Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Spencer Cox’s Off Ramp and Utah’s Tradition of Bipartisan Leadership

A hopeful roadmap for reducing contempt and rebuilding America’s civic trust

Opinion

​Utah Governor Spencer Cox

Utah Governor Spencer Cox

Getty Images

Utah has long impressed me as a place where governors take bipartisan leadership seriously, and my own experience confirms it. I first saw this more than a decade ago when I met former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman through No Labels. In January 2013, Huntsman, then a Republican, joined Democrat Joe Manchin as national co‑chairs of the organization, a partnership built on the belief that durable solutions require leaders willing to cross the aisle. Working with both of them during that period left a lasting impression on me. Their partnership embodied a simple but powerful truth: when leaders choose cooperation over contempt, they expand what’s possible for the country. Huntsman and Manchin worked deliberately to model cross‑partisan problem‑solving—demonstrating that principled disagreement can coexist with shared purpose.

That experience left a lasting impression on me, and it’s one reason Governor Spencer Cox’s new book Off Ramp: How to Be a Peacemaker in an Age of Contempt resonates so strongly with me today.


Governor Spencer Cox’s book arrives at a moment when Americans across the political spectrum are exhausted by polarization and hungry for a path out of the political death spiral. Drawing on research, lived experience, and his nationally recognized Disagree Better initiative, Cox argues that the country’s greatest threat is not ideological difference but the culture of contempt that has grown around it.

The book delivers a practical, hopeful blueprint for rebuilding civic trust: rejecting the “conflict entrepreneurs” who profit from division, re-humanizing political opponents, and restoring norms of restraint, curiosity, and good-faith disagreement. Among the actionable steps Cox recommends are setting ground rules for discussions that prioritize listening over debating, and practicing what he calls the "three questions" approach—pausing in moments of disagreement to ask oneself what the other person is feeling, what values might be driving their perspective, and how to respond in a way that invites continued conversation.

Next time you find yourself at odds with a friend, family member, or colleague, you might use the three questions and, as you do so, consider whether your colleague is feeling unheard, and respond in a way that acknowledges the other’s concerns and seeks common ground. Cox’s strategies offer readers concrete ways to lower the temperature in their own interactions and foster more productive, respectful dialogue in both personal, professional, and community settings.

Cox grounds his message in the belief, supported by data and echoed by individuals such as Arthur Brooks and Ken Burns, that most Americans want a healthier civic life and are ready to step off the highway of outrage.

One memorable story from Off Ramp recounts how two Utah community leaders, initially at odds over a contentious policy issue, agreed to sit down together despite their differences. Through a simple conversation at a local diner, focused more on listening than debating, they uncovered shared values and agreed to co-host a forum that invited broader input and civil engagement. This kind of example shows how the book weaves personal narrative, social science, and effective guidance to reveal how individuals, communities, and leaders can help reverse the incentives that reward polarization.

It is a timely and patriotic call to strengthen the democratic structure in this year of America’s 250th anniversary.

As chairman of the Board of the Bridge Alliance, I am struck by how closely the book aligns with our devotion to cross-partisan collaboration, civic courage, and institutional renewal. In fact, Off Ramp complements a range of civic renewal initiatives across the country, including grassroots town hall movements, deliberative democracy forums, and efforts by organizations such as the National Institute for Civil Discourse and Braver Angels. Inspired by Cox’s recommendations, Alliance members could take immediate steps such as co-hosting community listening sessions that utilize the "three questions" approach outlined in the book or forming small working groups to pilot respectful dialogue guidelines in ongoing projects. Cox’s insistence that democracy prospers when citizens engage with one another with dignity aligns with the Alliance’s belief that closing gaps is a necessity for a functioning republic. His critique of zero-sum politics warns us all that contempt erodes democratic guardrails faster than policy disagreements ever could.

Most importantly, Off Ramp advances a philosophy of:

  • Respect amidst differences as a democratic discipline
  • Shared problem‑solving being the antidote to factionalism
  • A devotion to pluralism as the foundation of our nation.

