By Beth Malow
Reader, what might you suggest as an alternative term to bridge-building?
Do you ever feel conflicted about doing the hard work of opening yourself up to hear different political viewpoints? Is it easier to be an activist than a bridge- builder? Are you pulled to news sources that create outrage and raise your stress level, rather than those that value nuance?
I’m a sleep doctor, science communicator, and a co-author of Beyond the Politics of Contempt. As a paid subscriber, I read Tangle to get both sides of the news. That helps me from falling into the outrage cycle. I’m inspired by Tangle essays such as Decency is about to make a comeback, which speak to Americans having grown tired of cruelty in our politics and wanting to see more kindness.
When I talk with friends socially, or audiences at our book events, I’m struck by how easy it is to be pulled into our echo-chambers, bubbles, silos, and tribes (you choose the word that most resonates with you) and how challenging it is to leave these spaces. A common type of question we’re asked is “How can I talk with others, or read news sources, that have a differing view on FILL IN THE BLANK?” The BLANK can be abortion, climate change, gun rights, immigration — to name a few. Aren’t I compromising my integrity and giving weight to immoral positions by listening to others? Isn’t reading about different points of view dangerous? Will I be sucked into a conspiracy theory at worst? Or at best, compromise my values and morals?
I’ve been admonished by well-meaning friends. “Beth, it’s great that you are so nice and want to be a kind person. But there is a higher moral issue at play here in what Trump and his team is doing. How can you do anything but FIGHT?” Or “We will talk with the other side once we are victorious and they are out of power.” Or “This isn’t the time to bridge-build; the world is on fire! I need to save my limited energy for activism.”
Outrage does have its place in our culture and our history. Look at the American Revolution and the bravery of the colonists who rebelled against the Crown. I think of outrage as having an arc. It’s helpful in the short-term — motivating action in the face of injustice. But too much outrage can work against us. It can contribute to sleepless nights as we doomscroll on our phones. Outrage increases our stress level and harms our physical and mental health. We may withdraw and stop being engaged in whatever cause motivates us because it’s all too much. We may stop reading Tangle!
I would ask: Is EVERY ISSUE a moral one, on which you know what is right and what is right cannot be compromised? Or can some issues be negotiated? Is compromise, or slow incremental change, possible in our current divided political climate? Perhaps could a compromised solution from a moral stance be better than no solution at all?
Looking back on our messy American history, I get that some issues are non-negotiable (see: slavery). But other issues may actually benefit from being vetted by groups of people with differing viewpoints. For example, the tension between voter eligibility and voting rights exemplified by the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. Can our leaders frame this issue not as zero-sum thinking characterized by “us vs. them” toxic polarization but as policy to be addressed through compromise and creative solutions? Can we require ID to vote and also make it free and easy to get such IDs, Senator John Fetterman’s (D-PA) solution that both Tangle and Fox News support?
Bridge-building and activism can co-exist, as I explored with Mónica Guzmán, author of “I Never Thought of it That Way” in a recent Substack post. We concluded that not everyone needs to be both, although it’s possible they can co-exist with bridge-building strengthening activism. I like to think about bridge- building also as coalition building, creating more in-roads to your cause through including differing voices. I’m heartened by the more than 500 organizations across the political spectrum that have sprung up, as captured on the Listen First Coalition’s website.
As our nation considers that decency and kindness may be a way forward to our toxic politics, perhaps we need to think of a different term for bridge-building that’s more attractive, energetic, and motivating. Enlightened activism seems condescending to the activists, cross-partisan collaborative problem-solving sounds too academic and complicated, and Coalition Power-Building sounds a little scary.
Braver Angels has suggested Courageous Citizenship, choosing connection over contempt, the space between silence and outrage.
Dear Reader — what might you suggest as an alternative term to bridge-building that captures its power in this moment?
Dr. Beth Malow resides in Quechee, Vermont, a sleep neurologist who enjoys hiking, cross-country skiing, and singing. She is a TEDx speaker and co-author of Beyond the Politics of Contempt: Practical Steps to Build Positive Relationships in Divided Times, and the Together Across Differences Substack.
Member comments