Our question: What three things would you prioritize to reverse divisiveness and alienation trends and increase social cohesion in the United States?
This question resonated with our readers based on the number of responses we received.
Not surprisingly the focus was as different as we are as Americans. Some focused on how the government works and how to improve elections. Some focused on how citizens can be better informed (the Fairness Doctrine was cited by many) and become involved. And others offered suggestions on how to create better understanding that gives us the ability to come together as a nation. Yet more pointed to civics education for students and adults. Here are a few of the many responses we received, and some have been edited for length.
As a high school student, I believe that the social cohesion of tomorrow starts with the youth of today. Keeping this perspective in mind, here are my three main points: 1. Civics education is vital to keeping our nation together. I am a firm believer that our country lacks balanced, equitable civics education. I actually wrote a speech about this subject recently. 2. Beyond public schools, we need to prioritize extracurricular activities that encourage healthy public speaking habits, like a speech, debate and Constitution team. 3. Kids must get involved in local and regional initiatives to fight for the opportunity to talk to people of differing opinions. From my personal experience, I have not been encouraged by many teachers to reach out to people I disagree with, and that's something we need to fight for. Robert Hamblin
1. Shared experiences among diverse groups. This is certainly not a new concept, but I think the conversation around this is often shallow. Shared experiences — such as learning a new hobby — among diverse groups of people are essential to social cohesion. However, a few challenges arise; namely that cities are often so segregated that it can be a challenge to actually bring diverse people together.
2. Spaces to gather. The second thing that is then needed are welcoming spaces such as libraries, parks, community centers and other places — that are high-quality, convenient and accessible venues. These spaces must extend an invite to all — from the most affluent to the most vulnerable, and to people from across the spectrum of political ideologies. In light of the pandemic, we also recognize that digital spaces are also becoming increasingly important.
3. Amplifying stories (people), initiatives and ideologies that embrace understanding others, bridging & belonging, and civic health. Shamichael Hallman
Three things that I would prioritize are:
1.Establishing a basic needs agenda in our country.
2.Teaching courses in creolization theory.
3.And teaching people how to develop a “Founder’s mentality” when looking at this nation’s development.
Pedro Silva
I’d love to think of ways to get people out of their homes/off their screens and working on projects in the community together for a common good.
Recently I went to my mother’s house and my aunt was there. She and I are about as far apart as two people can be on politics and she tends to be a bit tone deaf so it’s hard to just “put politics aside” or “agree to disagree.” But my mother had a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle out and we all worked together on it and it was the most I have peacefully engaged with her in a while. I can’t stop reflecting on it.
A jigsaw puzzle is a small thing, but could we replicate this with projects like building a garden, cleaning up a park, habitat for humanity-style building, etc.? It would be a double win for the community if we could fix a concrete problem in our towns and also build cohesion around it.
Mary K. Flynn
I love the question as social cohesion is fresh on my mind after reading Robert Putnam’s 2001 article on social capital. I think these steps would help:
- Focusing on what we aspire towards — the shared vision and shared values.
- Integrating Social Trust building dialogues into existing structures rather than relying on people to join new groups.
- Making explicit our intentions to use these dialogues and techniques because we believe we can achieve this vision together.
David M Green
First priority: Make news consumption better. I get the feeling my own news consumption does not tell me what I need to know in order to be an effective member of society, and I wonder what I'm missing. And most other people's news consumption doesn't tell them what they need to know either. Some schools are now teaching students to solve real-world problems as part of their curriculum; I wonder whether we also need to learn problem-solving techniques from our news.
Second priority: Make voting systems better. Maybe this means less partisan. I'm curious about systems like final-five voting.
Third priority: Ask a wide variety of people what they want us to prioritize. Even ask this question to people who are unwilling to participate in a dialogue (which I'm guessing is most people) by doing surveys of the general public.
Cobie Delespinasse
1. Breaking up media monopolies/ bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
2. Campaign finance reform.
3. Addressing income inequality with a focus on rural communities.
George Balella
There is one thing I would do three times over and that is continue to find ways to get the word out about all the good work that’s happening across the country. I know so many people that are talking about leaving the U.S. because they can’t stand it. And I want people to stay and fight. So maybe the second thing is to figure out how to get people in the streets to say they can’t deal with inaction on voting rights. Where is the outrage?
