Lisa K. Swallow is the co-founder and executive director of Crossing Party Lines, a national nonprofit creating an open dialogue between Americans with dissimilar ideologies. She has developed a series of workshops teaching the concepts, skills, and techniques for having civil, respectful conversations with people who view the world differently. Listening with a curious open mind is the cornerstone of her work.
Toxic polarization is wreaking havoc with our democracy, driving wedges between elected officials, alienating co-workers, and tearing friendships and families apart. It fuels the divisiveness between sides on almost every issue we face, from COVID causes to immunization; environmental concerns to global policy; abortion to gender rights. It is a wicked problem, characterized by animosity towards anyone who opposes our ideas about how to address the problems we care most about.
The term wicked problem may be new to many readers. According to Jon Kolko, author of Wicked Problems: Problems Worth Solving, a wicked problem is “a social or cultural problem that is difficult or impossible to solve for as many as four reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems.”
Sound familiar? Kolko goes on to say, “These problems are typically offloaded to policy makers, or are written off as being too cumbersome to handle en masse. Yet these are the problems—poverty, sustainability, equality, and health and wellness—that plague our cities and our world and that touch each and every one of us.” While Kolko does not include polarization in his list of wicked problems, it fits the criteria perfectly.
Over the past few decades, some of our brightest minds have turned their attention to the problem of toxic polarization. The PEW Research Center tracks a range of indicators from ideological uniformity and Congressional voting patterns to attitudes. Political scientists study its impact on the health of our democracy. Neuroscientists examine the relationship between polarization and the brain. Psychologists explore beliefs and behaviors that contribute to it. Educators are asking how they can better prepare our young people to either survive or reduce it.
Meanwhile hundreds of organizations have found ways to translate researchers’ insights about the causes and contributing factors of polarization into interventions designed to address this wicked problem. Recognizing that despite their different approaches, all these organizations are striving to bridge the divides that are tearing us apart, this work has come to be referred to as “Bridging.”
At present, the bridging community is comprised of more than 500 organizations. Some offer opportunities to observe debates or discussions, others to watch documentaries or films portraying bridging in action. Some teach skills and concepts that make talking with the “other” possible, while others offer opportunities to participate in conversations across differences by providing conversation guides or facilitated gatherings. Many bridging organizations offer more than one of these approaches.
To anyone questioning the investment of time, energy, and money into reducing toxic polarization, this may appear as a shot-gun approach. They may wonder why we don’t focus all our energies on one tried-and-true solution. The problem is, because toxic polarization is a wicked problem, there is no single solution. According to Horst Rittel who popularized the concept of wicked problems, “Solutions to wicked problems can be only good or bad, not true or false. There is no idealized end state to arrive at, and so approaches to wicked problems should be tractable ways to improve a situation rather than solve it.”
Framing bridging as a wicked problem helps us recognize the value in having a wide range of solutions. Rather than seeing our collection of work as a shotgun approach, we can appreciate the way each offers its own piece of the puzzle. What really differentiates our collective work from a shotgun approach, though, is the reliance on science and proof. To ensure that we are investing in work that is bringing about positive change, the Bridging Movement Alignment Council (BMAC) has designed the Social Cohesion Impact Measure (SCIM) tool for measuring the impact of individual interventions. This follows closely on the heels of last year’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge, a mega study funded by the Civic Health Project and others that tested over 250 interventions and proved the effectiveness of many of the approaches used by these organizations today.
Kolko advises us that to solve wicked problems we must "design with versus design for." The National Week of Conversation (NWOC) is an example of the bridging field doing exactly that as we invite all Americans to work with us to solve America’s overarching wicked problem. NWOC is YOUR opportunity to discover how you can play a part in reducing toxic polarization.
Over 100 bridging organizations will be hosting events during the week of April 17-23 and posting them on CitizenConnect.US, where you can explore a wide range of experiences that will help you become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
·Do you want to learn more about what bridging is and why it matters? Sign up for one of the many speaker events or panel discussions.
·Do you want to see bridging in action? Join us for a screening of a bridging-related documentary or watch a debate between civil, respectful, thoughtful people who happen to be on different sides of the political spectrum.
·Do you want to experience a new way of talking politics, one that is civil and respectful and often fun? Participate in one of the many conversations hosted by bridging organizations, choosing the formats and topics that appeal to you most.
·Do you want to develop skills that will help you navigate difficult conversations in real life? Attend one of the many workshops teaching skills and concepts that have been proven to improve the chances that your next difficult conversation will be more productive than your last.
What all these experiences have in common is a focus on reducing toxic polarization through listening and connecting with people who view the world differently than you do. Through conversation.
The National Week of Conversation is risk-free. It offers seven full days of programming. – a smorgasbord of opportunities that you can sample for free. Most are virtual, allowing you to help address one of our country’s most wicked problems from the comfort of your own home.




















U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."