This topic is a crucial one to navigate for our time. I am grateful to those who write and speak about this topic with concise, clear, and meaningful words that can last. Thank you, Wilk.
With very minor trims:
"You cannot hate others into believing what you believe. You cannot shame them into seeing the world your way. If the goal is to feel seen and heard, then the way the message is conveyed matters just as much as the message itself."
"You can understand why someone holds a position without endorsing it. You can find the humanity in a person without surrendering your principles. And sometimes, not always, when you actually dig into why someone believes what they believe, you find shared concerns underneath the surface disagreement. Maybe even a path neither of you would have found without the conversation."
Allow me to share another quote I would love to get around, written last year by another Braver Angel, Alexandra Hudson:
"A society without disagreement is not united—it is coerced, silent, or stagnant. Difference is not a problem to suppress, but a resource to cultivate. The goal is not to end disagreement, but to build the moral muscle to navigate it together."
I am keeping all of these as regular reminders to apply in my behavior.
Terrific take on why bridge-building is so important to our collective future. It's also a wonderful introduction to the work we do at Braver Angels. Well done!
Thank you for your analysis, Wilk! I truly do want to bring my conservative peers to the peacemaking table, but they have super valid concerns that needed to be voiced. Thank you for taking notice and listening.
An excellent, thought-provoking piece, Wilk—as always. Thank you. I agree with much of what you’ve written, but I’d push on one point.
Braver Angels has historically placed a lot of emphasis on bridge-building between perspectives. That work matters. But I see it as an interim step, not the end goal—and one that doesn’t yet get enough attention.
For me, success is not simply when we’re talking again or even when we understand each other better. That understanding is valuable, but it doesn’t require agreement—and it doesn’t solve problems on its own.
The real test of success is whether we can move beyond conversation to shared problem-solving.
What I’d like to see—and what I think we should be aiming toward—is a culture where citizens across political, ethnic, religious, and other differences are focused on identifying solutions to the serious and fast-worsening challenges facing our communities, states, and nation. And more importantly, where we begin measuring success not by dialogue across divides, but by resolution across divides.
That’s a higher bar—and a necessary one.
I see Braver Angels’ growing focus on Citizen-Led Solutions as a step in that direction. A good step, even if still an early one.
Thanks again for continuing to push this work forward—for all of us.
This is such a great perspective! I completely agree. It’s also not about being right. It’s about understanding (truly understanding) what drives others
I've been involved in Braver Angels for a few years, but reading this was especially timely now. I've been loath to "unfriend" people for any reason, let alone political differences, but the other day I did so for two people -- one a tribal partisan Democrat, and another who's done almost nothing for the past few months but defend Trump and Netanyahu -- because they had demonstrated such utter disinterest in sincerely engaging and understanding another point of view, be it "Republicans" in one case or "the left" in the other, and verbally abused me when I tried to bring this to their attention (admittedly in rather strong terms). I fully intend to remain engaged with people across the spectrum, but not those with whom it's nothing but a drain on my time and emotional energy.
Boundaries are essential, especially in this challenging work! There are circumstances that require walking away, even sometimes from long-term relationships, when basic norms of respectful human interaction are repeatedly and egregiously disregarded. It has happened to me despite 6 years of immersion in this work!
While I can agree about your caution regarding unintentional results of "bridge building", after reading your piece, Kimball's and other related stories, this is not an example of one. For example, Kimball writes "conservatives get annoyed when they feel like they can’t share ideas that are harsh-sounding or unorthodox". I suspect Hasan Piker may feel the same way. I could match examples of the far left having similar complaints of not "feel(ing) seen, heard, and valued". This is exactly what "bridging" is all about in my mind. To your (Will's) point, you ask, "what’s the desired outcome" of bridge building process. To me, it's simply understanding where the other side is coming from. No obligation to agree, modify your views or even like the people you're interacting with. But hopefully you can earnestly understand your opponents "logic" and how they reached their positions and to be able to articulate their views. Not accept them, just understand them. This myopia is a human trait and not assigned to anyone group and it is disappointing that Kimball doesn't understand that and feels it is only conservatives that are attacked--hell, Donald Trump and many conservatives attack me everyday. Kimball, I feel, does some of his own attacks on people like me who do not belong to groups he does not like. Yet he protests that only conservatives are unfairly attacked?
