Newsletter 333 — March 22, 2025

Heidi Burgess and Guy Burgess

Guy and Heidi's response to Bernie:

We (Guy and Heidi) are not as far from Bernie's thoughts as we were in our debate of two years ago, and we appreciate Bernie's weighing in again. We have been thinking a lot about his arguments in the interim two years, and I think we both have modified our stances to some extent, in part due to the others' arguments (at least on our part), and no doubt also due to unfolding events. 

In our original debate,  we asserted (as we still do) that hyper-polarization was the greatest threat to the country, and indeed, to humankind.  Bernie and Jackie (Font Guzman--Bernie's co-author) were arguing that hyper-polarization was driven by injustice and oppression, and thus those two needed to be dealt with first.

At the time, we both may have framed our arguments in more black and white, either-or terms than we do now.  I think it is fair to say that we all agree that both bridge-building and social justice advocacy are needed to fight both hyper-polarization and oppression. Bernie still stresses the importance of anti-oppression advocacy more than we do; we stress the importance of bridge building more than he does.  But we both agree, I think, that there is a role for both.

David Eisner's thoughts from the last newsletter seem to apply well to this debate: we need both bridge-building and advocacy, and each has lessons that are valuable for the other. This was a key idea in our response to Zach Elwood's essay "Can we lower toxic polarization while still opposing Trump?" Our answer to that was "yes" if we use the strategies suggested in our notion of "constructive confrontation" which calls for applying the ideas and tools of conflict resolution to our advocacy efforts. Using Bernie's words, constructive confrontation is "respectful, not hateful; and to the point, not petty." 

Looking at Bernie's other recommendations, we have the following observations.

Building Social Movements and Islands Are Cooperative Endeavors

We don't see building social movements and building islands as opposites, but, rather, cooperative endeavors.  The image we tried to create in our Fiddling essay, which we will expand upon later, is that the left and the right working together on the island need to build a social movement to create a new democracy in which everyone would want to live.

This is different from a social movement that seeks to establish a progressive utopia or a conservative or MAGA utopia. In other words, it would not seek to implement all of the progressives' wish list without considering the needs and hopes of conservatives. Nor would it seek to implement the conservatives' or MAGA's wish list without considering the needs and hopes of progressives.

Rather, it would seek to find the common goals of people on both sides of the aisle (as well as the unaligned), and use creative negotiation to resolve differing goals. An example of this approach is that being tried by the Grand Bargain Project which is trying to get a broad and diverse group of citizens to agree on trade offs among six different goals: economic mobility and growth, improved education and healthcare, reduced national debt, cleaner energy, and a fairer and simpler tax code. The idea is that while progressives and conservatives value each of these goals differently, it should be possible to trade off things that are important to one side, but not so important to the other. This might enable them to come up with a plan that would seem better to everyone when compared to what we have now, or what they could reasonably expect to get by other means (in other words, it is better than their BATNAs).  

The goal of such a social movement would be to rediscover and advocate for a society that is based on pluralistic, mutually supportive coexistence principles. As we tried to argue in our post on the "golden rule" exercise, such a society would be based on a shared commitment to treat others (those on the other side of the divide) in the same way in which we would like to be treated. 

Concerning Resistance

Relating to Bernie's second observation, that it is necessary to come up with plans that will face resistance from the right, to the extent that the  left can take into account the interests and needs of the right, as well as their own interests and needs, that resistance can be reduced. One of the big keys to the success of any advocacy effort is the ability to minimize opposition and avoid unnecessary sources of conflict and resistance. Societal well-being and democracy are not win-lose, zero-sum games, although that is the way most people are framing them right now. But human needs are actually positive sum in nature: the more security one side has, the less it will feel the need to threaten the other side, and thus the more security the other side will have.  If all identities are valued, then there will be less reason for one side to fight back against the other side.  This contrasts sharply with the divisive bifurcation of identity groups into oppressors and oppressed or, from a more right-leaning perspective, those who made America great and those who did not. 

That doesn't mean that oppression needs to be tolerated. Indeed, it means the opposite.  If all identities are seen as valuable, then all should be treated as valuable. Everyone should be treated with respect, and should be given the opportunity to lead a fulfilling, meaningful life.  It is not necessary to take such opportunities away from one group to give it to another. We can figure out how to make such opportunities available to everyone. (The emerging "Abundance Agenda" some Democrats are advocating as an answer to Trump is one promising example of this sort of thinking.) And if we don't, if we treat opportunity as a win-lose, zero-sum situation, we will continue to have the polarization that will continue to escalate our conflicts and likely bring worse outcomes to everyone. 

