Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Stop crossing the line

Cars driving on either side of the yellow lines
Skyak/Getty Images

Gerzon and Gates are co-founders of Philanthropy Bridging Divides. Gerzon is president of the Mediators Foundation and author of "The Reunited States of America.” Gates is a former president of Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement and the National Civic League.

If political progress follows technological innovation, then there is hope for our democracy.

Most new cars now have a sensor that tells us when we cross the line. It gives us a warning to get back in our lane. Unfortunately, in politics we witness politicians and citizens “crossing the line” all too often. Like on the road, the resulting damage is sometimes irreparable.


Now that anyone who criticizes extremist speech is automatically attacked, the result is predictable. Whoever does it gets labeled as “partisan.” If you call out someone in the MAGA world for crossing the line, you would be dismissed as “anti-Trump.” Conversely, if you call out a progressive for using offensive language that is insulting or demeaning (remember the “deplorables”?) readers will assume you are Trumpites or Fox News junkies. If anyone who criticizes extremist speech is automatically attacked, the result is predictable: self-censorship and silence.

The disagreement over the Israel-Hamas conflict has clearly made matters worse. The dispute is profoundly dividing the Democratic Party, in ways that will create lasting scars. When we read the social media posts of former friends and colleagues on both sides of the issue, we see language that clearly crosses the line on both sides, words that can’t be taken back. It will be impossible, once this situation has resolved itself, to say, “Only kidding” or “We’re fine.” In politics, as on the road, crossing the line has consequences.

To continue having a truly United States of America, we need to find a way to stay within the lines. We need to find a way to not condemn and demonize each other. Otherwise, as on the highway, traffic will turn into chaos and damage will ensue.

In a divided time and a divided nation, we need to find ways to hear opposing opinions and process them with understanding, without condemning the source. Even Maureen Dowd recently wrote, “Here’s the reality people don’t want to accept: Trump is likely to be one of two candidates who will be president in 2025. Even if we despise the things he says, we’ve got to hear them.”

If we only had the same sensors in our lives that would BEEP BEEP BEEP when we crossed that line, we would be well served. Instead, even the most reasonable people can end up offending, dismissing and castigating one another, which makes forward movement impossible. Eighty-one million people voted for Joe Biden in the last election. Seventy-four million people voted for Donald Trump. If each side concludes that the other is fundamentally evil we will never be able to govern or act as a nation that has shared values.

And yet, if we polled all those voters, we would discover that we are actually a nation that shares core values about what makes for a good community and a good life. We would find scant support for more crime, worse schools, more litter, more traffic jams or more political dysfunction. True, we do have big fundamental disagreements about things that become elevated by cable television and social media and we can become convinced that our neighbor is our enemy, not someone with whom we agree on some things and disagree on others.

Disagreeing with someone with whom we agree on many things is fundamentally different than disagreeing with someone with whom we agree on nothing. We could lower the political temperature in our country by installing a warning system that lets us know when we cross the line, turning disagreement into dislike or disdain. If only Elon Musk could take that project on.

BEEP BEEP BEEP

Read More

"They want us divided sign" that represents partisanship among democrats and republicans.

In recent philosophical and political discourse, the concept of “deep disagreement” has gained traction as a diagnostic for the dysfunction of contemporary public debate.

Getty Images, Jena Ardell

Manufacturing Dissent: How ‘Deep Disagreement’ Serves the Anti-Democratic Elite

In recent philosophical and political discourse, the concept of “deep disagreement” has gained traction as a diagnostic for the dysfunction of contemporary public debate. The premise is simple yet highly seductive: Some disagreements we are told are so fundamental, so rooted in incompatible worldviews or paradigmatically incommensurable epistemologies, that no meaningful argumentation is possible between the disagreeing parties. The implication is stark: Reason and Dialogue cannot bridge the gulf. But this diagnosis, while sounding sobering and serious, is in fact a dangerous illusion. It is an intellectual sleight of hand that masks both the manufactured nature of such disagreements and the vested interests that thrive on perpetuating them.

Indeed, contrary to its glossy surface neutrality, the notion of “deep disagreement” is not merely a philosophical tool but has become a performative trope, perfectly suited for an age of outrage, polarization, and algorithmic amplification. It helps rationalize the breakdown of dialogue, casting it not as a product of bad faith, deliberate miscommunication, or elite manipulation, but as a tragic inevitability of divergent rationalities. In doing so, it gives cover to a much darker political agenda: The delegitimation of democracy itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bipartisan Bonding on the Ballfield: Women in Congress Find Unity Through Softball
a yellow baseball sitting on top of a table
Photo by Patti Black on Unsplash

Bipartisan Bonding on the Ballfield: Women in Congress Find Unity Through Softball

On a recent hot and steamy July evening in Washington, D.C., the players for a unique sporting event were warming up. Audi Field, home of the DC United and Washington Spirit soccer teams, had been converted into a baseball diamond. And the athletes were not some group of high-paid professionals – they were amateurs at softball, but not at politics.

This was the annual Women’s Congressional Softball Game, now in its 17th year. The game was founded by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida) and former Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri) as a vehicle to raise money for the Young Survival Coalition (YSC), a nonprofit that helps young women affected by breast cancer by providing resources and support. Wasserman Schultz was a breast cancer survivor at the age of 41 and explained in an interview before the game why she founded the event. “I knew when I came out on the other side, I wanted to use my platform to be able to help fill a void in the fight against breast cancer,” she said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz: Connecting With Community

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz was sworn in for a second term as a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 129th district, January 8, 2025

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz: Connecting With Community

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz is an American businesswoman and politician who is a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 129th district.

Cepeda-Freytiz was elected on November 8, 2022, and returned to Harrisburg for a second term after being re-elected in 2024. The 129th district includes parts of Reading and Spring Township as well as Sinking Spring, West Reading, and Wyomissing.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stitching & Sustainability: Refugee Artisan Initiative

ruler, measuring tape, working hands

Stitching & Sustainability: Refugee Artisan Initiative

Since Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, there has been an increase in anxiety around citizenship for immigrants and refugees in the United States.

By the end of his first day, Trump signed 10 executive orders relating to immigration. This included an order to halt refugee admissions, including tens of thousands of refugees who had already been cleared to come to the U.S. by the Biden administration. The order, “REALIGNING THE United States REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM,” largely targets the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Keep ReadingShow less