Victoria Hattersly
The public is increasingly alarmed about the country’s divisions and the press in demonstrating greater interest in stories of bridging divides. Therefore, I’d prioritize these things, all aimed at organizations within the movement:
1.Step up PR work to bring visibility to the movement and successes within it to the press, both local and national.
2.Build programming around “strange bedfellows” who are engaging with each other in a positive, constructive way.
3.Support work to rein in gerrymandering.
There is only one thing I would prioritize to reverse the trends of social divisiveness and alienation. I work in the intersection of religious freedom and LGBT concerns with people with strong convictions on every “side” — and yet, every day I find reason to be hopeful for our country and for all of us as human beings. My one recommendation for all of us:
Make a friend who is very different from you.
Marian Edmonds-Allen
The three strategies below, especially if pursued simultaneously, would help reverse debilitating polarization and promote social cohesion.
1. Support solutions and possibilities. Create a new independent government agency, the National Endowment for Resilience and Cohesion, and/or a public private partnership with a similar mission and substantial resources that would support a range of activities, including 1) funding national, state and local efforts to tackle polarization, build capacity around solutions-oriented processes and policies (like hiring chief cohesion officers in government, business and Hollywood), and provide technical assistance, training, tools and curricula incorporating evidence-based research on how best to depolarize and promote cohesion; 2) funding creative projects to generate content that imagines and makes tangible what a successful multiracial pluralistic America would look and feel like; and 3) funding or incentivizing the development of new apps and games that would reward prosocial behaviors.
2. Change behavioral norms and practices. Launch a high profile national campaign targeting government, media, entertainment, business, educational institutions and civil society to do their part to strengthen our democracy and repair our frayed civil fabric. Participants would pledge to adhere to a new code of conduct that reduces polarization and othering and emphasizes our shared fates and common aspirations (like a LEED certification equivalent for social cohesion). While there are smaller efforts of this type underway now, none are gaining the needed traction. The goal would be to synergize them, get huge uptake with an influencer strategy and sign ons from major players in all the key sectors, and generate pressure to take the pledge.
3. Make service cool and accessible for all ages. Scale and develop new, more flexible types of national and community service opportunities that would engage people across the age spectrum, from elementary school students to the elderly. Infuse them with a bridging rather than a charity mindset. Create an accompanying curriculum that fosters curiosity and empathy, emphasizes human dignity, and encourages deep listening across differences of all kinds, including identity, ideology and geography. Prioritize placements that offer participants insight, preferably gained by living in a new environment, into experiences that differ from their own that help overcome segregation, othering and racism.
Ideally, the combination of government and private sector resources and engagement, meaningful experiences across differences happening at scale all over the country, and an impactful public campaign would create enough “surround sound” to jolt Americans into a new way of being and thinking, usher in new behavioral norms, create new cohesion incentives that compete with entrenched polarization ones, and reach a positive tipping point for our country. Suzette Brooks Masters
My first priority for those wishing to defend and strengthen democracy would be an effort to promote much broader public awareness of the importance of protecting the rights and interests of those on the losing side of democratic elections. Democracy cannot function as a winner-take-all system in which the winners are able to force their opponents to publicly embrace the winners' beliefs. It can also not be a political spoils system in which winners unfairly redistribute wealth and status toward their political supporters. If citizens (as is too often now the case) believe that elections are battles that they absolutely, positively can't afford to lose, then democracy is doomed. All citizens in a democracy must be assured that, regardless of an election's outcome or a judicial decision, they will continue to have a secure and valued place in society.
This raises a second priority, the cultivation of a much more diverse diversity — one that spans, rather than stops, at the political divide. The defense of diversity must go beyond the coalition building imperative behind "big tent" politics and embrace the principles of mutual respect, tolerance, and individual freedom that allow people from different political coalitions with very different, deeply held belief systems to peacefully live together in mutually supportive ways.
Finally, I would encourage us all to do much more to resist what I call bad-faith actors — those who, for a variety of reasons, deliberately use sophisticated and deceptive tactics to inflame our hyper-polarized politics and, thereby, advance their narrow, selfish interests. Such actors include, for example, inflammatory media, foreign provocateurs, and hate-mongering political figures. We can't let them lure us into self-righteous information bubbles that prevent us from seeing the humanity of our fellow citizens or the things we are doing that contribute to our society's deep divisions. Guy Burgess












Ben Droz
Ben Droz







U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.