Does Bridge Building Entrench Power Disparities? It Doesn’t Have To

Bernie says that focusing only on bridge-building further entrenches power disparities. This isn't always true (though sometimes it might be). If bridge building leads to joint problem solving, that can result in outcomes that empower the lower-power group(s) and give them the opportunity to work on a level playing field with the ostensibly more powerful parties. We think back to all of the stories we heard from Community Relations Service mediators who often did what is now called bridge building between racial minority groups and the (usually white) power establishment—police chiefs and departments, school superintendents and school systems, etc. The result of the relationships built between the minority groups and the "establishment" was almost always that the minority group got their interests and needs recognized and often met, particularly if they framed their demands in terms pf being treated more fairly, rather than simply firing the school principal or a police chief. 

Power Differentials

This raises an even more fundamental question about the most effective response to power differentials. To start with, we need to recognize that we live (and will continue to live) in a world where power is not equitably distributed. The utopian vision of power equality has never existed and most likely, never will. However, there are better and worse ways of dealing with this fact.  

One approach is a perpetual confrontation and conflict strategy focused on continuing efforts to disempower the empowered and empower the disempowered. This approach will almost certainly escalate into a series of increasingly intense confrontations in which any sympathy that the powerful might have had for the disempowered will collapse in ways that the remove the taboos that would otherwise prevent the most brutal and violent forms of oppression. Such conflicts also have a long history of having been successfully co-opted by aspiring authoritarians who cultivate and then use widespread hatred of society's elites as a ticket to power (something that many believe President Trump is now doing). Conversely, those on the right, not surprisingly, tend to see the wide range of DEI programs as an effort by the "woke industrial complex" to assert quasi-authoritative power to perpetuate and profit from racial tensions.) 

The alternative strategy is a bridge-building strategy in which, despite power disparities, opposing sides deliberately try to cultivate an atmosphere of mutual understanding, respect, and empathy that can lead the powerful to be much more generous in what are still likely to be unequal interactions.  While the resulting relationship might be disagreeable to low power groups, we think that it is still vastly preferable to all-out conflict and brutal repression.  It may even lay the groundwork for slowly breaking down barriers that exist between the two groups and enable lower-power groups to increase their well being and quality of life along various measures (income, education, health, etc.) 

Further, unless one frames personal value solely in terms of power, there is much more to life than one's position in the social power hierarchy. If we start valuing people for the totality of who they are: looking at how loving and caring they are, how artistically talented they are, how they contribute to their families or community, even in low-paying but essential jobs, people will likely be much happier and strive harder to make a good life for themselves, their families, and their communities.  

Bernie correctly points out that "all important social movements have struggled at times to find the balance between strategic focus and the need for emotional expression, between realistic programs of action and overreaching demands." But when they fail to find that balance and go so far to one side or the other that they are demeaning or even hateful of people who do not share their views, they are making their own success much less likely. Similarly, when they reach too far with their demands, they lose credibility, and support.  If the Left's "resistance" to Trump is going to stand any chance of succeeding, it must be built on a much larger coalition if it is to stand any chance of overcoming Trump's broad base of support. 

The left built far too small a tent in 2020-2024, appealing primarily to far-left supporters in their "in group." This is a big reason why Trump won.  Just as one example, when the left's demands for marriage equality were accepted by the Supreme Court (and much of a previously skeptical public), the left did not claim victory and declare the issue resolved. Instead, they "moved the goal posts" by pursuing a much less broadly supported agenda including the casting of traditional, patriarchal family structures as oppressive and the championing of a variety of highly controversial "trans" issues involving pronouns, terms like Latinx or "birthing persons", and allowing trans men to compete in women's sports. When they demanded that children be allowed (perhaps even encouraged) to change their gender at school without the parents even being told, that was a bridge too far. Parents rebelled.
 

As another example: when Martin Luther King called for people of all races to be "judged by the contents of their character, not the color of their skin," that was widely regarded as a fair call for America to act according to "the true meaning of its creed."  (It did, of course, also result in substantial resistance and even King's assassination. Still, that goal was eventually widely accepted.  But when the far left started arguing that whites, no matter how they conducted their personal lives, were inherently racist, and they should feel guilty for their existence, and take a backseat to people of color in terms of school admission, jobs, promotions, etc., that was, again, a bridge too far.  It did not show respect for everyone; it did not meet everyone's fundamental needs. And as we pointed out in our last newsletter, when human needs are denied, the people being denied will usually fight vigorously until their needs are restored.  That's why Trump's promise that "I am your retribution" played so well with so many.