That's why bridge building is needed. To let people understand how other people perceive the actions of "your side" against them. Yes, admittedly this aspect of bridge building is meant to change behavior: stop demonizing and dismissing people you disagree with. If your shields go up with the statement: "But the other side calls ME names" then you have a blindside to your own human faults and you'll be a better person w/o that blindside.
Lastly, to Will, as I said on Tweeter, my goal is to reach the 70% that are reachable and folks like Kimball and his counterparts on the left are unreachable at this time. Maybe someday, but not today. Given the comments you and I come across on Tweeter, I afraid to learn specifics of Kimball's POV: "conservatives get annoyed when they feel like they can’t share ideas that are harsh-sounding or unorthodox. " Within the context of the founding aspirations of our Constitutional Republic, I find this statement antithetical to values of a body politic.
I find it depressing that Will sensed a need to defend "empathy", given Kimball's comments. While I don't think it's a requirement for "bridging", empathy's roots in religion and our general culture certainly celebrates this value. Yet the Peter Theils, Elon Musk, Ayn Rand and many on the MAGA right show an open distain for this value, suggesting it stifles individuals ambition to save the world, rather than one life at a time. I find that to be a new conservative "value" and I'd love to learn how people arrive at that value (and I truly doubt I'll be changing their minds).
In conclusion, Kimball, have you ever attended a Braver Angel event? If you have and it truly was as you described, then they are doing ti all wrong. I've been to a few in the early days (2019) and the events were as I described: trying to understand where people are coming from, no one was trying to change opinions (at least the facilitators). You certainly didn't go to the type of events I went to. That's why I'm asking if you ever went to one?
Finally, I don't care if you feel misrepresented or unheard. We all do. If you think your campus or society in general is "unfair" to conservatives, get in line. Everyone FEELS aggrieved and they are too myopic to understand they are not the center of all the great injustices of the world. That is what bridging is all about. To know that people "on the other side" have the same grievances. Heck, you might learn you do agree on things. (How about big money in politics? Can we agree our political system is being bought and paid for by people who have little interest in you and me? Is there "common ground" there).
This topic is a crucial one to navigate for our time. I am grateful to those who write and speak about this topic with concise, clear, and meaningful words that can last. Thank you, Wilk.
With very minor trims:
"You cannot hate others into believing what you believe. You cannot shame them into seeing the world your way. If the goal is to feel seen and heard, then the way the message is conveyed matters just as much as the message itself."
"You can understand why someone holds a position without endorsing it. You can find the humanity in a person without surrendering your principles. And sometimes, not always, when you actually dig into why someone believes what they believe, you find shared concerns underneath the surface disagreement. Maybe even a path neither of you would have found without the conversation."
Allow me to share another quote I would love to get around, written last year by another Braver Angel, Alexandra Hudson:
"A society without disagreement is not united—it is coerced, silent, or stagnant. Difference is not a problem to suppress, but a resource to cultivate. The goal is not to end disagreement, but to build the moral muscle to navigate it together."
I am keeping all of these as regular reminders to apply in my behavior.
Thank you CS
Terrific take on why bridge-building is so important to our collective future. It's also a wonderful introduction to the work we do at Braver Angels. Well done!
Well, that was pretty darn perfect! I can definitely say this liberal shares your values and desired outcomes on bridge-building.
Thank you for your analysis, Wilk! I truly do want to bring my conservative peers to the peacemaking table, but they have super valid concerns that needed to be voiced. Thank you for taking notice and listening.
My separate comments that address your piece and comments.
An excellent, thought-provoking piece, Wilk—as always. Thank you. I agree with much of what you’ve written, but I’d push on one point.
Braver Angels has historically placed a lot of emphasis on bridge-building between perspectives. That work matters. But I see it as an interim step, not the end goal—and one that doesn’t yet get enough attention.
For me, success is not simply when we’re talking again or even when we understand each other better. That understanding is valuable, but it doesn’t require agreement—and it doesn’t solve problems on its own.
The real test of success is whether we can move beyond conversation to shared problem-solving.
What I’d like to see—and what I think we should be aiming toward—is a culture where citizens across political, ethnic, religious, and other differences are focused on identifying solutions to the serious and fast-worsening challenges facing our communities, states, and nation. And more importantly, where we begin measuring success not by dialogue across divides, but by resolution across divides.
