Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

4 S’s showcase how dialogue fits and where other approaches work best

civic education notebook

We need to increase emphasis on schools as a more effective location for teaching interpersonal civil discourse.

Zhanna Hapanovich/Getty Images

In my previous article, I explained the “4 R’s” that should cause people to reconsider the extremely strong emphasis on civil discourse in efforts to reduce political divides in the United States. I also promised suggestions for how to use dialogue most effectively, in specific circumstances, and when non-dialogue approaches may be best.

A brief overview of the 4 R’s to reconsider such a heavy focus on dialogue reminds us that it is difficult to get many people to attend events (recruitment), civil discourse is not inherently effective (reliability), even a successful 1:1 interaction may not generalize to the entire out-party (representativeness) and getting people to repeatedly use skills learned is challenging (repetition).


I made it clear in that article not to despair. While there are 4 R’s to reconsider dialogue and civil discourse, there are also 4 S’s showing the way forward: schools, slogans, stories and structures. They involve emphasizing civil discourse where people can have repeated interactions that build trust and competence (schools), simple ways to remember how to best have a conversation and listen (slogans), approaches that draw from successful conversations and other approaches into digestible content (stories) and issues well beyond dialogue including structural reform (structures).

Schools: We need to increase emphasis on schools as a more effective location for teaching interpersonal civil discourse. My organization, More Like US, has found intense desire for civil discourse among attendees at national- and state-level conferences focused on K-12 civics education, such as those held by the National Council for the Social Studies and the CivxNow Coalition. While providing enough support for teachers is not easy — a well-known professional development program with this emphasis lasts four to five days — it avoids issues with at least half of 4 R’s: recruitment and repetition (since students have to attend class daily with each other for months) and potentially reliability as students have more opportunities for successful conversations over a semester or year.

Slogans: While slogans often get a bad reputation for being overly simplistic, it helps for Americans to have simple ways to remember how to best have conversations, and they can reach many more people than those inclined to attend small-group events. Think of an analogy to fire safety: Most of us know the phrase “stop, drop and roll,” but I doubt many of us have attended an actual fire safety workshop. Efforts to reduce political divides can have their own “stop, drop and roll” messaging. Urban-Rural Action teaches its ABCs to having a conversation: Ask to understand their perspective, Break down our view so they understand our reasoning, and Check our understanding of their perspective. I am partial to my own mnemonic, SVL (pronounced something like “civil”) to share Stories, relate to their Values, and Listen, an approach that goes beyond understanding of cognitive arguments, based on recommendations from Stanford’s Robb Willer.

Other details for three-step approaches (so they can be remembered and repeated) are possible, such as University of Michigan professor Amie Gordon’s suggestions to give the benefit of the doubt, seek understanding and find common ground. This approach largely overcomes the 4 R problems of recruitment, because nobody needs to be encouraged to attend a workshop, and repetition, because it is much easier to hear simple phrases in the midst of everyday life than to decide to attend a workshop or have a cross-partisan conversation.

Stories: As New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt wrote in “The Righteous Mind,” “The human mind is a story processor, not a logic processor.” Many Americans will not have the time, interest, energy, confidence, etc. to engage in (m)any cross-partisan conversations, but they may end up watching enticing content that includes such interactions. Existing efforts — such as StoryCorps’s One Small Step and Resetting the Table’s PURPLE — and future civil discourse efforts can also be seen as opportunities for content creation. Additionally, stories do not need to solely be about conversations; they can transform how Americans see one another directly.

We at More Like US have a mnemonic to CAST those across the political spectrum in a better light as more Complex, Admirable, Similar, and worthy of Togetherness than expected. Organizations such as Bridge Entertainment Labs are engaging with Hollywood to share better cross-partisan stories about each other. Compared with the 4 R’s, recruitment is not necessary, reliability and representativeness can be ensured in terms of the content seen or heard, and repetition is much easier with short content.

Structures: While conversations and adding new messages to the information environment are vital, efforts are essentially Sisyphean if the underlying information environment is rife with content that further negatively distorts our perceptions of each other across politics. I previously wrote of the necessity to add cross-partisan trust and subtract factors that worsen it. One of the most important factors involves reversing the current perverse incentives in news media, social media, electoral systems and even special interest groups. Divisive rhetoric and actions often perversely lead to more followers, clicks, revenue, donations, fame, etc.

Changing these incentives is not easy or obvious, but some progress is possible. The Trade Desk and Ad Fontes are providing data about news reliability to advertisers. The Council for Responsible Social Media works in part to address perverse incentives in social media, and many electoral reform organizations such as those in the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers are working hard. These approaches avoid all of the 4 R’s because no 1:1 contact is needed.

Perhaps in an ideal world, millions of American adults would attend workshops focused on reducing political divides. Yet we must recognize that Americans live busy lives, and reducing political divides may never rise to the top of their agendas. We can meet Americans where they are with a whole variety of approaches beyond the standard civil discourse workshop. Let’s pursue the 4 S’s successful solution set: schools, slogans, stories and structures.

Coan is the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. Coan can be contacted at James@morelikeus.org

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