The home page posed a question I’ve been trying to get my head around since restarting this blog in 2024.
“What if technology fostered trust and collaboration instead of driving polarization and violence?”
The website states the organization:
“…brings together tech innovators and peacebuilders to design technology that protects human dignity, strengthens social bonds, and supports collaborative problem-solving. Through a focus on social cohesion and prosocial design, we’re shaping a future where technology fosters connection and resilience—from everyday communities to high-risk conflict zones.”
The org purports to create products, programs and policies that are desirable, affordable and actionable. For details, check out the council’s 2025 strategy and implementation report, which I’ve attached below as a pdf.
The blueprint is wonderful, meaning thoughtful, rational, well laid-out and doable.
But what are the chances our government, and we citizens, will push hard to finally do what’s necessary: require social media platforms to change their algorithms so they reward positive messages of unification, rather than negative click bait designed to keep us enraged and divided?
Number of platforms
While there’s no official list, it’s estimated there are at least 100 social media platforms that attract over 4.6 billion users a year (“Your complete list of social media sites and platforms” by Luke McCarthy, Vamp, July 2, 2024).
Of the top 12 networks, all are American except for China-based Douyin and Telegram, which has Russian founders. TikTok was recently bought by a consortium of U.S. investors, the private equity firm Silver Lake and Abu Dhabi-based MGX. Chinese based ByteDance retains almost 20% of the company.
Which platforms encourage negative/divisive political messaging
YouTube’s recommendation engine has been criticized for steering users toward conspiracy theories, sensationalism, and partisan viewpoints, especially when people watch political or extreme content (“YouTube moderation,” Wikipedia)
TikTok
Research analyzing TikTok and the “For You” and Recommendation Feed, around U.S. elections suggests political and toxic content earned higher engagement, meaning platform recommendation systems may elevate these posts.
Meta’s engagement-driven feeds have been associated with promotion of emotionally charged public posts, including political debates, even after algorithm updates.
Platforms like Gab and Minds are known for minimal content moderation, leading to echo chambers of extreme or hostile political discourse.
These networks often attract users banned from mainstream sites, creating environments where negative political rhetoric proliferates without much algorithmic filtering.
One of the most comprehensive legal frameworks governing social media platforms today is the EU’s Digital Services Act. It targets large online platforms with rules designed to protect users’ rights and make algorithmic systems more transparent and accountable.
Key points include:
transparency of algorithms and content-ranking mechanisms for very large platforms
external audits and reporting obligations so regulators and researchers can analyze risks tied to recommendations
Germany’s Network Enforcement Act compels platforms with more than 2 million users to promptly remove illegal content like hate speech and misinformation or face heavy fines.
While not directly regulating algorithm design, the threat of fines increases incentives for platforms to use their systems (including algorithmic recommendation filtering) to minimize illegal or harmful content.
Singapore: POFMA & New Online Safety Measures
Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) gives the government authority to require platforms to correct or remove false information.
Also, a newer online safety law will empower regulators to block harmful content and instruct platforms to act against doxxing, cyberbullying, harassment, and incitement.
India: IT Rules & Content Takedown Requirements
India has updated its Information Technology Rules to require social media companies to more aggressively remove content flagged by government authorities and to establish fact-checking units.
hold platforms accountable for the spread of disinformation
Turkey and Indonesia: Takedown and Local Compliance Rules
Turkey’s 2020 law requires platforms to remove offensive content within specific timeframes and maintain a local legal presence, exposing them to enforcement that can shape content moderation practices.
Indonesia also enacted requirements for takedowns and identification for problematic content.
It should be noted that hese measures are framed as combating illegal or harmful content, but governments have also used them to target political dissent.
Other Regional Efforts
Many countries are developing or considering laws that would directly or indirectly regulate how algorithmic feeds work. Online Safety acts and bills in the UK and Australia are focused on curbing harmful or cyber-bullying content.
There are also proposals to require chronological or user-controllable feeds instead of allowing algorithmic recommendations.
What has America done?
The answer? Nothing yet. At least nothing that resembles a cohesive plan.
It should be noted that many of the American social media platforms, including Meta, and other high-tech companies like Amazon and ChatGPT pledged $1 million or more for President Trump’s inaugural committee after he was elected. (“Here’s why business leaders are spending big on Trump’s inaugural committee” by Kevin Beuninger, CNBC, Dec. 24, 2024. The article includes the funding that other inaugural committees raised for previous presidents.
It should also be noted that while Presidents Obama and Biden attempted to influence social media companies toward more transparency and flagging harmful or inaccurate content, neither administration proposed legislation to regulate the industry. Currently there are members of Congress attempting to set firm mandates regarding algorithm accountability and platform transparency, but comprehensive regulation akin to the EU’s Digital Services Act hasn’t yet passed into law. States are experimenting with protections, particularly for minors.
A bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Mark Kelly and John Curtis would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to impose a “duty of care” on platforms’ recommendation algorithms. It would allow people harmed by algorithm-driven content to sue companies for damages and requires platforms to design and manage algorithms to avoid foreseeable physical harm or death.
Senators Chris Coons and Bill Cassidy re-introduced bipartisan legislation to increase transparency from social media companies and enable independent research into how their platforms affect health, democracy, and safety. This would shed light on how algorithms shape content visibility.
This bipartisan federal law signed in May 2025 criminalizes the publication of non-consensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated deepfakes, and requires platforms to remove such content within 48 hours of a report. It’s a targeted response to one category of online harm that can spread rapidly via algorithms.
Executive Order on “Ending Federal Censorship”
In January 2025, an executive order was signed with language opposing government collaboration with platforms over content moderation, a stance that critics say could limit federal involvement in steering platforms away from polarizing or harmful algorithmic feeds.
State & Local Actions
New York enacted laws restricting addictive, algorithm-based feeds for minors (e.g., age-based algorithmic protections), limiting notifications and feed recommendations for under-18 users unless parents opt in.
Connecticut lawmakers have proposed legislation to require parental controls, restrict addictive recommendation algorithms for kids, and set default privacy settings for minors’ account.
Conclusion
A paper titled “The Limitations and Ethical Considerations of ChatGPT” and posted on Data Intelligence in February 2024 states the issue best:
I asked ChatGPT that very question and this is the response I got:
I asked a number of different ways, but continued to get the same non-response, which makes me wonder what internal mechanisms have been put into place within ChatGPT to discourage certain lines of inquiry.
Fortunately, we know what we can do:
Use social media as little as possible, and when we do, only engage with positive messaging.
Contact our members of congress to encourage them to pass a comprehensive federal law like the Proposed Federal Algorithmic Accountability Act.
Speak out about how conflict entrepreneurs use social media platforms to spread misinformation and cause conflict in order to gain power and wealth.
My question for you
Do you use social media, and if so, which platforms?
What rules, if any, do you follow in order to discourage misinformation and negative messaging?
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
I was very inspired by an email sent last week by Braver Angels’ CEO Maury Giles regarding the recent death of U.S. citizen Alex Pretti during an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protest in Minneapolis. (You can read the entire letter at the bottom of this post.)
“Intense conflict requires an equal force in response to be resolved; and that force can take very different forms. It can be domination (power and control) or connection (patience, perseverance, and perspective).”
I really appreciated the words of encouragement. At the same time, I thought, “You’re preaching to the choir.”
So I posted Maury’s letter on Facebook, Threads and Bluesky to encourage others to join the Common Ground Movement, and specifically member of Braver Angels, a nonprofit dedicated to civil discussion that leads to action.
In short, I became what I once more despised: an evangelizer.
What is evangelism?
