Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Civil discourse in action: Coleman Hughes on 'The View'

Screenshot of Coleman Hughes

Coleman Hughes on The View

YouTube
In a compelling segment on "The View," Coleman Hughes, the author of "The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America," demonstrated the 10 attributes of a Common Grounder — particularly in the face of challenging discourse. His approach to discussing societal ideals and policy nuances reflected a commitment to civil and constructive conversation, even under pressure.

Hughes perspective diverges from mainstream narratives and offers a fresh approach to race in America. His viewpoint aligns with the values echoed by early civil rights leaders who aspired to a world where freedom and justice are not distributed based on racial identity. In his discourse, Hughes posited, "Color blindness isn’t pretending not to see race; it is that we should try our very best to treat people without regard to race, both in our personal lives and our public policy." This foundational statement not only sets the tone for a conversation aimed at understanding and progress but also offers a new lens through which to view race in America.

Despite facing challenges to his perspective on "The View," Coleman Hughes remained composed and resilient, skillfully steering the conversation towards a productive exchange. His calm response to an ad hominem attack exemplified key Common Grounder traits — de-escalating tension, maintaining respect and focusing on facts over winning the debate. His ability to stay focused and composed in the face of adversity is inspiring.

In a segment that nearly escalated into a heated debate, host Sunny Hostin targeted Hughes’ character while challenging his views on Martin Luther King Jr.’s concept of a “Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged.” Hughes countered by explaining that we should indeed address racial inequality and the legacy of slavery but through class-based measures. Hostin cited a quote from King's “Where Do We Go from Here,” arguing that King’s emphasis on race was explicit and vital.

Coleman Hughes On His Definition Of 'Color Blindness' When It Comes to Race | The Viewwww.youtube.com

Before Hughes could fully address her initial statement, Hostin suggested that many in the Black community view Hughes as a pawn used by conservative groups, calling him a charlatan. Rather than retaliate, Hughes redirected the conversation to the original topic, clarifying that the “special” actions referenced in King’s book aligned with King’s advocacy for a “Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged.” Despite Hostin’s continued challenge in the context of King's quote, Hughes adroitly managed to steer the discussion away from personal attacks, asserting his independence and previous voting record to counter the ad hominem tactics employed. His commitment to the ninth and 10th attributes of a Common Grounder — resisting demonizing and de-escalating hostile situations — was evident as he navigated the conversation toward a more constructive and less personal direction.

While it is unrealistic to expect to find common ground in every discussion, the importance of maintaining civility cannot be overstated. Hughes' demeanor and strategic responses during the debate upheld the principles of civility. His approach underscores the importance of focusing on constructive dialogue and mutual respect. For those looking to engage in similarly productive conversations, embracing the attributes of a Common Grounder can provide a framework for fostering understanding and respect. Consider downloading the complete list of the 10 attributes to guide your discussions and enhance your communicative effectiveness. Remember, even in the most challenging discussions, maintaining civility can lead to productive outcomes.

Read More

Governors Cox and Shapiro Urge Nation to “Lower the Temperature” Amid Rising Political Violence

Utah Republican Spencer Cox and Pennsylvania Democrat Josh Shapiro appear on CNN

Governors Cox and Shapiro Urge Nation to “Lower the Temperature” Amid Rising Political Violence

In the days following the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, I wrote Governor Cox’s Prayer Wasn’t Just Misguided—It Was Dangerous, an article sharply criticizing Utah Gov. Spencer Cox for his initial public response. Rather than centering his remarks on the victim, the community’s grief, or the broader national crisis of political violence, Cox told reporters that he had prayed the shooter would be from “another state” or “another country.” That comment, I argued at the time, was more than a moment of emotional imprecision—it reflected a deeper and more troubling instinct in American politics to externalize blame. By suggesting that the perpetrator might ideally be an outsider, Cox reinforced long‑standing xenophobic narratives that cast immigrants and non‑locals as the primary sources of danger, despite extensive evidence that political violence in the United States is overwhelmingly homegrown.

Recently, Cox joined Pennsylvania Governor, Democrat Josh Shapiro, issuing a rare bipartisan warning about the escalating threat of political violence in the United States, calling on national leaders and citizens alike to “tone it down” during a joint interview at the Washington National Cathedral.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Great Political Finger Trap

Protesters gather near the White House on November 24, 2025 in Washington, DC. The group Refuse Fascism held a rally and afterwards held hands in a long line holding yellow "Crime Scene Do Not Cross" tape along Lafayette Square near the White House.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The Great Political Finger Trap

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination earlier this year, a YouGov poll was released exploring sentiments around political violence. The responses raised some alarm, with 25% of those who self-identified as “very liberal,” and nearly 20% of those polled between the ages of 18 and 29, saying that violence was sometimes justified “in order to achieve political goals.” Numerous commentators, including many within the bridging space, lamented the loss of civility and the straying from democratic ideals. Others pointed to ends justifying means, to cases of injustice and incivility so egregious, as they saw it, that it simply demanded an extreme response.

But amidst this heated debate over what is justified in seeking political ends, another question is often overlooked: do the extreme measures work? Or, do acts of escalation lead to a cycle of greater escalation, deepening divisions, and making our crises harder to resolve, and ultimately undermining the political ends they seek?

Keep ReadingShow less

High School Civic Innovators Bridging America’s Divide

At just 17 years of age, Sophie Kim was motivated to start her organization, Bipartisan Bridges, to bring together people from both ends of the political spectrum. What started as just an idea during her freshman year of high school took off after Sophie placed in the Civics Unplugged pitch contest, hosted for alumni in Spring 2024. Since then, Sophie has continued to expand Bipartisan Bridges' impact, creating spaces that foster civil dialogue and facilitate meaningful connections across party lines.

Sophie, a graduate of the Spring 2024 Civic Innovators Fellowship and the Summer 2025 Civic Innovation Academy at UCLA, serves as the founder and executive director of Bipartisan Bridges. In this role, Sophie has forged a partnership with the organization Braver Angels to host depolarization workshops and has led the coordination and capture of conversations on climate change, abortion, gun control, foreign aid, and the 100 Men vs. a Gorilla debate. In addition, this year, Sophie planned and oversaw Bipartisan Bridges’ flagship Politics and Polarization Fellowship, an eight-week, in-person program involving youth from Tustin, Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach, California. A recent Bipartisan Bridges session featuring youth from both Los Angeles and Orange County will be featured in Bridging the Gap, an upcoming documentary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Democrats can reclaim America’s founding principles, rebuild the rural economy, and restore democracy by redefining the political battle Trump began.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Defining the Democrat v. Republican Battle

Winning elections is, in large part, a question of which Party is able to define the battle and define the actors. Trump has so far defined the battle and effectively defined Democrats for his supporters as the enemy of making America great again.

For Democrats to win the 2026 midterm and 2028 presidential elections, they must take the offensive and show just the opposite–that it is they who are true to core American principles and they who will make America great again, while Trump is the Founders' nightmare come alive.

Keep ReadingShow less