Newsletter #434 — March 12, 2026

Heidi Burgess and Guy Burgess

Are Some Actors Making Bridge Building Work Impossible?

David made the observation that "The central problem is perhaps no longer that we disagree too intensely, but that some actors are undermining the conditions for fair disagreement entirely."

We agree, that is a problem.  But again, both sides are doing it and our American culture, itself, is doing it. Schools and universities, still, from what we read, largely discourage open discussion of controversial issues. As a result, young adults mostly don't even know how to engage in a constructive conversation with someone who disagrees with them. So they avoid such discussions whenever possible, and when they do get involved in them, they are usually unable to conduct a constructive conversation — they just get angry and lash out, or withdraw. This is one area where all of the bridging organizations can make a big difference — they can teach people how to "disagree better," which is a skill few people currently have, and they can provide the facilitation to make constructive conversations possible.  Living Room Conversations, as we heard from Joan Blades, has over 150 conversation guides that also help small groups have constructive — and she promises fun conversations on controversial topics.

Most of our leading media are tilted heavily toward a single perspective, although there are promising efforts to address this, such as AllSides, Tangle, the Solutions Journalism Network, and, to some degree, Substack (a highly diverse platform which hosts both David and us, among many, many others.) 

So yes, this is a problem that needs to be fixed. We need much more robust mechanisms for effectively engaging in discussion about deep disagreements, sorting through them, and then making decisions about how to resolve the disagreements in terms of policy going forward.

Is Bridge-Building Now Contributing to Autocracy?

After explaining how the Trump administration has so seriously attacked democratic norms, David acknowledges his current crisis of confidence:

Which brings me to my own crisis as a bridge-builder: I worry that our field has been so committed to neutrality that we failed to notice when neutrality became a side. Bridge-building was built for a world where the problem was misunderstanding. But we’re now in a world where the problem may be a contest over whether the democratic game continues at all.

We have a lot to say about those three sentences.  

Has Neutrality Become a Side?

The notion that "neutrality has become a side" is exactly the argument that Bernie Mayer and Jackie Font-Guzman make in their book The Neutrality Trap. We debated that point with Bernie and Jackie at length at the very beginning of this Substack.  (See this, this, and this.) Although the way we might now engage with Bernie and Jackie has perhaps moderated to some degree, we still believe that there is an important role for neutrality. It is not a "trap," in our view, nor is it a side.  Advocates are needed, AND neutral mediators and facilitators are needed. But they are not the same thing. And they cannot be done at the same time by the same people. They are just two of the over 50 different roles that we have identified as being critical to the success of the larger, massively parallel effort to repair our civic relationships and structures. But we believe it is essential that advocacy and intermediary roles not be confused or compressed into one. (We will discuss this issue more in a bit, when we talk about Bill Doherty's "3Rs.") 

Is Misunderstanding No Longer a Problem?

On misunderstanding, David wrote "Bridge-building was built for a world where the problem was misunderstanding." Misunderstanding is still a big problem, as we discussed just above. That doesn't mean it is the only problem. We have lots of other problems. On the left, the threats to democracy that are being most keenly felt, at the moment, revolve around corruption, executive overreach, and the possibility that Trump will be able to consolidate power to the extent that "the democratic game," as David calls it, cannot continue. 

But that is much more likely to occur, we believe, if the left continues to play its traditional power-over game, with the hyper-polarization spiral continuing to ratchet up, and the fear that creates driving people on the right to accept Trump's overreaches because they believe that the Democrats would be fear even worse .

So, is the "Democratic Game" Over? 

The only way we are going to be able to get out of this escalating spiral of hatred and fear is to build the biggest possible tent to resist Trump's authoritarian actions. But beyond trying to block Trump, participants in that tent must also offer a new, positive image of a different way of governing that is NOT just the same old Democratic policies — policies that are, for many, as unpopular as Trump's actions are on the left. 

Rather, it must be a truly a power-with collaborative effort that supports the legitimate needs and interests of people on all sides of our political divide. It must take the rule of law, checks-and-balances, and reserved powers, that are so critical to our republican system of government, seriously. And it should respect the interests and needs of people of all political stripes, not write off half the country because they voted for Trump last time. 

No doubt, this is going to be very hard to do. But it has to start by building much stronger cross-party understanding, relationships, and trust.  And that is the bread and butter of bridge building.

At the same time, we also need to keep the arena for fair disagreement from collapsing.  We need to make sure that no one tries to stop bridgers from "doing their thing."  (And so far, we haven't heard of any such attempts.)  We need to create robust arenas for constructive disagreement — and conflict resolution or conflict transformation — in all our private and public places. 

So, for example, we should encourage schools and universities to teach students how to engage difference constructively, and we should encourage such engagement.  We should press for more collaborative processes at all levels of government — using citizens assemblies and other deliberative, public participation processes much more widely at the local and state levels, and, ideally, << commas at the federal level as well.  We should encourage our media to engage in what is called "solutions journalism" — focusing much more on stories about problems and solutions to those problems, instead of focusing stories on "good guys" and "bad guys" and how bad those bad guys are.  It is not the simple problem of fighting back against Trump's authoritarian tendencies.  We need to fundamentally change the social, cultural, and political systems that have made those tendencies appear so attractive to so many.