The word evangelize comes from roots meaning “to bring good news.” In religious contexts it means to spread a message of salvation.
In secular use it’s come to mean to convert others to a belief or cause, sometimes with intensity and judgment, sometimes aggressively trying to win converts rather than foster understanding.
Because of that history, to me, evangelize carries negative connotations of zealotry, which is claiming the moral certainty and superiority to bulldoze over the experience and opinions of others. Zealotry implies a refusal to listen and typically focuses on winning rather than understanding.
So what does that mean for those of us who want to spread a positive message without bullying people? In this case the message that we Americans can draw together to change our country at the local, state and federal levels in the name of creating a stronger democracy and a happier life for all of us.
What I’ll offer is the idea of receptive evangelism, which I’d define as actively inviting people to discussion. And to clarify, “people” refers to those who new to the subject, rather than part of the choir.
So I’ll suggest another interpretation of evangelize: actively invite others to learn from one another and discuss solutions. I feel compelled toward this type of evangelism because if the choice is between letting chaos and violence grow — as we’re witnessing in Minneapolis, where two U.S. citizens have been fatally shot by federal immigration agents in separate incidents this month — or choosing a more peaceful path, I’m hell-bent on what’s behind Door Number 2.
The ways to evangelize
Here are the ways I evangelize for the Common Ground Movement.
Social media
Create posts about people and organizations that are taking positive actions to make change and encourage others to repost. We can also repost the messages of people who are working to decrease polarization and unite Americans, as well. Who cares if they’re not in the same organization. If they’re encouraging positive change, make friends and back them up!
Introduce the topic whenever the opportunity arises
I was at a farmer’s market booth to promote a state referendum. While talking to voters, I actively mentioned Braver Angels and encouraged them to join with fellow Americans, rather than remaining loyal to any one political party.
And either in-person or online, which people express their despair, be there to promote the Common Ground Movement and the hope expressed by those we know that if the 80% of Americans who are sad and disgusted by our current political system can draw together, we can make real change.
I’ll estimate that I reach out to people beyond my choir five times a week. You can start by forwarding this post to friends who may not know there’s an option other than to react to the daily craziness that ensues.
Are you willing to be “that” person?
The problem with evangelizing is that most of us don’t like reaching out to strangers. We think that doing will open us up to attack. What I’ve found is the opposite, that people are waiting for the opportunity to engage with someone who shows them kindness and promotes hope.
But the real reason to extend yourself beyond your comfort zone is because the stakes are high. Putting ourselves on the front line to gain the trust of the “exhausted majority” is key to turning our country away from violence and toward reclaiming and changing democracy to create a more just society.
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant PositivityFacebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
Letter from Maury Giles sent Jan. 25, 2026
I had just finished drafting this message when I read and watched videos of Alex Jeffrey Pretti being shot to death by ICE agents in Minneapolis. I felt a rush of anxiety, fear, and sadness; but, still, I was hoping it wasn’t true. It was; and it is our reality today.
Dr. Dimitri Drekonja, Pretti’s co-worker at the VA Medical Center, expressed the point on which I hope we all agree, no matter how you view ICE: “There is no reason for a guy like that to be dead, let alone to be killed by the agents of a government that employed him.”
➔ Two deaths in three weeks in Minneapolis.
➔ U.S. federal officers killing American citizens.
➔ Protestors storming church services with families and young children present.
➔ Local and federal officials arguing instead of talking, and leading, together.
So many reactions. So many questions. So many feelings.
Two things are on my mind right now about what is happening in Minneapolis:
What it means for our country and Braver Angels; and
The impact this reality, and the work we do, is having on each of us individually.
I want to start here: What we see in Minneapolis right now is a harsh but true reflection of us as a people.
Intense conflict requires an equal force in response to be resolved; and that force can take very different forms. It can be domination (power and control) or connection (patience, perseverance, and perspective).
I believe it is that simple.
Right now, “we the people” seem to prioritize “tribal interests” over the interests of all. With every emergent conflict, we are choosing domination (or apathy) over connection. It doesn’t matter if the point is destroying the “other side” or checking out as if one has no individual part in the play of our national drama. In both, we choose a path that does not lead to a better America.
Braver Angels’ quest is to inspire people to embrace a way of being because they see it as a genuine pathway to heal society and make a better world. While other groups rightfully advocate for specific solutions or organize protests, Braver Angels focuses on the methods of how we reach those answers. We do it with discipline.
Within our membership people have very different ideas about public policy solutions. That is by design. We aspire to the hard work of engaging across differences to build together. We choose connection over domination.
Think about it. Our individual choices are what matter. No public official, political party, or institution can or will make this change alone without us. They can lead, invite and teach. Or they can, as most seem to do today, incite more anger and more division.
We can choose to go against the grain. Find those with whom we disagree and do the difficult work of learning, sharing, and building. Together. The more intense the conflict, the more effort is required to build a common solution. This is the Braver Angels Way.
Let me close on the very personal, human impact on trying to do this work.
I can’t help but feel the strain. I am as stretched as I’ve ever felt, right now. I know you must feel variations of the same. For me, it is a daily (and sometimes hourly) battle to keep things in perspective, determine what is in my control, and act. My most effective aids right now are family, exercise and study routines, breathing practices, meditation, and think time. Find yours.
In these times, I find there is no replacement for this idea: keep on keeping on… put one foot in front of the other. Sometimes those steps are fast, sometimes we need to slow down (and I ask the same of you). Recognize the challenges, celebrate the victories big and small, give each other the grace these times require. Through it all, let’s keep our eyes on the vision of an America at peace with itself, where courageous citizenship is the norm.
I choose to pray. You may or may not have that practice. But I believe you’ll understand my intent: I pray for peace, wisdom, strength, courage, and patience. Then I get to work.
Walk with me. One foot in front of the other. Shoulder to shoulder.
It’s worth it.
I am so proud to be on this mission with you. Even, and especially, right now. Look for a series of convenings we will be leading with others in our sector.
When I started watching 13th, a documentary by Ava DuVernay, I had to turn it off because her handling of why America has the highest incarceration rate per capita in the world is brutal. Or rather, the history she exposes is brutal. I forced myself to watch the movie in 10-minute segments over the course of a few months.
I’m still processing what I learned.
The premise of the movie is this: the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was meant to abolish slavery, included a single phrase that’s allowed slavery to continue through our prison system. In specific, the amendment, which passed in January of 1865 after the Civil War, includes this loophole:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
That meant if anyone in authority needed free labor, they simply had to find reasons to imprison people.
5 Reasons for Watching the Movie
While my introduction may have discouraged you from watching the movie, I’ll suggest you do so anyway—and recommend the movie to political movie discussion clubs—for the following reasons. Understanding the current numbers
13th makes clear the extreme nature of America’s incarceration problem
With about 2 million people imprisoned, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any country, including China, which has a billion more people. Our prison population represents 20 percent of the total world’s incarcerated population (195 countries).
Tens of millions more Americans live with criminal records that affect their ability to work, vote, or find housing.
Race sits at the center of these numbers. Black Americans make up about 13 percent of the U.S. population but roughly 38 percent of the prison population. Latino Americans are also incarcerated at disproportionately high rates. Black men, in particular, face a lifetime likelihood of imprisonment that is several times higher than that of white men.
The film doesn’t argue that crime doesn’t exist. Instead, it asks why enforcement, sentencing, and punishment fall so unevenly—and why those disparities have remained stubbornly consistent across decades and political administrations.
