Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Building Bridges, Not Barriers: Civic Virtue in Divisive Times

Building Bridges, Not Barriers: Civic Virtue in Divisive Times

Two people building a bridge out of blocks.

Getty Images, Liudmila Chernetska

"The human mind is a story processor, not a logic processor." Jonathan Haidt

What I’m about to share won’t be filled with data or empirical evidence to convince you.


I’m a father and educator who wants our system of government to endure—and I abhor the reality that any nation is just moments away from political violence.

Toxic polarization is a disease. Qualitative research like Lethal Mass Partisanship  and Pew Research Center data confirm this, but rather than cite studies, I want to tell a story—one of history, reflection, faith, and above all, hope for a healthier political culture.

We must rediscover a civic virtue that guided our nation’s pivotal leaders. Political bridging—engaging meaningfully with those who disagree with us—is not just idealistic; it is essential for our democratic republic’s survival.

I grew up a Republican, believing in small government and wary of unchecked power. My views have evolved—tempered by pragmatism, history, and most of all, fatherhood. Today, I care more about building bridges than rigidly adhering to small-government dogma.

Washington, Douglass, and Lincoln as Virtuous Examples

George Washington had several opportunities to consolidate power. At the close of the revolution, with a military force behind him, he chose to return home. History shows that beloved leaders with an army can seize power with little resistance—but he never did.

Even as president, Washington could have wielded executive authority with little opposition. Rather than hold onto power, he instilled a commitment to the Constitution, not to any party or politician.

Beyond resisting absolutism, Washington embodied a critical civic virtue: the value of differing opinions. He built a cabinet of opposing views, sought critique, and understood that messy dialogue was essential to governance.

Does that sound like our leaders today? More importantly, does that sound like us? Do we seek affirmation and comfort or dissent and dialogue to become better?

Decades later, abolitionist Frederick Douglass experienced a profound shift in his view of the Constitution. Once seeing it as a pro-slavery document, he came to regard it as a tool for abolition, challenging the nation to fulfill its founding promises.

Abraham Lincoln wrestled with the same contradictions. Like Washington before him, Lincoln did not silence opposing voices—he placed his critics in his cabinet, met with Douglass, and engaged in meaningful dialogue. Douglass pressed Lincoln’s administration, and in the end, slavery died with the 13th Amendment.

This is the story I find hope in: one about flawed but virtuous Americans who disagreed yet sought out differing perspectives. Who built consensus when they could. Who resisted wielding power unilaterally, even for a cause they believed just.

They examined evidence and demonstrated intellectual humility—something we have not seen in ourselves or our leaders for a long time.

The Political Other

My political priorities center on adherence to the Constitution—not out of blind worship but because it provides a framework for governance that has endured.

Traditionally, conservatives saw themselves as defenders of the Constitution. The Republican Party of my youth warned against executive overreach—now we applaud it. A core virtue, forfeited for short-term gain.

That brings me back to civic virtue: do we stand up to those in our own party or does fear of the political other blind us to uncomfortable truths?

Have Democrats, since 2016, told a story that resonates with Middle America, or just not Trump? If all conservatives are treated as a monolith, does that serve progress or division?

We often say, our differences make us stronger, but do we really believe that anymore? Or have we reduced our political discourse to a zero-sum game—where winning means everything and governance means nothing?

Is it time to consider the how of politics instead of just the what?

Faith and “How” vs. “What”

My friend and colleague Kent Lenci who authored "Learning to Depolarize" suggested I pick up "The After Party: Toward Better Christian Politics"by Curtis Chang and Nancy French. Lenci knew I was someone of faith and that the book would resonate with me. I couldn’t put it down.

Chang and French brilliantly laid out this concept of the how of politics versus the what. The what involves policy and ideals but the how focuses on the manner in which we govern and how we treat our political opponents. Usually, I kept my faith separate from politics, but that hasn’t been the case lately. I haven’t so much merged my faith into the political what —I value the separation of church and state because all should be able to practice their faith without fear. Where I have let my faith influence me more is how politics should be done.

Here, I take my cues from the Gospel, which took place in an extremely polarizing time. Christ modeled how to engage with those who disagreed: with grace, love, and compassion. In a time of political division, Christ spent his days focused on the how before the what. Have we modeled this behavior? Have we elected leaders who tried to live out this how? Or have we collectively decided that politics is an exception to the Gospel?

The Bridge

Will we embrace the civic virtue that says those different from us might have valuable ideas? That listening does not mean agreeing?

Or will we keep treating politics like a college football rivalry—power passed back and forth with no regard for the institutions that sustain us?

Today, I resist the pull to reenter political battles or align with a group. Instead, I work with educators to make classrooms spaces of civic virtue and bridging.

If we are to heal, it will take active citizens—reaching out to neighbors or strangers with different perspectives and asking thoughtful questions in good faith. Voters must demand candidates focus on how they will govern, not just on making promises to different groups.

We must engage in a shift. Even something as simple as engaging with a media outlet that challenges your views is a step forward. One step at a time, we can bridge divides—even if only to better understand the other side.

Nicholas D'Amuro is an Instructional Coordinator at Genesee Valley BOCES, supporting curriculum development and professional learning. In 2024, he co-founded the Civi Coalition ( civiawards.us), a statewide initiative dedicated to civic education and bridging divides. He also serves as a sector ambassador for the Listen First Project and as a town councilman.

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