Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The road from conflict to convergence

book cover

More than ever, Americans need to de-escalate conflict and constructively engage with others to find better solutions to problems. “ From Conflict to Convergence: Coming Together to Solve Tough Problems,” a new book by Mariah Levison and Robert Fersh, is an incisive, hands-on guide designed to help citizens do just that.

Fersh is the founder and senior advisor of the Convergence Center for Policy Resolution, a nonprofit organization founded in 2009 to promote consensus solutions to issues of domestic and international importance. Fersh formerly worked for three congressional committees.


Levison is the CEO of Convergence and a seasoned consensus-builder with decades of experience in bringing people together to solve critical state and national issues. She speaks and trains nationally and internationally in settings ranging from communities to law schools to foreign governments to TED Talks.

Convergence has a rich, 15-year history as a pioneer in a distinctive approach to collaborative problem-solving across divides to help solve seemingly intractable challenges at the intersection of national politics and policy. It convenes leaders in their fields representing wildly divergent views with a consistent record of success in building trust, forging consensus and driving meaningful change.

Full of real-life stories and examples, the book presents tried and tested strategies to help a wide array of people negotiate and navigate seemingly intractable conflicts. Readers will learn how to find "higher ground” or mutual-gain solutions that meet the needs of even conflicting groups and people, which in turn can set the stage for longer-term cooperation.

Levison and Fersh ask: “How do we treat each other across our differences? Is it with derision, dismissal or avoidance? Or is it with respect, decency and engagement whenever possible? We believe the path to better solutions and a better society will virtually always be found through respectful dialogue. Whether you’re addressing festering family issues, workplace disagreements, thorny community decisions, or contentious public policy challenges, we have enormous — and, in too many cases, unrealized — potential for resolving problems large and small.”

“We want to share our approach because we passionately believe that widespread employment of collaborative problem-solving can lead to a more civil and functional world. Taken to scale, it can be an important antidote to the deepening divides in civic culture. Collaborative problem-solving is a powerful and proven response to the growing doubts in the US and elsewhere that people who see things differently can work cooperatively to achieve important gains.”

In describing the book they go on to say:

“We hope you will take away from this book that collaborative problem-solving is not soft or naïve. It’s not a nice-to-have tool to employ on rare occasions, when conditions are right, or when only courteous people are involved. Rather, integrating the fullest range of needs and interests consistently achieves not-otherwise-possible results while also building positive relationships in the process. In turn, these relationships across differences often engender a virtuous cycle of continued collaboration and constructive results. That’s the big dividend.”

The book is certainly worth a read during these divided times in America.

“No matter how irreconcilably divided we think we are, how much we think we already know the answers ourselves, or how skeptical we are of the “other side,” we can all do a far better job of understanding how other people think; we can all do a far better job of working together to solve problems of mutual concern. Too often, we assume we know how and why others think the way they do and we fail to see the decency and shared aspirations of the people we view as dyed-in-the-wool opponents. Too often we fail to recognize that as smart as we may be, we never hold all the answers for solving tough problems. And too often we react to messengers who may have been strident or unreasonable in how they present their views instead of considering the reasonable arguments and good intentions of those who propose them.

Some people may be too ideological, too committed to hating others based on their identity, or too convinced that only they hold “the truth” to effectively engage with others. But there is ample evidence that most people and groups can find significant common ground and build a sense of community in the process, even when they’ve long been at odds.”

From Conflict to Convergence: Coming Together to Solve Tough Problems is widely available from various booksellers like Amazon, Barnes and Noble and Bookseller. (Disclosure

Read More

Where is the Holiday Spirit When It Comes to Solving Our Nation’s Problems?

Amid division and distrust, collaborative problem-solving shows how Americans can work across differences to rebuild trust and solve shared problems.

Getty Images, andreswd

Where is the Holiday Spirit When It Comes to Solving Our Nation’s Problems?

Along with schmaltzy movies and unbounded commercialism, the holiday season brings something deeply meaningful: the holiday spirit. Central to this spirit is being charitable and kinder toward others. It is putting the Golden Rule—treating others as we ourselves wish to be treated—into practice.

Unfortunately, mounting evidence shows that while people believe the Golden Rule may apply in our private lives, they are pessimistic that it can have a positive impact in the “real” world filled with serious and divisive issues, political or otherwise. The vast majority of Americans believe that our political system cannot overcome current divisions to solve national problems. They seem to believe that we are doomed to fight rather than find ways to work together. Among young people, the pessimism is even more dire.

Keep ReadingShow less
Varying speech bubbles.​ Dialogue. Conversations.
Varying speech bubbles.
Getty Images, DrAfter123

Political Division Is Fixable. Psychology Shows a Better Way Forward.

A friend recently told me she dreads going home for the holidays. It’s not the turkey or the travel, but rather the simmering political anger that has turned once-easy conversations with her father into potential landmines. He talks about people with her political views with such disdain that she worries he now sees her through the same lens. The person she once talked to for hours now feels emotionally out of reach.

This quiet heartbreak is becoming an American tradition no one asked for.

Keep ReadingShow less
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