Understanding how we got here
One of the most unsettling aspects of 13th is how methodically it traces the system’s evolution. After the Civil War, Southern states passed “Black Codes” that criminalized everyday behaviors, such as vagrancy, loitering, not having proof of employment. Arrests surged, and states leased prisoners to private companies for labor in mines, farms, and factories. Slavery, in practice, continued under a new legal name.
When overt racial laws became politically untenable, the mechanisms changed but the outcomes did not. Jim Crow laws enforced segregation through policing and incarceration. Later, the “law and order” politics of the 1960s and 1970s reframed racial fear as crime fear.
The War on Drugs accelerated everything. Mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes laws, and sentencing disparities—most famously between crack and powder cocaine—dramatically increased prison populations without reducing drug use. Private prisons emerged. Entire rural economies became dependent on incarceration. Tough-on-crime rhetoric replaced nuanced policy discussions.
The film’s central insight is that none of this was accidental. These systems were built, expanded, and defended through legislation, lobbying, and political messaging.
Realizing the economic reasons to make change
Beyond fairness and morality, there are practical reasons to rethink mass incarceration. Incarceration is extraordinarily expensive. States and the federal government spend tens of billions of dollars each year on prisons and jails. Housing one incarcerated person can cost anywhere from $30,000 to over $100,000 annually, depending on the state and the level of medical care required.
We taxpayers bear those costs, while the benefits often flow elsewhere. Private prison companies, surveillance and security contractors, and vendors supplying food, healthcare, and telecommunications profit from incarceration. Meanwhile, families lose income earners, children grow up with parents behind bars, and communities lose social stability.
Research consistently shows that alternatives—education, mental health treatment, substance-abuse programs, and reentry support—are far cheaper and far more effective at reducing recidivism. Keeping people productive and families intact isn’t just humane; it’s fiscally responsible.
Seeing how narratives shape policy
The film shows how media portrayals of crime—often racially coded—helped create public support for harsher laws. From campaign ads to nightly news broadcasts, fear became a political tool. Once crime was framed as a moral failing rather than a social problem, punishment became the default response.
This matters because policy follows perception. If incarcerated people are seen primarily as “criminals” rather than as citizens, neighbors, or family members, it becomes easier to justify systems that warehouse them indefinitely.
Understanding the need to take action
Often when we watch history that makes us feel bad about our country, the temptation is to blame our ancestors, one political party, one region, one ideology.
But blame achieves nothing.
Here are ideas about how to change the system.
Change what we reward politically
Mass incarceration didn’t grow because voters demanded prisons; it grew because “tough on crime” reliably won elections. To change that outcome:
Vote in local elections, especially for district attorneys, judges, sheriffs, and county supervisors. These offices control charging decisions, plea bargains, bail practices, and jail budgets.
Support prosecutors who commit to data-driven reforms, such as diversion programs, declining to prosecute low-level offenses, and ending cash bail for nonviolent charges.
Pay attention to judicial races, which often fly under the radar but shape sentencing for decades.
Shrink the system at its entry points
The most effective way to reduce incarceration is to stop feeding people into the system in the first place. Here are policy changes we can make.
End cash bail for nonviolent offenses, which criminalizes poverty rather than danger.
Decriminalize low-level offenses, especially drug possession and status crimes.
Expand pre-arrest diversion, allowing police to refer people to treatment, mediation, or social services instead of jail.
Raise the age of juvenile prosecution and eliminate juvenile transfers to adult court.
Replace punishment with prevention where evidence is clear
Decades of research show that many drivers of crime are predictable and treatable.
We can encourage less incarceration by supporting leaders who support these measures:
Mental health and addiction treatment
Stable housing and supportive services
Early childhood education and after-school programs
Violence interruption and community mediation programs
Reduce the length of sentences, not just admissions
America doesn’t just imprison people, but also keeps them incarcerated for unusually long periods.
Here are ideas about how to change that:
Eliminate mandatory minimums
Expand earned-time credits for education and rehabilitation
Restore parole and meaningful sentence review
Make elderly and medical parole routine, not exceptional
Cut the financial incentives behind incarceration
The “prison industrial complex” persists because incarceration is profitable for some and politically safe for others.
Consider voting for leaders in favor of the following:
Ban or sharply restrict private prisons and detention centers
End per-diem jail contracts that reward higher occupancy
Require transparency around prison labor and vendor contracts
Oppose rural prison expansion projects disguised as “economic development”
Restore rights and pathways after incarceration
Once American repay their debt to society, they should be able to re-enter society without the stigma of being a convict.
Key reforms include:
Automatic record sealing for nonviolent offenses
Restore voting rights upon release
Ban discrimination in housing and employment for old convictions
Change the narrative about crime and accountability
Fear-based narratives sustain punitive systems going. We can shift that culture via the following:
Challenge language that dehumanizes incarcerated people
Support journalism and storytelling that shows complexity, not caricature
Frame reform as public safety plus fairness, not one versus the other
My questions for you
Do you think our criminal justice system needs to be reformed, and if so, how? How carefully do you examine a candidate’s stance on criminal justice during elections?
Conclusion
13th is not an easy watch, and it’s not meant to be. It challenges viewers to confront a history that is uncomfortable precisely because it is ongoing. But discomfort can be clarifying. By understanding how the system works, how it was built, and who it serves, we gain the ability to imagine—and demand—something better.
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant PositivityFacebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
I first heard about Australia’s new ban on social media for kids under 16 via NPR on Dec. 10, the day it went into effect. Amazed, I found myself asking deeper questions: Would something like this make sense for American children? Would American parents agree with it? And if most parents said yes, could U.S. lawmakers — especially those with ties to social-media companies and ad-driven business interests — actually pass such a law?
Australia
Australia’s groundbreaking law—born of the Online Safety Amendment passed in late 2024—prohibits children under 16 from creating or maintaining social media accounts on major platforms, including TikTok, Facebook/Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, X, Threads, Twitch, and more. Platforms that fail to verify age and block under-16 access can face fines of millions of Australian dollars.
The goal is to protect young people from the many problems we all know about: online bullying, harmful content exposure, grooming behavior, addictive design features, and mental health risks.
These risks were highlighted in government-commissioned research that found the vast majority of children aged 10–15 used social media and many had encountered harmful content.
Polls in Australia showed broad public support for the legislation, with some surveys finding as many as 70–77% of Australians backing the ban at the time of its enactment.
Critics argue the ban may be technically difficult to enforce, could push teens toward more hidden or unregulated online spaces, and may isolate vulnerable youth, like those who identify as LGBTQ+, who rely on digital communities for support.
Other Countries
While Australia is the first to implement a nationwide ban, other countries are pondering how to curtail problems related to social media use by kids.
France has proposed stricter controls with parental consent, though not a full ban yet. Beyond Europe, ideas ranging from smartphone bans for younger children to content-time limits are being discussed.
America
Proven harm and public health concerns
Decades of research—including advisories from the U.S. Surgeon General—show strong associations between social media use and a range of mental health challenges for children and teens. This includes links to depression, anxiety, poor sleep, and exposure to harmful content. While causation is complex, the correlations are well documented. (“Social Media and Mental Health in Children and Teens,” Johns Hopkins Medicine).
The issue creates a generational divide. Youths are often less likely to support restrictive policies than adults.
Would American Parents Back a Ban?
Survey data suggests a significant portion of U.S. parents support restrictions on kids’ social media use, though not necessarily a full ban like Australia’s.
Around 58% of U.S. parents said they would support a ban on social media for children under 16 (Family Online Safety Institute).
Other polls show broad support of 70–80% for parental consent and strict age verification before minors can sign up for social media (Pew Research Center).
Separate research indicates many parents believe legislation is needed to protect children online.
