猫咪社区

On Jan. 6, 2021, a tornado struck the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. 

At least that鈥檚 what some 鈥渂ridge-building鈥� organizations might have led you to believe from their public statements after the insurrection. One such group spoke on Jan. 7 of the to the Capitol without bothering to note that people had committed violence, let alone that it was an effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

A burgeoning movement of well-intentioned, grassroots, nonpartisan organizations has emerged since the election victory of Donald Trump in November 2016 to remedy what they believe ails America. Indeed, I am the executive director of one such organization, Urban Rural Action. 

To understand the landscape of organizations that bring together Americans across divides, we should examine the assumptions they make鈥攁bout their goals, the nature of the problem, the solution, and their public posture. Given the intersecting social and political crises that face our country, these differing assumptions can either empower broad-based movements for change鈥攐r exacerbate conflict.

The Goal

We bridge-builders often identify civility as the goal鈥攑olarization is the problem, incivility is the diagnosis, and civil dialogue is the solution. If we just bring everyone to the table, the thinking goes, then we can unify. We can heal by accepting a . 

But today鈥檚 crises demand that we aim for what King called 鈥減ositive peace,鈥� with justice for all, rather than civility, which is sometimes used as a . 

The Problem 

We bridge-builders too often view the problem through a narrow lens. , but focusing exclusively on hostility between conservatives and liberals misdiagnoses what researchers have called 鈥�.鈥� This also ignores a range of societal challenges that cannot be solved by right-left dialogue alone. 

Instead, we bridge-builders should look expansively at conflict dynamics across our social, political, economic, and environmental systems to identify factors that may lead to violence. This requires considering who is in conflict, both between groups (including ) and violence carried out against the state (such as the attack on the Capitol) and by the state (police brutality, solitary confinement, capital punishment, etc.). 

Many because many of own country, including a; ; and a justice system that privileges the majority, the wealthy, and the connected over the minority, the poor, and the marginalized. 

If we want to increase public safety and , we must move beyond dialogue for the sake of dialogue, and address the causes of violence. We should tackle those causes through collaboration across divides, but still exclude spoilers who support violence to achieve political ends. Let us embrace the spirit of Frederick Douglass, who once said, 鈥淚 would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.鈥� 

The Solution

Consider the issue of misinformation to understand how our different goals and problem diagnoses drive different approaches. 

If our goal is 鈥渞ed versus blue鈥� civility, our programming is more likely to equalize facts and falsehoods. Indeed, a recent bridge-building public debate featured two sides: allegations of 鈥渕ajor fraud鈥� in the 2020 election versus views based on evidence that it 鈥�.鈥� Such a frame might bring people across the ideological spectrum to the table, but at the cost of spreading false claims that may drive participation in violence. After all, misinformation about the election fueled the insurrection on Jan. 6 and diminishes trust in our democracy.

If instead we view bridge-building as a vehicle for advancing a safe and justice society, we would identify misinformation as a conflict dynamic. We can counter misinformation by , , and/or .

Public Posture

We must recognize that we ourselves are actors within the conflict context鈥攚hat we say and do (and don鈥檛 say or do) affects the context. Let鈥檚 not fool ourselves into thinking we can or should be 鈥渘eutral.鈥� When violent extremists desecrate our democracy and we demur lest we face criticism for appearing biased, we are not being neutral鈥攚e are normalizing political violence. Instead, we should champion American values of peaceful expression and democratic participation. 

At worst, our bridge-building efforts champion superficial civility, celebrate false unity, and uphold an unjust status quo. But at our best, we can expand movements to advance peace, justice, and democracy. Indeed, the future of America depends on it.