In this sense, Cox’s book is not simply a reflection of the moment but rather a lasting contribution to the wider movement for democratic renewal that our country so badly needs. It is a practical and patriotic guide that draws on his experience at the highest levels of civic leadership and cutting-edge depolarization research to encourage Americans to disagree better and restore the respect we once had, even for our political rivals. As America marks the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it’s time to remember what makes America strong and leave behind the behaviors and rhetoric that threaten to destroy us.

David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.


Read More

Two Yellow Speech Bubbles Overlapping Common Ground on Blue Background Front View.
A reflection on parenting, empathy, and communication in a divided world.
Getty Images, MirageC

Building Trust, One Conversation at a Time

In 2020, my friend and colleague Dr. Terrence Robinson died suddenly and unexpectedly of COVID. For five years, we had built a youth apprenticeship program together in Cleveland, raised more than half a million dollars, and trained more than 200 young people. Terrence was Black. I am Jewish. The whole time, I wanted to talk with him about the things that sat quietly underneath our friendship: race, religion, history, privilege. I never did, because I was afraid of saying the wrong thing, and the negative ramifications of saying something ignorant in the workplace. Then he was gone, and the conversation I kept postponing was gone with him.

I think about that silence often, because it is the same silence I now see between two communities that once helped change this country together.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Composting Connected Two Women Across Six Decades

An 82-year-old and 24-year-old bonded over composting—and discovered shared roots, values, and a friendship that broke every generational stereotype.e

Cavan Images/Getty Images

How Composting Connected Two Women Across Six Decades

Every day, we cross paths with people whose lives seem completely different from our own. We exchange polite greetings with neighbors, chat briefly with acquaintances, and pass strangers without ever learning their stories. Yet beneath the surface, we often share more than we realize. Sometimes, all it takes is one conversation. Jean and Bella, 82 and 24 respectively, discovered this through their interest in composting.

Bella regularly attended a Sunday morning "Cookies and Conversation" intergenerational discussion group at Hebrew SeniorLife, where Jean lives in Brookline, MA. The two had spoken before, but only in passing. Like many people meeting someone from a different generation, Bella wasn't always sure how to bridge the gap.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cropped shot of a group of people joining their hands in solidarity

A new union political director explains why labor membership has halved since 1983 even as public approval hits record highs—and what's driving the gap.

LumiNola/Getty Images

The Ongoing Fight for Bread and Roses

Last Monday, I started a new job as the political director for IBEW 569, a local electrical workers' union based here in San Diego. In talking to friends about what I’m doing–while learning, fast, in real time, how to do the job myself–it occurred to me that there’s actually quite a knowledge gap in society today regarding an understanding of what unions are and what they’re supposed to do. So let’s get into it.

A union is, at its core, a group of workers who agree to negotiate together instead of alone. One worker asking a boss for a raise has almost no leverage. A thousand workers asking together hits different. That leverage of teamwork, that collective bargaining, is how the overtime pay, workplace safety standards, and employer-sponsored health insurance all came to exist in this country. None of it was handed down out of corporate goodwill. Fair wages (bread) and dignity (roses) were won, often at real cost. In 1890, the average workweek for manufacturing employees and building tradesmen was around 100 hours or more. Workers in Chicago who rallied for an eight-hour workday faced police violence, but we have that and weekends now because people were willing to lose their jobs, and sometimes their lives, to organize for it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Group of young adult students sit at desks in classroom listening to teacher

Why do Americans respond so differently to hard history lessons? A look at the three psychological mindsets driving the patriotism debate — and a path past it.

Lighthouse Films/Getty Images

“They Hate America”: Patriotism in the Face of Historical Updates

I happened upon a civil discussion blog and read a post by a man who said he was happy to report that when he attended a panel discussion about teaching patriotism in the schools, all went well. He said that’s because most of the people in the bridging organization that hosted the event are “pretty patriotic.” He clarified that by writing, “None of the type of bad actors (and there are many) who want to teach kids to hate America and Western Civilization were represented.”

Someone made a comment about why we can’t incorporate historical change into curriculum and objected to the notion that a segment of the population wants to teach kids to hate America. The man who posted cited what he believes is proof. A last commenter simply input the emoji for a sleeping person, as though the argument was boring or unimportant.

Keep ReadingShow less