These numbers illustrate that a majority of parents are concerned and would likely back stricter limits, but there is still nuance and not universal agreement on an outright ban (Security.org).
Proposals like the Kids Off Social Media Act have been introduced in Congress, aiming to prohibit kids under 13 from social media and restrict algorithmic recommendation systems for older teens. These bills have bipartisan support in committee stages but have not yet become law.
However, a national ban on social media use for kids under 16 in the U.S. faces major hurdles:
Tech industry influence: Social media companies and advertising networks wield significant political and economic clout, and they tend to lobby against sweeping restrictions (Business Insider).
Legislative complexity: Age verification raises privacy concerns and technical challenges that lawmakers and companies are still debating.
Business interests: Platforms profit heavily from youth engagement because younger users represent a large, tightly targeted ad market.
Who Would Oppose It?
Big Tech companies and their trade groups, which argue that parental empowerment and education are better solutions.
Civil liberties advocates who warn about censorship, surveillance, and digital rights.
Some parents and teens who worry about cutting off supportive online communities.
My two cents
Australia’s ban is definitely a global test of how far governments might go to protect children in the digital age. In the U.S., a majority of parents might be open to stricter rules, but the dynamics of politics, corporate power, civil liberties, and youth culture make a direct copy of the Australian model improbable.
But I do think here in America we could develop comprehensive legislation and enforcement safeguards that protect kids from the kind of heinous damage we’ve already seen.
We could gradually introduce the program over several years in consideration of kids who are already used to the technology, so they don’t feel cut off. We could also introduce community programs for LGBTQ+ kids, and other vulnerable populations, so they can connect with one another.
Whatever path we choose, it has to balance protection with freedom, parental authority with corporate influence, and youth wellbeing with digital opportunity.
No small task, but something should be done.
My question for you?
Which of the following options would you support, if any?
a ban on social media for kids under a certain age
tighter restrictions and better enforcement
no ban and no restrictions other than what’s currently in place
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
No matter your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, I hope you’re enjoying the holiday season, a time in our country where we give ourselves permission to lay back, relax, and spend time with others.
I’m doing the same as I delight in the arrival of my first grandchild.
I restarted this blog a year ago, before my grandson was conceived, with the purpose of making the world a better place by doing my part to help reverse the polarization perpetrated by so many people who do not have Americans’ best interest at heart. Because all kids should have the best possible future.
The journey has reinforced my belief that we humans are a tricky species that constantly think up new ways to decrease our chance of survival. That makes a certain amount of sense, given we’re 80% emotional and 20% logical, an approximate ratio underpinning a widely acknowledged core principle that emotions play a fundamental, often dominant, role in human behavior (“Emotion and Logic,” Psychology Today, July 12, 2012).
My hope that we can turn things around, despite our biology, stems from my experience of flipping my anger and outrage at those with different political views into understanding that we all share the desire to live happy, healthy lives with families we love. Therein lies my will to wake others to the benefits of exercising the goodness within us.
Over 52 posts later, and a dozen interviews with smart people about efforts to reverse course, here’s to another year of getting people to embrace their best selves.
Happy holidays!
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
I’m always on the prowl to interview a wide variety of people within the Common Ground Movement to get perspectives I haven’t heard. When I was referred to Jason Vadnos, I leapt at the opportunity to talk with a college student who eloquently tuned me in to what he’s seeing and hearing regarding Gen Zers’ worries about—and hopes for—the future.
Jason is a junior at Vanderbilt University. Passionate about strengthening youth interest in civic engagement, he’s the campus leader for Let’s Be SVL,a pilot program launched this year by More Like US, a national nonprofit that works to close the change — for the better — the way people on different sides of the political spectrum look at one another. After college, he hopes to continue his work on depolarization and civic engagement through a career in either higher education or the nonprofit sector where he can provide students with the skills and knowledge they need to revitalize our democracy. Currently he’s both an Obama-Chesky Voyager Scholar for Public Service and a Riley’s Way Foundation Call for Kindness Fellow.
___
Martha Engber: I recently interviewed James Coan, the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. When did you get connected to the organization, and why?
Jason Vadnos: Great question, and thank you again for inviting me, Martha. I first met James two summers ago, in 2023. I was spending the summer in Washington, D.C., where James is based. At the time, I was interning with my university’s Office of Federal Relations, essentially our lobbying arm for the national government.
I’d developed an interest in civil discourse and dialogue after getting involved in a Vanderbilt initiative called Dialogue Vanderbilt, which helps students build the skills they need for productive conversations. So I started looking for DC-area organizations committed to productive dialogue and reducing political polarization. I came across James, we met that summer, and we’ve stayed in regular contact for the past two years. That relationship led to the launch of this new initiative. fgen z
Martha Engber: As mentioned, the organization is piloting a program called Let’s Be SVL. SVL is an acronym for Stories, Values, and Listen. As the campus leader, can you tell us how it works and why it’s necessary?
Jason Vadnos: Absolutely. Let’s Be SVL was co-designed by James and me, and draws from a wide range of research on psychology, politics, and conversation. It’s essentially an easy, memorable framework people can use when they’re having contentious conversations or conversations across difference: use stories, connect through values, and listen.
We wanted to bring this to higher education, which in recent years has faced tough challenges, from the Israel-Palestine protests to concerns about a lack of conservative viewpoints being uplifted on campuses. Universities are launching dialogue programs, including the one at Vanderbilt, but those initiatives often have limited scope. They tend to involve long workshops, attract only a small segment of students, and require sustained commitment.
We asked ourselves, “What’s an effective way to teach many students how to have better conversations?” Let’s Be SVL became that framework. Our main investment is in mass media and messaging campaigns—social media, flyers, tabling in public spaces—ways to reach large groups of students at once. Students don’t have to self-select into workshops; the tools simply meet them where they are.
Martha Engber: So if programs are too involved, they attract only people who already have the time or interest. You’re trying to reach a much wider population.
Jason Vadnos: Precisely.
Martha Engber: And what kinds of messages are you putting out?
Jason Vadnos: Let’s be civil is the core message. It embodies the strategy: use storytelling as a point of connection, relate to shared values, because to have a persuasive conversation, you need to know what the other person cares about. And, of course, listen. Truly listening helps you understand and show respect for the person you’re engaging with.
On social media and flyers, we’ll have a big graphic that says something like, “Having a difficult conversation? Be SVL,” followed by prompts to use stories, values, and listening. We also share related messages, such as “The other side is more civil than you think,” or “People are more curious and open to common ground than you assume.” But Let’s be SVL is our anchor.
Martha Engber: What changes have you been seeing, if any?
Jason Vadnos: We’re in the middle of studying that. As part of the pilot, we’re running surveys to understand the dialogue environment at Vanderbilt. We’ve launched a pre-test measuring dialogue skills, habits, attitudes, and levels of affective political polarization. As our messaging rolls out, we’ll conduct a post-test to see how exposure to the campaign affects students’ willingness to talk across differences, actual behavior—whether they’re engaging more with people from the other side—and whether they’re feeling less fear or hostility. We don’t have analysis to share yet, but the process is underway.
Martha Engber: Have you personally shared stories? Are there videos circulating of people talking to each other?
Jason Vadnos: Yes. Instagram is one of our primary tools. It’s the dominant youth platform and widely used at Vanderbilt for news and updates. We’re building content that includes man-on-the-street–style interviews about politically divisive topics, modeled using the SVL framework so both people feel respected and productive in the conversation.
We also have videos explaining what Let’s Be SVL is, why it works, and the research behind it. We’re actively expanding that social media presence.
