Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What gives me hope? Logan County, Ohio.

Opinion

Building with a fountain in front

The courthouse in Bellefontaine, the seat of Logan County, Ohio.

Harwood is president and founder of The Harwood Institute. This is the latest entry in his series based on the "Enough. Time to Build.” campaign, which calls on community leaders and active citizens to step forward and build together.

It’s a natural human impulse to make assumptions about other people. To make snap judgments based on little, or sometimes even no, information. And in today’s divided political climate, our assumptions are often colored by our political preferences.

Consider Logan County, Ohio. It’s over 90 percent white, largely conservative and rural. It happens to be in the district representated by Jim Jordan, a founder of the House Freedom Caucus and one of the most vocal members of congress.

I was just in Logan County — and nearby Union County — to hold an in-person Getting Started Lab, a two-day experience that trains leaders in the Harwood Institute approach and equips them to become catalytic actors. This lab is part of our larger effort there in partnership with the local United Way to catalyze community-led change and build the community’s civic strength by addressing what matters to people.


Everywhere my work takes me these days — from Jackson, Miss., to Fresno, Calif., to Flint, Mich. — I hear the same sentiment from Americans of all backgrounds, ethnicities, and political persuasions. Over and over, they tell me, “We want to focus on what really matters, find new ways to work together and demonstrate that we can move forward.”

Guess what? The leaders I met in Logan County said the very same thing.

Even better, they’re ready to get in motion. Sixty leaders came together for the lab to learn our approach and have formed three action Teams that will start to work on three areas: senior care, youth and health/mental health.

The excitement among these leaders when I showed them the possibility of a new path forward — one devoid of divisiveness and rancor — wasn’t just palpable, it was explicit. Early on day one of the lab, a participant reflected on the discussion we’d had to that point by saying, “This space that we’ve created together is refreshing because we’re not mired in discussions about culture wars. We’re talking about the future of our community.”

The Harwood Institute is engaged in similar long-term initiatives to lead community-driven change in Alamance County, N.C.; Reading, Pa.; Owensboro, Ky.; and DeSoto County, Fla. Every community we work with is iconic in its own way. They each have unique demographics, histories and challenges. Individually, they represent the different fault lines plaguing society today. Collectively, they showcase the beautiful possibility of what it looks like to form a more perfect union.

In every community, when we launch an initiative and hold a Getting Started Lab, people inevitably raise their hands to fill the labs. Afterward, teams form. And the teams immediately start to work on local concerns together.

Over time and without fail, the people who step forward in their respective communities end up unleashing a chain reaction. More people join the work over time as it spreads like a positive contagion. And the work invariably jumps to new areas beyond what the initial teams set out to address.

The takeaway? Amid all our division and mistrust, there’s a deep hunger among Americans to come together and put our communities — and the country — on a new path of hope. One that is grounded in a civic path forward, not more divisive politics. It’s why I’ve launched a new civic campaign called “Enough. Time to Build,” as a means of showing communities nationwide that there is a practical way for us to move forward if we reclaim the public square and unleash our capacity as builders and doers.

The Americans I meet in my work across this country yearn for practical, locally driven solutions to the challenges we face. Nobody I meet is looking for big, sweeping change or the promise of a quick fix. The leaders I met in Ohio were no exception. They were looking for proof that we have the will and ability to create change together, without leaving anyone behind. And they were ready to come together, even amid their real divides, to offer that proof.

I bump into a lot of people in this work who ask me, “What gives you hope?” In their question, I hear the anxiety and apprehension that’s accelerated in the years after Covid. And I feel the weight of the bleak future they often envision, one where our divides have overtaken us.

But that’s a question whose answer, for me, comes easily. I just have to think of the dozens of leaders I met a few weeks ago in Logan County, Ohio. They offer a beacon of hope to a nation in search of progress.


Read More

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

Jalen Brunson #11 of the New York Knicks celebrates with the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy during the New York Knicks Championship ticker tape parade and victory rally celebrating winning the 2026 NBA Finals on June 18, 2026 in New York City.

(Photo by Angelina Katsanis/Getty Images)

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

I didn’t grow up anywhere near Madison Square Garden. My childhood unfolded in the Midwest, far from New York’s tangled boroughs and yellow cabs. My father brought the city with him, tucked in the vowels of his accent and the teams he rooted for. He was a Jersey boy at first. Then, a reluctant Midwesterner. Geography, though, never truly loosened its grip. In our house, sports allegiance wasn’t a choice. It was inherited—an expectation passed like a family recipe. Or a story retold until it blurs into fact.

For my father, and then for me, the Knicks were never just a team. They were a test of endurance. Before I could distinguish a pick-and-roll from a triangle offense, I understood Knicks loyalty: you waited. You hoped in public, persisted when heartbreak was routine. Knicks fandom was boot camp for disappointment. The main skill was getting up after being knocked down.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

People gather over a giant Declaration of Independence

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

As America approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence, I am more in the mood to protest than to celebrate. Does that make me unpatriotic? The answer depends on how we understand “patriotism.” For a nation that is founded in revolution, let’s affirm a deeper and more profound love of country, a civic patriotism celebrative of our larger ideals including pluralism, dissent, and a commitment to social change.

Two Types of Patriotism

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together
Political polarization
Polarization and the politics of love

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together

As we face ever-growing partisan polarization in American society, the need for large-scale action becomes increasingly urgent. As James Coan and I have written about in the Fulcrum during my time at More Like US, there are approaches grounded in a significant body of social psychological research that can help address this rapidly growing problem, namely different variations of social contact theory, especially vicarious contact. Until recently, much of the research and thus much of the basis for our articles has been focused on applying social contact theory to other problems facing society: prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with autism, and immigrant schoolchildren, among other examples.

It was therefore exciting when last fall I saw the publication of an article in Political Science Research and Methods titled "Content That's as Good as Contact?: Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Promise of Depolarization at Scale." The study, conducted in 2022 in conjunction with YouGov, finally attempted to measure the effectiveness of indirect contact as a path to depolarization, primarily through the vicarious experience of productive political conversation. Encompassing over 2,000 participants gathered from a nationally representative sample recruited by YouGov’s online panel, the study looked to test affective polarization, measured attitudinally, and interest and investment in depolarization, measured behaviorally. To this end, the study tested multiple media interventions, namely a 50-minute Braver Angels documentary featuring a “Red-Blue” depolarization workshop; a 50-minute placebo nature documentary about wildebeest migration; a 5-minute version of the Braver Angels documentary; a second 5-minute version that emphasized partisan misperception correction; and a pure control group, with no treatment.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

United States Marine Corps Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II STOVL stealth multirole fighters belonging to the VMFA-121 "Green Knights" taxiing at the MCAS Iwakuni in Yamaguchi, Japan, on March 23, 2017.

(viper-zero / Getty Images)

How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

In earlier essays, I argued that America’s political division has grown so deep that a peaceful “American Union” of two sovereign nations — one broadly red, one broadly blue — is worth considering. I also argued that relocation fears are overstated, that cooperation could increase economic prosperity, and that separation could help heal the lingering wounds of the Civil War.

But how would this all actually work? What happens to the national debt? Who gets the military bases, federal lands, and nuclear weapons? Will Social Security be protected? Could two nations share the dollar, defend themselves together, and resolve their disagreements?

Keep ReadingShow less