Josh Lewis was a longtime conservative who began to question the GOP after their embrace of Trump and his brand of populist nationalism. In an attempt to find a solution, Josh studied conservative thinkers going back decades and began Saving Elephants, a blog and podcast dedicated to defining the conservative movement for the next generation.
Josh talks about his journey and the difficulty of balancing restraint in government with the need for action.
Since the development of American mass media culture in the mid-20th century, numerous examples of entertainment media have tried to improve attitudes towards those who have traditionally held little power.
Entertainment has been used for decades to improve attitudes toward other groups, both in the U.S. and abroad. One can think of movies like Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, helping change attitudes toward Black Americans, or TV shows like Rosanne, helping humanize the White working class. Efforts internationally show that media can sometimes improve attitudes toward two groups concurrently.
Substantial research shows that Americans now hold overly negative views of those across the political spectrum. Let's now learn from decades of experience using entertainment to improve attitudes of those in other groups—but also from counter-examples that have reinforced stereotypes and whose techniques should generally be avoided—in order to improve attitudes toward fellow Americans across politics. This entertainment can allow Americans across the political spectrum to have more accurate views of each other while realizing that successful cross-ideological friendships and collaborations are possible.
In this article, we document a brief history of entertainment used to improve the attitudes of other groups (along with some misfires, including when trying to portray White, working-class men). We then highlight those in the Arts and a few organizations including our own, More Like US, working to use entertainment to reduce perceived U.S. political divides. Despite promising initial work, many more groups and individuals are needed to contribute across many entertainment platforms.
Numerous successful U.S. entertainment efforts to improve attitudes toward groups with little historical power
Since the development of American mass media culture in the mid-20th century, allowing most Americans access to the same media, numerous examples of entertainment media have tried to improve attitudes towards those who have traditionally held little power. In this case, we mean any group other than straight, white men. This said, some entertainment media reinforced stereotypes, but at least there are many fairly successful examples that challenged stereotypes and likely changed attitudes among many in the American public.
This is perhaps most evident in the work of screenwriter Norman Lear, who was instrumental in improving misperceptions of these traditionally less-powerful groups, specifically women and Black Americans. Maude was centered around a woman, unique for sitcoms in the 1970s, and portrayed Maude as opinionated, strongly advocating for women’s liberation and civil rights, dispelling notions that women could not be politically involved or opinionated. Additionally, The Jeffersons, another Norman Lear sitcom from a similar era (1975-1985), was revolutionary in portraying a Black family as wealthy business owners, helping dispel common negative stereotypes of Black Americans.
Another example goes farther back in time to WWII. Beginning with a 1942 song, the Rosie the Riveter propaganda campaign, mainly remembered for its posters, worked to dispel notions that women could only be homemakers. Through its portrayal of Rosie, this campaign encouraged women to take part in the war effort in less traditionally feminine roles such as factory work.
In the late 1960s, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner portrayed an interracial couple in a positive light, at a time when only around 20% of Americans approved of interracial relationships and there was significant stigma around the presence of Black Americans in “White” society.
Will & Grace, a sitcom that began airing shortly before the turn of the 21st century, was deeply impactful on a different front. The show’s portrayal of Will as a gay man who seemed relatable and non-threatening helped to improve negative perceptions of gay men in contemporary America. Straight viewers without contact with gay people in real life saw straight characters positively interact with gay characters. As a result, 60% of viewers reported that “watching the show led to positive perceptions of gay people,” and 71% of viewers rejected the statement that “heterosexual relationships are the only ‘normal’ relationships,” compared with 45% of non-viewers, according to research cited by Bridge Entertainment Labs.
More recently, Marvel’s Black Panther franchise is notable for its unique portrayal of a Black society that was incredibly wealthy, powerful, and technologically advanced. The TV show Modern Family (2009-2020), meanwhile, positively portrayed non-traditional families and members of the LGBTQ+ community, winning over 20 Emmys for its work.
Despite all these generally positive portrayals of groups who have historically held less power, it would be a stretch to say that these groups have always been portrayed well or sufficiently. A reality show like Cops or scripted shows like The Wire often showed ethnically minority men as criminals, and movements like #OscarsSoWhite showed that non-White representation on film proceeded fairly slowly.