Martha Engber: Have you seen any anecdotal evidence of people changing their perceptions? Maybe a roommate or someone down the hall? What transformations have you witnessed?
Jason Vadnos: Absolutely. Universities are hotbeds for contentious issues. Most recently, Vanderbilt was one of nine universities selected by the federal government to potentially sign a proposed compact that would change university policies in exchange for preferential access to federal grant funding. The moment this became public, campus reaction was fast and intense. Some students said, “We must reject this.” Others said, “Let’s negotiate.” Some thought the compact sounded great. It quickly split the student body, sparking protests and marches.
We used the SVL framework to help students talk through their perspectives on the compact and explore what a productive university response might look like. We brought students with a range of views into conversations—sometimes at events, sometimes informally outside the main cafeteria—and gave them a simple structure for discussing a politically divisive issue.
Afterward, students reported that they better understood how someone could hold a different perspective. They gained insight into how people’s backgrounds shaped their views and felt less immediate hostility toward one another. Suddenly, someone who supported the compact wasn’t “evil,” and someone who opposed it wasn’t “ignorant.” They were simply fellow students trying to figure out the best path forward.
Martha Engber: That leads into the perception gap, which you touched on. Many people don’t know that term. Can you explain what the perception gap is and give an example?
Jason Vadnos: Absolutely. The perception gap is central to the work of More Like US. It describes the tendency for people to assume that those on the other side of the political aisle hold more extreme beliefs than they actually do.
For example, there are lots of studies—and on the More Like US website there’s a whole list of topics—showing where the perception gap appears. Take gun control. Many Democrats believe that around 80% of Republicans oppose all gun control laws. But in reality, it’s closer to 40–50%. I don’t remember the exact number off the top of my head, so definitely check the More Like Us website for specifics. But the point is that only about half of Republicans believe gun control should be very limited, and most actually support common-sense measures like safe ammo storage.
That’s the perception gap: one side assumes the other holds far more extreme views than they really do.
Martha Engber: And I don’t think people believe that until they see the statistics, do they?
Jason Vadnos: Right. We’re all stuck in our own partisan echo chambers where we’re told, “Everyone on the other side believes X.”
Without actual conversations across the aisle, it’s easy to assume the worst—that the other side is more extreme, more unanimous, more rigid than they truly are. But the data doesn’t support that, and when you do talk to people with different viewpoints, you see the gap for what it is.
Martha Engber: Have you ever experienced a perception gap yourself? And if so, what changed your view?
Jason Vadnos: I think everyone experiences it because none of us have perfect information. One example for me in the last couple of years involved institutional neutrality. This is the policy where universities say they won’t take public stances on political or social issues not directly tied to their mission.
I’ve always had some qualms about that. I thought that some supporters of institutional neutrality were simply trying to platform divisive or even hateful viewpoints. But I had the chance to sit in a dialogue circle with about 20 other students, and we spent 90 minutes talking about why we did or didn’t support the policy and what our concerns were.
I realized most people had much more nuanced views than I expected. And I saw that most of them were approaching the issue with good intentions. We all wanted to improve our community; we just had different ideas about how to do that. They had facts, experiences, and data that informed their views. I didn’t necessarily change my own position, but I came away with a much better understanding of why others believed what they did.
Martha Engber: And having that information makes you better able to negotiate solutions?
Jason Vadnos: Exactly. You need at least some common ground to work together.
If you assume the other side is extremely far from you, why even try? But once you understand the perception gap—and see that it doesn’t reflect reality—you’re able to collaborate toward solutions that actually work for everyone.
Martha Engber: I was curious—how do you think your generation differs politically from others?
Jason Vadnos: Gen Z is fascinating, and there’s lots of reporting on this because everyone wants to know: What is Gen Z thinking? What’s the future of democracy?
Personally and anecdotally, I think Gen Z is just as passionate—if not more passionate—about public issues, community problems, and global challenges as older generations. But the kinds of action we take look different.
Historically, civic engagement was measured by things like voting rates, and youth voting has been low for decades. Sometimes fewer than 40–50% of students vote even in national elections.
But while we may show up less at the ballot box, we’re creating change through social media activism, community problem-solving, and issue-based organizing. We’re deeply engaged—we’re just engaging differently.
Martha Engber: Is that passion driven by being confronted with so much more? Maybe like the 1960s, when there were many hot-button issues?
Jason Vadnos: That’s part of it. Climate change, for example, looms large for our generation. But I think the bigger factor is access to information. With the internet and social media, we constantly see everything that’s going wrong in the world. Historically, you might hear about major issues on the evening news, but your awareness was rooted in your local community. Now, information moves instantly. That makes Gen Z far more aware of global issues—and, as a result, more motivated to address them.
Martha Engber: Are they also aware of how that information is spun depending on who puts it out?
Jason Vadnos: Yes, though it’s a big challenge. Media literacy is essential, and young people know that.
Most Gen Zers are skeptical of anyone claiming to provide purely “fact-based” news. We understand that everyone—news outlets, influencers, commentators—has an agenda or narrative they’re trying to advance.
Gen Z has a pretty strong awareness of misinformation and disinformation, especially now with AI and deepfakes. Most young people know these things exist and feel we have to be critical and cautious about the information we consume.
Martha Engber: As someone who listens well and works on these issues, what worries do you hear most from your generation?
Jason Vadnos: We have a lot of worries. One major concern is that democracy isn’t working and hasn’t worked for us. We grew up in an era of extreme political division, minimal bipartisanship, and constant political conflict. And government has been less effective. Congress, for example, is passing historically few bills.
So many young people feel government isn’t serving us, and that we need to take action ourselves. That’s where community problem solving and mutual aid come in.
Another worry is about the survival of the American Dream, especially economically. Youth homeownership feels almost impossible. Compared to 50 years ago, it’s incredibly expensive and unrealistic for many my age.
And of course, global crises like climate change weigh heavily on us. People are thinking hard about what the world will look like in 40 or 50 years.
So yes, there’s a lot on our minds. But I’m hopeful because we’re working to change things.
Martha Engber: I’d love to communicate more regularly with people of your generation and younger. Do you have ideas about how to improve intergenerational discourse?
Jason Vadnos: Great question. And there are some people doing fantastic work on intergenerational connection. From our perspective as Gen Z, I think a few things need to happen.
One big issue is the narrative that Gen Z is apathetic—that we don’t care or we’re disengaged. Most young people know that isn’t true, but we hear it constantly from the media and from older generations. So if someone comes to the table saying, “Your generation doesn’t care about what’s happening in the world,” why would we want to engage or work toward solutions with them? Breaking down that narrative of apathy is really important.
It’s also essential to understand that Gen Z grew up in a radically different environment—technologically, socially, economically—than past generations. There have been plenty of reports claiming Gen Z is impossible to work with. People say, “We can’t get through to them,” or “They have different habits.”
But that doesn’t mean Gen Z is worse at working. We’re just different. Coming into conversations with a sincere desire to understand, recognizing the distinct challenges we’ve grown up with, and saying, “We value your voice and want to work with you,” is incredibly important. A lot of young people feel unheard.
Especially when we look at government and see leadership dominated by people in their seventies and eighties; people who don’t necessarily represent youth perspectives. All of these factors shape intergenerational dialogue.
Martha Engber: If you ever develop a program around this and get involved in that work, please let me know. I think it would be fascinating.
Jason Vadnos: Absolutely.
Martha Engber: What do you think would greatly decrease polarization in America? You must have ideas, since you’re so immersed in this.