That’s a higher bar—and a necessary one.
I see Braver Angels’ growing focus on Citizen-Led Solutions as a step in that direction. A good step, even if still an early one.
Thanks again for continuing to push this work forward—for all of us.
This is such a great perspective! I completely agree. It’s also not about being right. It’s about understanding (truly understanding) what drives others
I've been involved in Braver Angels for a few years, but reading this was especially timely now. I've been loath to "unfriend" people for any reason, let alone political differences, but the other day I did so for two people -- one a tribal partisan Democrat, and another who's done almost nothing for the past few months but defend Trump and Netanyahu -- because they had demonstrated such utter disinterest in sincerely engaging and understanding another point of view, be it "Republicans" in one case or "the left" in the other, and verbally abused me when I tried to bring this to their attention (admittedly in rather strong terms). I fully intend to remain engaged with people across the spectrum, but not those with whom it's nothing but a drain on my time and emotional energy.
Boundaries are essential, especially in this challenging work! There are circumstances that require walking away, even sometimes from long-term relationships, when basic norms of respectful human interaction are repeatedly and egregiously disregarded. It has happened to me despite 6 years of immersion in this work!
While I can agree about your caution regarding unintentional results of "bridge building", after reading your piece, Kimball's and other related stories, this is not an example of one. For example, Kimball writes "conservatives get annoyed when they feel like they can’t share ideas that are harsh-sounding or unorthodox". I suspect Hasan Piker may feel the same way. I could match examples of the far left having similar complaints of not "feel(ing) seen, heard, and valued". This is exactly what "bridging" is all about in my mind. To your (Will's) point, you ask, "what’s the desired outcome" of bridge building process. To me, it's simply understanding where the other side is coming from. No obligation to agree, modify your views or even like the people you're interacting with. But hopefully you can earnestly understand your opponents "logic" and how they reached their positions and to be able to articulate their views. Not accept them, just understand them. This myopia is a human trait and not assigned to anyone group and it is disappointing that Kimball doesn't understand that and feels it is only conservatives that are attacked--hell, Donald Trump and many conservatives attack me everyday. Kimball, I feel, does some of his own attacks on people like me who do not belong to groups he does not like. Yet he protests that only conservatives are unfairly attacked?
That's why bridge building is needed. To let people understand how other people perceive the actions of "your side" against them. Yes, admittedly this aspect of bridge building is meant to change behavior: stop demonizing and dismissing people you disagree with. If your shields go up with the statement: "But the other side calls ME names" then you have a blindside to your own human faults and you'll be a better person w/o that blindside.
Lastly, to Will, as I said on Tweeter, my goal is to reach the 70% that are reachable and folks like Kimball and his counterparts on the left are unreachable at this time. Maybe someday, but not today. Given the comments you and I come across on Tweeter, I afraid to learn specifics of Kimball's POV: "conservatives get annoyed when they feel like they can’t share ideas that are harsh-sounding or unorthodox. " Within the context of the founding aspirations of our Constitutional Republic, I find this statement antithetical to values of a body politic.
I find it depressing that Will sensed a need to defend "empathy", given Kimball's comments. While I don't think it's a requirement for "bridging", empathy's roots in religion and our general culture certainly celebrates this value. Yet the Peter Theils, Elon Musk, Ayn Rand and many on the MAGA right show an open distain for this value, suggesting it stifles individuals ambition to save the world, rather than one life at a time. I find that to be a new conservative "value" and I'd love to learn how people arrive at that value (and I truly doubt I'll be changing their minds).
In conclusion, Kimball, have you ever attended a Braver Angel event? If you have and it truly was as you described, then they are doing ti all wrong. I've been to a few in the early days (2019) and the events were as I described: trying to understand where people are coming from, no one was trying to change opinions (at least the facilitators). You certainly didn't go to the type of events I went to. That's why I'm asking if you ever went to one?
Finally, I don't care if you feel misrepresented or unheard. We all do. If you think your campus or society in general is "unfair" to conservatives, get in line. Everyone FEELS aggrieved and they are too myopic to understand they are not the center of all the great injustices of the world. That is what bridging is all about. To know that people "on the other side" have the same grievances. Heck, you might learn you do agree on things. (How about big money in politics? Can we agree our political system is being bought and paid for by people who have little interest in you and me? Is there "common ground" there).