The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Now is the time to bridge divides

by Chris Gates and Mark Gerzon, opinion contributors - 02/05/22 9:00 AM ET

These are extremely challenging, if not dangerous, times for all Americans. We are faced with rising inflation, COVID uncertainty, rising economic inequality, a lack of racial justice, escalating tensions with Russia in Eastern Europe, China flexing its geopolitical muscles, North Korea testing ballistic missiles, and climate crises proliferating here and around the world.

On the one hand, we want the United States to be at its best as it faces these enormous interlocking challenges. On the other hand, we have become increasingly and more aggressively polarized as a nation. As a result, we are presenting a weak, fragmented, if not chaotic, image to the world. It is more than our credibility that is at stake in this moment, it is also our national security.

To maintain American credibility and security, here and abroad, we must rediscover the unum within our pluribus.

We believe that bridging our divides and seeking greater national unity, even during this difficult time, needs to be a high priority.

But what exactly does it mean to “bridge divides”? Why are some people against it? Why do others just pay lip service? And how do still others, whether they succeed or fail, genuinely seek common ground?

Some Americans are outright opposed to the concept of bridging divides. These “anti-bridgers” believe that it involves forgiving wrong or offensive positions on ‘the other side.’ They feel that they are absolutely right and the other side is absolutely wrong, that they own ‘The Truth.’ They believe that they are on the side of good — and their adversaries are on the side of evil.

We have seen much evidence of this phenomena in recent years as more and more conservatives and progressives believe the ‘other side’ wants to hurt the country. Instead of viewing our political opponents as honorable people with whom we genuinely disagree, anti-bridgers are more likely to presume that their opponents’ motives are malicious, or that their intentions are actually destructive. From this perspective, someone who engages with the other side is consorting with the enemy, even a traitor.

Unlike the anti-bridgers, there is another group that is harder to recognize. They are the false or manipulative bridgers. Whether they are conservatives reaching out to progressives, or — more commonly— progressives reaching out to conservatives, these faux bridgers use the concept to advance their cause, not to find shared ground. They say that they are convening an “open dialogue” and “welcoming multiple points of view.” They claim it is not about who is “right” but about “building trust.”

Based on this well-crafted and time-tested Machiavellian language, these so-called “bridgers” use the language of inclusion to trap their opponents. In most cases these “bridging” conversations fail, as they should. Although the hosts may have worked hard to get a few diverse voices in the room, all too often the “outliers” feel not only outnumbered but ultimately unheard. They leave these faux bridging experiences feeling disillusioned and sometimes even used. Tragically, they poison the well for those who are sincere about wanting to bridge divides and hear other perspectives.

Having been involved in bridge-building efforts for most of our lives, we understand why ‘anti-bridgers’ and ‘faux-bridgers’ resist investing in common ground. Earlier in both of our careers we were both warriors, sure of our points of view and eager to beat down the other side. But it has become clear to both of us that the victories earned via such battle are truly pyrrhic. Our side wins today; their side wins tomorrow; and the country careens from left to right, slowly but surely losing its way.

The result is evident: two-thirds of Americans think the country is on the “wrong track” and only 20 percent think it’s going in the “right direction.” But in our view, moving firmly in a “better direction” is possible only if we move in greater unison with greater comity.

There are many ways we can make that happen:

Let go of any notion of a ‘quick win.’ If our desire is to ‘win’ and to win quickly, then the conversation is not likely a bridging one. True bridging takes time and patience.

Step back and be honest about our motives. If our motive is victory for our side, then we are not in a true bridging conversation. If our hearts and minds are open to learning and hearing other perspectives, then our desire to bridge is authentic and more likely to be effective.

Recognize that the goal is not always ‘agreement.’ Bridging is not about getting everyone to sing from the same hymnal. Sometimes agreement might be possible, but often the true goal is deeper understanding. If we appreciate why someone on the other side has a different perspective, we are less likely to vilify them.

Gandhi, Mandela, King, and other leaders of effective social change movements always incorporated dialogue into their strategies for change. Even from the Birmingham jail, King said the goal of the movement was “not victory, but reconciliation.”