Jason Vadnos: That’s a big question. I think there are three things worth highlighting. First, the work More Like US is doing on the perception gap shows that we’re not nearly as divided on issues and policies as we think we are. What we do have is a lot of affective polarization, the belief that the other side is evil, the enemy, ignorant, or totally unreasonable.
How we solve that is complicated. There’s no single solution. We need multiple interventions at different scales and in different places. But one of the most important foundations is education. That’s why I’m so passionate about Let’s Be SVL on college campuses.
We have to teach people how to engage with those who are different from them. Affective polarization grows from a lack of meaningful interaction with people who have different backgrounds, identities, lived experiences, and perspectives. The only way to bridge that gap is to give people the skills and knowledge to do it. We need to teach how to engage across difference productively, how to have better conversations about hot-button issues, and how to walk away feeling heard rather than angry or discouraged.
Education is at the heart of combating polarization. And it doesn’t only happen in schools. I’m a student, so I focus on my campus, but this learning can happen in workplaces, homes, churches, community centers—any communal space.
We should invest in programs that teach people how to have better conversations, how to engage across difference, and most importantly, why it matters.
If people don’t believe that conversation can lead to meaningful change, they won’t engage. And polarization won’t lessen. We have to show examples of people working across difference to create something positive in their communities.
Martha Engber: Do you think that effort would be enough to push back against the overwhelming negative messaging from conflict entrepreneurs?
Jason Vadnos: That’s a major challenge. In an ideal world, if we could reach all Americans at scale and depolarize through education, that would be a strong solution. But we know that’s not how reality works. Conflict entrepreneurs and political elites drive much of the narrative. They model our behavior.
So another thing we must do is change the incentive structure. Social media algorithms need to reward content that shows productive engagement across division—people working together—rather than hateful or spiteful rants. We also need our political leaders to model working across the aisle and to invest in bipartisan collaboration instead of calling each other evil. That kind of shift is critical. And it reinforces what I said earlier: there won’t be a single answer. We need multiple solutions working together.
Martha Engber: How hopeful are you that your work will have an impact? And what gives you that hope? You have a naturally positive attitude. But beyond that, what fuels your optimism? What have you seen or heard?
Jason Vadnos: What gives me hope is the everyday interactions I have with my peers on campus and beyond. Having the kinds of conversations I want others to have across the aisle, and seeing that young people who disagree with me or come from totally different backgrounds still want to improve the world. We’re all working on this together.
Those day-to-day experiences of working across differences are meaningful. They show me that if I can collaborate with someone I radically disagree with to solve a problem in our community, anyone can.
And in the past few months, there’s been great reporting showing that Gen Z truly does care deeply about our communities.
I mentioned the narrative of Gen Z apathy earlier, but now we’re seeing the opposite: clear evidence that young people are passionate about public issues and want to improve the world.
Knowing that people across the country—not just on my campus or in my hometown—are engaging with these issues gives me hope. We’re seeing youth-led solutions, youth-led projects, and initiatives that are improving communities every day. Reading about those efforts and seeing them firsthand gives me so much optimism.
And conversations like this give me hope too; knowing there are people everywhere who value youth voices and want Gen Z to help build a better world.
Martha Engber: I’ve really enjoyed talking with you. And again, if you develop an intergenerational program, put me on the list. I think you’re right—it’s incredibly important for us to talk to one another. One of the biggest things I’ve seen is the lack of youth voices in the programs I’ve been part of. So good on you for advancing that.
And thanks to those who listened to this episode. You can find a post and transcript of today’s interview on my blog, vigilantpositivity.wordpress.com. Please join our cause.
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant PositivityFacebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
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:
A common ground pledge—a simple, clear statement of purpose across all bridging organizations.
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.
A slate of common ground political candidates willing to work together across parties.
A strategy for clear, targeted messaging—like what you’re talking about—to present Americans with a compelling alternative to division.
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 PositivityFacebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement
Placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
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.
Read the transcript below or watch the full interview on the Vigilant Positivity YouTube channel.
Martha Engber: Beth, can you start by giving us an update on the book? How’s it being received?
Beth Malow: Very well. We released it on September 9th, and we’ve been excited by how many people have reached out and invited us to do events. We’re still trying to break into national exposure, so if any of your listeners have ideas about that, we’d love to hear them. Locally, things are going really well. I think that speaks to New England’s strong interest in these kinds of issues.
We’ve been to several libraries, bookstores, and discussion groups. In fact, I was at one this weekend—not about the book—and someone came up to me and said, “Hey, my book club is talking about your book tomorrow.” I was really tickled by that. It’s been wonderful hearing from so many people who say there’s such a need for this book right now. That just really warms my heart.
Martha Engber: Wonderful. Doug, what are some of the comments you’ve been hearing from readers?
Doug Teschner: We’ve seen a lot of positive support. People are hungry for this kind of message. Sure, there are skeptics. Some folks just don’t think they can talk to people on the other side. I appreciate that honesty, because at least we know where they’re coming from. But overall, I think people are really hungry for hope. And that’s what we’re hoping to deliver.
Martha Engber: To get us going, let me start with one of the bigger questions. When new phenomena first appear in our culture, it’s often hard to grasp what’s happening. Americans have long known that polarization is getting worse, but we haven’t been able to pinpoint why. That’s what I appreciated most about your book—learning the specific terms and root causes behind the divide. I learned, for example, the term conflict entrepreneurs: those who profit by dividing Americans. They include politicians, political parties, and hostile foreign actors, to name a few. They spend billions each year on toxic messaging designed to stir outrage and hate, which often drives people to act negatively—whether donating money they can’t afford, haranguing those with different views, or even committing political violence. What role do you see your book playing in helping Americans understand how we’re being manipulated, especially regarding the lie that if we don’t hold a certain political viewpoint, we’re the enemy?
Beth Malow: First, I think one of our superpowers in this messy, challenging time is that Americans don’t like being taken advantage of. They don’t want to be duped. In fact, one of our Substack posts—togethernow.substack.com—is called We’re Better Than This! It explores the idea that there have always been conflict entrepreneurs. It may be more prevalent now because social media amplifies their messages, but as Americans, we can look at that and say, “We’re better than this.” We don’t have to become conflict enablers who spread what these entrepreneurs want us to spread within our silos or bubbles.
Doug Teschner: I’d add that we want people to understand what conflict entrepreneurs are. Many people aren’t familiar with the term or even the concept. Once you recognize it, you can step back and think differently. In our book, we use graphics to make ideas like this easy to grasp. For example, we depict a conflict entrepreneur as a crocodile eating the American flag.
These conflict entrepreneurs aren’t doing this for the country or to make our lives better. They’re doing it for themselves, and in most cases, they’re harming the country.
The most important thing is for people to really understand it. Helping people see that is part of our goal. And as Beth mentioned, social media algorithms keep pushing us down these rabbit holes—often driven by conflict entrepreneurs. So self-awareness is key to managing this challenge.
Martha Engber: Everyone wants to believe they’re not the ones being manipulated. That was me, too. But when I realized there’s this third force influencing all of us, it allowed me to step beside any American, no matter their viewpoint, and say, “Hey, look what they’re doing to us.” In other words, the topic allows me to get on the same side as any American I talk to. How hard do you think it’ll be to help people see that we’re all being manipulated
Doug Teschner: It’s definitely challenging, especially in today’s media environment where “if it screams, it streams,” and “if it’s kind, pay no mind.” That’s how social media works, and to a large extent, the mainstream media, too. There’s so much competition for attention. The stories that draw audiences tend to be divisive and outrageous, which makes it harder for us to promote a book that’s about calm and connection instead of outrage. We’re encouraging people to step back, take a deep breath, and look at things differently. But that has to start inside each of us. When you were talking, Martha, I noticed the humility in what you said. Humility is so important, and it’s kind of out of fashion these days. We all want to be sure of ourselves, to know what’s right and assume others don’t. But humility and curiosity go hand in hand.