False Equivalence:

As for Bernie's assertion about "false equivalence," in which he asserts that  "the hate, anger, division, and chaos that we see now is not equally the responsibility of progressives and the MAGA forces any more than misogyny is equally the responsibility of feminists and the defenders of patriarchy." We agree when it comes to chaos—that, apparently is Trump's chosen style. He is said to assume (and he might be right) that the more chaos you sow, the harder it is for the left to respond effectively.  So yes, that is Trump's doing.

But we believe that the hate, anger, and division is being driven by both sides. The left has not been secretive about its disdain for people on the right. They routinely suggest MAGA supporters are evil or stupid and the reason that they voted for Trump is either that they are racists or homophobes or gullible. That they might have legitimate grievances against leftist policies is seldom acknowledged.  So yes, the right is filled with hate and anger, but it is largely in response to the hate and anger expressed on the left. And the opposite is also true.  This is why we (Guy and Heidi) still argue that what we call "hyper-polarization" (not "routine" polarization, but something even more extreme than what is now being called "affective polarization") is still our most critical problem.  It is driving both sides to greater and greater extremes of dehumanization — extremes that could easily lead us into war. 

Is Hyper-Polarization a “Problematic” Word?

Polarization may be a problematic word now (as James Coan/ Sara Weinstein and Eve Sneider/ Jonathan Stray both argue), but it our term, hyper-polarization still describes a problem that exists and is tearing America apart.  Whitewashing it with other synonyms just confuses the point. And pretending it doesn't exist allows it to continue to metastasize.  It remains the biggest threat to the survival of humanity. It is high time we realize that and work harder to diminish it.  We shouldn't ignore the legitimate grievances of the people the left calls "oppressed" when we do this. But if we ignore the legitimate concerns of the people the left calls "oppressors," we will just worsen an already very dangerous situation.
 

The “Braid” of Bridge Building and Social Movement Building

Bernie also says, "I think a focus on bridge building across our most extreme differences right now without focusing on how to build movements for change won‘t work." We agree. So does, we gather from second-hand stories, one of the largest and most successful bridge building organizations, Braver Angels. We need to learn more about their work and their plans, but we are hearing from some people involved in Braver Angels that they are moving beyond simply having dialogues for the sake of relationship building and building cross-party understanding, to trying to get groups to engage in civic work together. So too is the newly formed Better Together America, which is helping multiple communities establish "civic hubs," designed to "build community resilience and civic capacity, enabling communities across the country to work together to solve their biggest challenges and ensure government institutions and elected leaders are accountable and fairly elected." Braver Angels and Better Together America are part of the "renew-democracy ecosystem" that David talked about.

So the bottom line, it seems, really is David's idea.  We need to all work together, braiding our efforts together, in order to make the entire society strong.  If we try only to make half of the society strong (which ever half you choose), the outcome will likely be more "hate, anger, division, and chaos" that will gravely hurt us all.  If we just talk, but don’t act, that won’t work to bring about change either. We need to do both, along with all the other things in David's notion of a renew-democracy ecosystem. But we don't all individually need to do everything.  We just need to "braid" our efforts together with the others to bring about meaningful change in all the needed domains.

Eve Schneider and Jonathan Stray’s Examples of Islands

Just briefly, we appreciated Eve Schneider and Jonathan Stray's comment about our Fiddling post and especially about the island idea in the recent Better Conflict Bulletin.  Eve and Jonathan noted:

We’ve covered such “islands” before. They are often little-known and perhaps a bit scandalous (because, of course, peace-making is frowned upon by both sides). There’s that underground meetup for the cancelled in New York. An Israel-Palestine protest group that refuses to pick a side. Sometimes it’s just a comment thread where people are having a shockingly honest discussion about affirmative action.

Importantly, spaces like these also grant people the opportunity to understand their agency within our civil society. 

We agree!

Lead Graphic Credit: Picture Created by Shena Tschofen. Obtained from Flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/shenamt/11015203525)
on 3-5-25. Creative Commons License CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

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

About the MBI Newsletters

Once a week or so, we, the BI Directors, share some thoughts, along with new posts from the Hyper-polarization Blog and and useful links from other sources.  We used to put this all together in one newsletter which went out once or twice a week. We are now experimenting with breaking the Newsletter up into several shorter newsletters. Each Newsletter will be posted on BI, and sent out by email through Substack to subscribers. You can sign up to receive your copy here and find the latest newsletter here or on our BI Newsletter page, which also provides access to all the past newsletters, going back to 2017.

NOTE! If you signed up for this Newsletter and don't see it in your inbox, it might be going to one of your other emails folder (such as promotions, social, or spam).  Check there or search for beyondintractability@substack.com and if you still can't find it, first go to our Substack help page, and if that doesn't help, please contact us. 

If you like what you read here, please ....

Subscribe to the Newsletter