Another Set of Roles

David goes in a different direction, which is also worth considering. After asking "if not neutrality, then what?" David identifies four "lanes:" Helpers, Advocates, Organizers, and Rebels. Bridge-building, he says,  "actually already occupies all four, just implicitly."

Advocates work inside institutions, mediating between communities and bureaucracies.

Organizers build coalitions and shared projects across divides.

Rebels surface injustice and distortions that make genuine bridging impossible. 

We agree, bridge builders can be "helpers," de-escalating conflict at the family and community level. And we probably also agree that they cannot do that at higher levels very effectively, although there are examples of such efforts (such as the facilitators who helped the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress come back together and work together successfully after January 6, 2023, as discussed above.) Another, which we have mentioned in earlier newsletters, but not this set is the National Governors' Association's Disagree Better Campaign.

We see advocates as working outside institutions more than inside (but some are inside as well), but they don't "mediate" in the traditional third-party sense of the word.  They advocate — as in the first party sense of the word.  We see these as necessarily separate roles, as I explained above when we discussed neutrality. 

Organizers can work on one side alone (which is most common), or they can work on crossing divides and building the "big tent" we discussed above. To the extent they are working across divides, bridgers can, indeed, be organizers.  To the extent they are trying to build the biggest possible coalition to beat Trump and then impose the Progressive agenda on all his MAGA followers, that is not a bridge-building role. Nor, of course, is the opposite attempt to keep the Progressives out of power. As we see it, the goal of bridge building is to help reorganize society in ways that will allow our hyper-polarized political parties to peacefully live together despite their differences, and ideally, reduce the level of polarization over time.

Rebels are not bridge builders, as we see them; rather, they are advocates for their own polarized factions within our society. The primary role of bridge builders is to help rebel groups (who generally don't believe that peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial compromise are possible) recognize that the situation is not as dire as they think it is. That said, rebels who are willing to consider the views of the other side and explore the possibility of compromise can play an important bridge-building role, while those who refuse to consider compromise cannot). For example, left-leaning rebels who see the world through an "oppressor-oppressed frame" will have great difficulty pursuing any kind of successful bridge-building effort. (The fact that this.frame underlies much bridging facilitation is probably the principal reason why it is so hard to get conservatives to participate in bridging activities.)

Bridge Building Is Strategic

We do agree with David's assertion that bridge-building is "strategic."

The task isn’t merely to get Americans to like each other more. It’s to keep the arena for disagreement from being captured, shattered, or rigged. Without that arena, talk of “coming together” is theater. Without legitimate information, elections, institutions, and dissent, there is nothing left to bridge.

Another way to say the same thing (or at least something similar) is that bridging provides a platform for power-with engagement and decision-making. It shows that there is an alternative to power-over governance, and it convinces participants that (1) democracy can work, and (2) in order for that to happen, they have to participate in it. 

We very much support the same things David lists at the end of his blog post: legitimate elections, protection for dissent, accountability to facts, and institutional independence — all important pillars of democracy. Although we don't see bridge-building as acting in all four of David's lanes, we do see it as helping to safeguard those pillars.  For example:

• We recently talked with Joan Blades, a co-founder of Living Room Conversations about their Trust in Elections conversations, which were used in 2024, and are being deployed again for 2026 and 2028 to assure election integrity across the United States. Braver Angels, also, has been working on a trustworthy elections campaign.
• Citizen Assemblies and deliberative bodies such as the ones Martin Carcasson and Jacob Bornstein described in their conversations with us "maintain information ecosystems where facts constrain power."  
• Ground rules used by most bridging facilitators ensure that dissent remains possible, and is even encouraged, in many bridging settings. (The exception is bridging facilitators who discourage or even prevent conservative views to be voiced during dialogues because they see them as "oppressive" or "hurtful.")  Successful bridging can only happen when such dissent is seen as a learning opportunity, rather than a harmful occurrence to be prevented.) 
• The only one that is perhaps hard to see is institutional independence.  Bridging can create transpartisan norms which will then, perhaps, encourage people to protest institutional capture. But that one is less direct than the others. 

Bill Doherty's Three Rs

As we were having this conversation with David, we got an email from Braver Angels Co-founder Bill Doherty....who lives in Minneapolis, where, he wrote that he was 

...witnessing the tearing of the social fabric. The soul of Braver Angels is also being tried, with some dedicated members wondering if our mission is still relevant. They are bluntly asking, “Why keep talking to those people?” 

This is my written response as a cofounder of Braver Angels. I’ve also recorded a video where I speak more personally about what’s going on in Minnesota.