Beth Malow: Yes, and sometimes the hardest person to talk with isn’t someone who voted differently from you. It’s someone in your own echo chamber. Those are the people who’ll say, “Beth, that’s nice, but don’t you know they’re destroying our country?” And that can come from either side.
So sometimes the toughest conversations are with people who are closer to your own views, and who question why you’re doing this work; why you’re being curious when, in their minds, the house is burning down. That’s the missing piece, I think.
It’s like we say in Braver Angels: if we can get people to a workshop, we can teach them the conversational skills they need to connect. But how do you get people there? How do you get them to open their hearts, be curious, and be humble, like Doug is saying?
Martha Engber: Yeah, I don’t know whether it’s curiosity or humility, but I think mostly, when we are with people in our own bubbles, it’s really difficult. There’s a habit that forms. You all get together like a sports team, and everyone trash talks the other team. That’s what you do. So when someone moves away from that behavior, they suddenly become suspect: “Hey, whose team are you on?” That’s just been my experience.
Doug Teschner: I agree with that, and with what Beth’s saying too. People tend to be quiet because they don’t want to lose, or alienate their side. And if they do speak up, they suddenly find themselves isolated. There are a lot of incentives not to do the kind of work we’re talking about. Unfortunately.
But we think we can make the case that people will feel better about themselves, their lives, and their relationships if they take these steps.
Beth Malow: Right. I’m really glad about the timing of the book. If we’d released it earlier in 2025, it might have just echoed people retreating into their silos. But I think people are realizing, “I’ve got to try something different. What we’re doing isn’t working.” Maybe I’m speaking more from my left-leaning perspective, but there’s this sense that there’s got to be a better way. We really have to figure out how to talk with each other if we’re going to get past this moment in our nation’s history. Something has shifted in the last few months. People are recognizing that being an activist and being a bridge builder are not incompatible.
Martha Engber: That’s interesting. Since the last time we talked, I’ve thought about that too. You were mentioning that it’s very important to not just talk, you also have to take action. But how you take action matters. I’m still politically active, but the way I’m active is different. If I go to a protest or rally, my sign doesn’t say “F—-” and list a name. It says the point I want to make: “Please do X,” or “Please watch out for X.” How I word it matters. I also make sure the people I’m with know that certain things are not okay for me to say anymore. I consider those words or phrases negative, and I don’t want to hear them from others. What behaviors have you changed since writing this book?
Doug Teschner: That’s a great question. When we started writing, it was more like: “Come with us and help save the country.” But as we worked on it, we got into a deeper level. First, a lot of people are stressed about their mental health. Come to us, and we’ll help you feel better about yourself. People struggle with relationships too, so our message is also, come to us, and we’ll help you manage your relationship with Uncle Fred. Then we moved into activism and bridge building: advocate for your side, but don’t alienate people on the other side. Do it in a way that might win them over, or at least keep the doors open.
There are multiple levels to this. How do you find a project in your community that needs help and connect with people to solve the problem? In a way that transcends politics. These are the ways we see the book, and we didn’t start off with all these insights. What do you think, Beth?
Beth Malow: I’ve become more curious about my own side. That’s been the biggest surprise for me. I’ve really tried to get people to tell me what they’re concerned about. I was at a Braver Angels workshop, teaching the skill of acknowledgment, a common skill not unique to Braver Angels. Any act of listening teaches it.
For example, you say something like, “I really believe in capitalism,” and I see it’s really important to you. I’m not agreeing with you, but I’m acknowledging that I heard you, and that makes you open up more. That’s the first step to a conversation.
At this workshop, one participant said, “I can’t acknowledge that, because then I’m giving weight to non-democratic norms.” I thought, what? I tried to stay curious. I didn’t get upset. I realized, that’s the answer. Something in what she said is the key. If I really want to be influential, I need to understand that better.
The chair of our Diversion, Equity and Inclusion Council and I are now playing pickle ball regularly where I live. It’s a way of connecting outside of politics, like Doug suggested, doing things besides just talking about politics.
And now it’s easier for me to talk with her about what she’s thinking and believing. That’s been the biggest surprise, to really feel like I’m trying to understand some of these barriers by connecting with folks I might have stayed silent around before we started on the book.
Martha Engber: I suppose that’s one of the most interesting things. I like to follow a lot of neuroscience podcasts, and it frustrates me when neuroscientists explain their studies and say things like, “You think you’re not being manipulated, but you are.” How do we overcome our biology? Neuroscience says the tendency you just mentioned earlier is real: “I don’t want to agree with you, because then I’m showing I’m wrong, and therefore vulnerable. And that can’t be good, because then I’m open to attack.”
Doug Teschner: Well, I’ve heard the same from people, that if you acknowledge what someone says, you’re somehow giving their ideas credence, or you become part of the problem. We feel it’s actually the opposite.
It’s ironic that people have so many friends on social media, but how many have real relationships do we have with people who have different points of view? We’re in our bubbles—tribes, silos—talking only to people who think like us. One piece of advice is to step out of that. If you’re at a demonstration, and someone from the opposite side is there, go up and say hi. Introduce yourself. Suggest coffee next week. Ask about their family, upbringing, hobbies. Maybe play pickleball. And ask how they came to their political views.
It’s a lot of work. It’s not easy. Sometimes people won’t accept it, won’t go there. But this is the work we think is critical.
Beth Malow: I’ll jump in. I’m a neurologist, and I’ve always been fascinated by this. I don’t think we’re doomed by habit and fear. We can break out of it. It’s not easy, as Doug said, but curiosity is key. For example, in autism research, kids can be in their own little world, lining up all these red cars. You stick a green car in, and it makes them think. Breaking up patterns like that is actually part of autism treatment.
When we have a conversation with someone different from us, it opens up new neural pathways. I appreciated living in Tennessee for 21 years. Meeting people who were politically different than me helped. Some people don’t know anyone from the other side. They automatically assume everyone is a certain way based on the news. Breaking through that is really important. I think we absolutely can do it. Some neuroscientists say we’re stuck. I think they’re wrong.
Martha Engber: Let’s talk about a few things happening in the country as they relate to your book. It’s an amazing time right now, for better or worse.
We’ve talked about the extreme imbalance between conflict entrepreneurs and common Americans. They have money, know-how, and organization. How are we supposed to fight back when our own politicians and parties are part of the problem?
Doug Teschner: It has to start in your own heart. How you think about people. What are your values. Are you living those values when you think about people who disagree politically? Look inside yourself, avoid assumptions. People are quick to judge based on appearances or actions. I do it too, but I try to be aware.
When people don’t mingle with those with different views, it’s easy to develop dehumanizing “us vs. them” thinking. That’s destructive. In our Braver Angels workshops, when people talk, they find they have much more in common than they realized. We have to recognize that, start from that point of view, and show humility and curiosity about others.
Beth Malow: I’d add: do something that isn’t political. For me, that’s pickleball, singing, and music. In Nashville, I sang a cappella in a quartet and realize someone I sang with voted differently in 2016. We were already friends, and we respected each other because we practiced our music seriously.
I couldn’t demonize her, even though my friends were demonizing people who voted that way. We drove from Nashville to St. Louis for a competition: five hours talking about abortion, LGBTQ issues, climate change. It was incredible. She felt heard, I felt heard. We still disagreed, but we didn’t hate or demonize each other. That’s a great place to start.
