptical about the arithmetic of that approach.

Maybe we need to reassess our approaches. It’s coming up on a decade, and are we really where we want to be? Are the strategies we’re using the best ones?

There’s often this question of whether we can come together. I’d say the field has come together too much. If there’s too much consensus, some of us need to pause, evaluate what we’re doing, and adjust our approach.

Even then, perfect alignment is unlikely. Organizations like ours tend to focus on an “air game,” while others focus on the “ground game.” I try to encourage ground-game groups to be as effective as possible from my standpoint, but they will likely have messages I may not agree with, and that’s okay.

Some lack of alignment is healthy.

I’m reminded of the period just before the March on Washington (in 1963), when all the major civil rights organizations came together. Eventually, yes, they acted, but they didn’t agree on every point. It was a tough process, and I think some degree of tension is good; better than pretending we’re doing everything right.

Martha Engber: That’s interesting. I think we’re talking about the same thing from different angles. It seems the focus has been on interpersonal interactions, and messaging hasn’t been emphasized as much as it could be. If there were a summit structured like a company, with marketing, advertising, strategy, and so on, each organization could bring its expertise and cover all the ground. Could that work?

James Coan: I don’t know. It depends on mindsets. Some statements are technically true but misleading, like “trust moves at the speed of relationships.” For deep personal trust, that’s true. But in intergroup dynamics, you don’t need that depth. You just need to move in the right direction and reduce elements that undermine trust.

I’m more focused on a precursor stage: being open to discussing assumptions and mindsets. Consensus may emerge eventually, or differences may remain, but at least we express them honestly and articulate why we pursue certain goals, rather than defaulting to “this is what we’ve always done.”

Martha Engber: Rhetoric can sometimes feel glossy, as in trying to be too uplifting.

James Coan: Exactly. We need to peel back the rhetoric and ask: what’s the strategy, and how likely is it to succeed at scale in a country this large?

Martha Engber: Very little happens without broad-scale messaging and media. That’s how the world operates. Without it, the common ground movement will struggle.

James Coan: I agree.

Martha Engber: What were your takeaways from the summit?

James Coan: With most conferences, I get the most out of individual interactions—deepening relationships, meeting new people. I attend many conferences, and that one was just one of five I attended in September. It’s about connecting with lots of people.

One interesting program suggests responses to problematic rhetoric online and could potentially be automated with a bot to scale. There’s research and messaging under discussion, though some is still under wraps.

Some social psychologists presented a useful framework.

One funny insight: sometimes a goal can be simply getting to “meh.” That won’t inspire millions, but it’s realistic. Instead of striving for super-warm feelings across the spectrum, aiming for ambivalence, tolerance, and lukewarm understanding is a reasonable goal. That’s often much better than the current baseline.

I would have liked to see more discussion of what should be done. There was a lot of positive framing, which is fine, but more challenging conversations weren’t as prominent.

Martha Engber: One last question: for those of us convinced we have a lot in common, and could solve more problems if we unite behind that idea, what’s one thing we can do today?

James Coan: The most self-serving answer—since we focus on colleges—is: if you know a college contact interested in improving civil discourse and helping students realize we share common ground, please reach out to me. I’d love to talk.

Martha Engber: That’s wonderful. I really like the idea of aiming for ambivalence. So if someone says, “Those other people are rotten,” you’re able to respond, “I think not.”

James Coan: Exactly. And that ties into mis- and disinformation. If someone says, “They’re terrible,” and you don’t agree, that information can essentially bounce off. There are many benefits to maintaining that kind of perspective.

Martha Engber: Thank you so much! We could go on for another hour easily. This is a big, deep topic, and I’m fascinated by it.

Thank you to everyone who listened. And thank you so much, James, for talking with me.

James Coan: Thanks for having me, 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.

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.

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.

Citizen Spotlight: Wilk Wilkinson

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

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

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

Q&A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wilk: Thank you, Martha, I appreciate it.

Connect Wilk Wilkinson

You can connect with Wilk through any of the following:

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

Subscribe

Join the Common Ground Movement!

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

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

Gerrymandering: Where All Americans Lose

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

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

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

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

History

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

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

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

Actual Alternatives

There are four modern methods of redrawing districts that:

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

Independent Redistricting Commissions

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

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

Criteria + Algorithmic Maps

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

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

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

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

Proportional Representation (PR) Systems

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

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

Hybrid Models

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

But Alas, Politicians Love Our Current System…

…because the current system allows for legal abuse.

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

The Current Situation

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

Let’s look at California where I live.

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

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

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

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

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

My question for you

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

Subscribe

Join the Common Ground Movement!

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

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