As a therapist, my job is to help clients do two things with powerful emotions: understand what they are feeling, and then act mindfully rather than react instinctively. Political stress is stirring up two main emotions—fear and outrage — and they feed on each other. Fear can lead to one kind of reactivity: shutting down and withdrawing. Outrage can lead to another kind: demonizing and lashing out. The alternative is hard but possible: thoughtful responses informed by our emotions but not directed by them. It means showing up with a non-anxious presence when others around us are escalating, cutting people off, and losing hope. It takes a special form of courage to keep engaging with people in our lives whose views appall us. Ernest Hemingway called courage “grace under pressure.” We live in a pressurized time, when courageous citizenship requires real emotional work.

He then applies this idea to social change work, which he sees happening in three ways: resist, replace, and repair — his "3Rs." 

Resist refers to organized efforts to publicly name serious social problems and confront leaders and institutions that create and reinforce them. Resist is about vigorous, sustained calls for change now. (“We Shall Overcome.”)

Replace refers to what comes next: concrete reforms and changes such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Resistance movements need a Replace agenda in order to be effective. [We would add that this helps avoid the "Crane Brinton effect."]

Repair refers to organized efforts to heal the social fabric that is inevitably torn by the turmoil and polarization of major social change — what Lincoln called binding up our wounds. (South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and closer to home, Braver Angels.)

Bill argues that all three activities are essential for effective social change, but the "repair" piece is often overlooked.  (Lack of repair work, Bill points out, after the civil war was inadequate, and our wounds from that conflict have still not healed, over 160 years later.) 

Bill observes that many Braver Angels are thinking very much along the lines that David describes in his letter to us and his later blog post. They are calling for 

Braver Angels to speak out about injustices and abuses of governmental power. If we support democracy, this argument goes, then to not publicly resist these assaults is at best timidity and at worst complicity. The time for talking to the other side is over. They are unreachable; the only thing left is to fight them. (This challenge is coming mostly from progressive Blues distressed by the Trump Administration, but I could imagine a time when it would come from conservative or populist Reds upset, say, with a Mamdani administration.) In effect, the call is for Braver Angels to join the resistance.

Bill responds with three points:

1. If people feel called upon to resist, they can do so in a personal capacity.
2. Braver Angels cannot do repair work successfully if it also is joining the resistance. (Just as we say that neutrality and advocacy must be kept separate, Bill wrote: "If Braver Angels camps on one shore, we lose the cross-partisan trust that makes our work possible." It doesn't make sense to lose the ability to do that, only to be one more small voice in the resistance.)
3. Resistance has no shortage of volunteers. "Keeping contact through conversation — and feasible joint activities — is essential to the functioning of our democratic republic."

Harry Boyte's Fourth R

Bill Doherty's 3Rs really resonated with us, but in our recent conversation with Harry Boyte, another longtime Braver Angel, Harry observed that Bill's ideas might be usefully reframed, and, he said, "Reframing" is actually a valuable fourth "R.".  

If you reframe, resist, repair, and replace in civic terms, you add a kind of horizontal identity and practice of robust citizenship and civic work, to every one of those. So you don't simply resist or block. You think about how to create relations. And there are some good examples.

All of this mutual aid and help and kindness and concern for neighbors who were afraid to go out and Mexican kids going to schools,  [in Minneapolis during the ICE raids] — that's civic. It's positive. It's not simply resistance. It's actually creating and connecting. So that's one example. And you could go through all three.

So a reframing of repairing is thinking about "what can we do together?" It's adding action. It's what Braver Angles is talking about now [with its Citizen-Led Solutions program}. Adding action to dialogue

And then the third thing is, you could call it "replace", but I would call it reframing democracy. Democracy is not something you get. It's not something that's delivered. It's not a consumer good. It's something we do together to build a better democracy. And government is a piece of that, but it's only one instrument. ... 

So I think reframing is really, in civic terms and democratic terms, is really a different way of thinking about this.

The Great Reframing

As we explained in the lead article in our Big Picture Newsletter Series on the Great Reframing, we wholeheartedly agree with Harry's argument that reframing the nature of the problem we face is the first key step toward finding a solution. This means that, along with building much stronger cross-party understanding, relationships, and trust, helping people reframe conflict situations should also be one of the core activities of bridging facilitators. So, rather than being "performative" or "complicit with authoritarianism," we see bridge building as even more essential than ever if we are to transition from our very destructive power-over politics to a power-with democracy that works for and benefits everyone.

We'd love to hear — and publish — other people's thoughts on this dilemma.  We're sure it has been on a lot of people's minds!

Please Contribute Your Ideas To This Discussion!

In order to prevent bots, spammers, and other malicious content, we are asking contributors to send their contributions to us directly. If your idea is short, with simple formatting, you can put it directly in the contact box. However, the contact form does not allow attachments.  So if you are contributing a longer article, with formatting beyond simple paragraphs, just send us a note using the contact box, and we'll respond via an email to which you can reply with your attachment.  This is a bit of a hassle, we know, but it has kept our site (and our inbox) clean. And if you are wondering, we do publish essays that disagree with or are critical of us. We want a robust exchange of views.

Contact Us