Singing together, playing sports, gardening: there are so many ways to connect. Get out of your bubble and meet people who may be different. Then be brave and have conversations.
Martha Engber: Very interesting. What educational awareness campaigns and organizations are you hoping will take the lead to unite Americans against conflict entrepreneurs and against messaging that the other side is the enemy? I think the latter is outrageously dangerous, and getting more dangerous. Beth Malow: Well, Braver Angels, for sure. One of our strengths is balance. At every level of leadership, we have someone who leans left and someone who leans right—the reds and the blues. That’s really important. Even with our book, we made sure of that: Doug being a former Republican state legislator, and me being more left-leaning.
But it’s not just Braver Angels. One of the things I love about this book is that we keep meeting new people. We met someone from a group called Listen First Project https://www.listenfirstproject.org/, which has more than 500 bridge-building organizations in it. And it’s only because of the book that we learned about them. There are plenty of other groups out there, all working hard to raise awareness that Americans are being manipulated, and there’s a way out of that.
It’s less about being on the left or right. It’s more about being in a realm Manu Meel (BridgeUSA) talks about: saying, “I’m going to talk to you, even if we disagree. I’m going to hear you out. I’m going to connect with you.” That’s what we have to do as Americans.
Doug Teschner: I’ll add that one concern is how central politics has become to people’s identities. How did that happen? It used to be people weren’t worried if their child married someone from the opposite party. Now, data shows many are. Politics has come to dominate identity, even though our hobbies, family, history, and geography matter too. We need to step back and look differently.
Our cause appeals to the hidden majority—the “exhausted majority,” as the Hidden Tribes report calls them. The extremes drive the agenda, but many people are shaking their heads, closing their eyes, looking for something better. If you’re looking for something better, join us. Rise up, demand better from political leaders, step up in your community, develop skills to talk to Aunt Jane in the other party. Small steps build hope and overcome negativity and despair.
Martha Engber: I’m glad you mentioned the exhausted majority. that was my next question. About 60% of Americans are tired of polarization and congressional dysfunction and want compromise to solve big issues. Yet most are still influenced by negative messaging, automatically choosing one party over another, instead of civil discussion. The number committed to finding common ground is still small. How do we reach fellow Americans quickly?
Doug Teschner: I worry about doing it quickly. This is hard work, and it will take time. People have to say, “Enough. We need something different.” Our book can help people pause and ask: “Something’s wrong here. Where do I turn?”
The book gives options: do a project in your community, develop skills to reconnect with an old friend you haven’t talked to for 20 years because of politics. Take small steps, rise up together. It’s not easy. When enough people are dismayed, they can demand better. We’re not quite there yet, but we’re trying. Beth Malow: I agree with the grassroots, bottom-up approach, but there’s also a role for top-down. One thing I love about living where I do is helping with the Granite Bridge Legislative Alliance, a caucus of Republican and Democratic legislators who foster positive relationships across the political divide. Doug and his colleague, former Rep. Patricia Higgins, D-New Hampshire, have been influential in getting the legislature, which is nearly 50-50, to work together.
When people see politicians collaborating and solving problems—or even just talking diplomatically, hearing both sides, crafting stronger legislation—it serves as a powerful model for everyday Americans. I’m grateful to work with Doug and Patricia on these initiatives. It really makes a difference. Doug Teschner: I appreciate that. It’s a work in progress. Last session was rough, but there’s a core group of legislators genuinely trying to make this work.
Martha Engber: Apparently, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and is also a champion of common ground. I don’t remember the program’s name, but it’s about making better decisions, based on soliciting information from both sides and hearing each other out. But there aren’t many programs like that.
Doug Teschner: There are lots of disincentives. I first met Governor Cox at our Braver Angels convention in Gettysburg two years ago. It was wonderful. He asked about the term conflict entrepreneurs, which he’s used in public talks. As president of the National Governors Association, he initiated the Disagree Better initiative, holding meetings around the country, including New Hampshire.
Sadly, he didn’t get much press coverage. That’s part of the problem.
The press covers divisive stories, not positive ones. But he’s been at the forefront. He has strong political views, fairly conservative, which some people don’t like. But he’s been very insistent on doing it in a respectful way with people on the other side. He’s taken some pretty tough hits from people on his own side.
At, I believe, the Republican convention in Utah, he was heavily criticized. At one point, he said something like, “I see that you folks hate me because I don’t hate enough.”
It goes back to what we said earlier: it’s safer to just play along, denigrate the other side, and agree with those doing it.
It’s going to take leaders like Governor Cox to role model a better way. We appreciate that, and we hope more will follow.
But as Beth mentioned, when you’re talking to your own side, there’s pressure to toe the party line.
I’ve seen it in elected office. When I first ran for the legislature, there were pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. Nowadays, if you don’t toe the line, you get heavily criticized, or face a primary challenge. That makes stepping out to do this work harder. But if enough citizens demand better, we can create more space for common ground.
Beth Malow: I want to jump in that many journalists are conflict entrepreneurs, but not all. Some are trying to promote journalism and social media in a positive way. I want to give a shout out to Amanda Ripley, who coined the term “conflict entrepreneurs.” She’s an investigative journalist, and I loved her book “High Conflict.”
In one section, she brought together New York City Jews—I’m from Long Island, so I had that connection—with people who worked in Michigan jails. She called it “complicating the narrative,” because it broke down stereotypes. Some journalists are really trying to use their platform to point out conflict entrepreneurs and bring people together. I really commend them.
Martha Engber: Here’s my last question. I want to preface it by saying that I believe gerrymandering should be illegal. That’s my personal opinion. As we’ve seen, Texas redrew its Congressional district maps to gain five new Republican House seats. California is attempting to counter that through Prop 50, which would temporarily redraw districts to gain five Democratic seats. If California fails, Republicans retain control of the House even before the 2026 midterms, further undermining people’s belief in democracy.
My question is: when faced with that possibility, what should those of us in the Common Ground Movement focus on? What impact can a small fraction of the population have when faced with such a big problem?
Doug Teschner: It’s a challenging problem, and not a new one. There was a major gerrymandering case before the Supreme Court in 2019, but they didn’t take action. Gerrymandering has been around for a while. Depending on the legislature, many seats are manipulated. It’s just getting more attention now. There was a Republican congressman, Don Bacon from Nebraska, who decided not to run again. He said he’s a Christian first, an American second, and a Republican third. Some criticized him, and he asked, “Are you more upset that I’m a Christian or an American ahead of being a Republican?”
That illustrates the reality: many political leaders are locked into an all-or-nothing mentality, thinking their way is the only way. That’s scary.
Beth Malow: I think practical solutions will either have to come from voters influencing legislators, or from legislators themselves valuing political difference.
Doug Teschner: Seeing differences in a positive light, rather than a negative one, is key. Like Abraham Lincoln’s “team of rivals”: when people challenge your ideas, your policy gets stronger.
Beth Malow: That’s what I want to see in our country. On a practical level, I don’t know how much it will convince politicians, but voters pushing back—like in Texas and California—can make a difference. Otherwise, elections feel predetermined by primaries, and individual votes seem meaningless. Change has to come both from the bottom up and the top down. Right now, we’re slipping into a zero-sum game, straying from the true purpose of democracy: a marketplace of ideas.
Martha Engber: Yes. That marketplace of ideas seems to be shrinking quickly. But thank you for joining me in conversation. It’s been wonderful to talk with you and get an update. And thanks to everyone who’s either reading the transcript or watching the video. Please join our cause!
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
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.
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.
Vigilant Positivity 