But thankfully, there are many portrayals in entertainment of historically less powerful communities that challenge dangerous misperceptions and help create more positive views of them.
Entertainment portrayals of white, working-class men have been pretty bad, though not uniformly terrible
In addition to looking at portrayals of groups historically without much power, we analyze portrayals of those historically with power, namely straight, white men. Because this is such a broad category, and we care about politics, we focus our attention on working-class white men. This group is defined as those without a college degree, often portrayed as working blue-collar jobs. According to 2024 NBC exit polls in 10 key states, white men without a college degree voted for Trump over Harris 69% to 29%, representing almost a fifth of the electorate in those states.
Many of these portrayals also inaccurately represent members of this traditionally more powerful group (though many in this group have experienced and/or felt loss of economic power and social status in recent decades). American media has consistently not been sufficient in portraying the struggles and humanity of working-class white men.
A clear example of this comes from a screenwriter praised earlier in this piece, Norman Lear. All in The Family (1971-1979) is one of the most well-known sitcoms of all time. Yet the main character, Archie Bunker, while humanized to some extent, is portrayed as uneducated and stereotypically bigoted, creating a mostly unflattering and one-sided picture of working-class white men.
Thinking of the cartoon sitcom The Simpsons, which is still running after more than 35 years, Homer never went to college, and he is largely portrayed as a stupid oaf, with infrequent bright spots in his character. On the same show, Cletus is portrayed even worse as a “slack-jawed yokel.”
A variety of reality shows do portray white, working-class men, but usually more as rural or brawny stereotypes than particularly well-rounded characters. This includes the Robertson family from Duck Dynasty (2012-2017) or those in reality shows including Ice Road Truckers (2007-2017) and the ongoing 20-year run of Deadliest Catch about Alaskan crab fishermen.
One of the few arguable bright spots in terms of portrayals of white, working-class men just went off the air. The character of blue-collar Dan Conner first appeared as the male lead in the TV show Roseanne (1988-1997) and then its spin-off The Conners, which aired its last episode in April after seven years on broadcast TV. Negative stereotypes are distinctly less pronounced in Dan Conner than in All in the Family’s Archie Bunker. Dan is portrayed as relatively traditional and hesitant about social change in both the original show and its spinoff, but he also shows vulnerability and commitment to family life in many cases, challenging some stereotypes of white, working-class men. Writer and Executive Producer of The Conners Dave Caplan has thought deeply about the importance of portrayals in entertainment and even has a graduate degree in media psychology.
In all, while sometimes functioning to humanize working-class white men, much entertainment misrepresents working-class white men as overwhelmingly bigoted and/or unintelligent in basically anything other than blue-collar skills, perpetuating harmful stereotypes. This largely has the opposite effect of many of the shows noted earlier in the article, many of which actively work to correct harmful stereotypes of those with traditionally less power.
International efforts show how attitudes toward two groups can be improved simultaneously
There does not need to be a negative portrayal of one group to create positive portrayals of another group. This is apparent in international efforts to improve negative portrayals of certain demographics.
One example is Radio La Benevolencija (RLB), which has worked in various countries, especially in Africa. We will focus on its work in Rwanda, which was created to reconcile differences, heal from the Rwandan Genocide, and prevent another genocide from happening. The programs within the project were created to be entertaining but informative and appeal to a wide variety of audiences.
In RLB’s main Rwandan program, New Dawn, two communities directly paralleling the Hutus and Tutsis lived side by side and were in conflict over a land shortage. The show directly parallels the lead-up to the genocide, as well as the aftermath, without directly referencing the genocide.
In a research paper on RLB, Elizabeth Levy Paluck argued that the program “did not change listeners’ personal beliefs but did substantially influence listeners’ perceptions of social norms.” These norms actually influenced behavior, as listeners changed their behaviors in terms of “active negotiation, open expression about sensitive topics, and cooperation.”
Radio La Benevolencija has made significant strides in healing misperceptions of different ethnic groups, proving the effectiveness of entertainment in concurrently reducing harmful stereotypes of more than one group. Another organization, Search for Common Ground, also has pursued similar efforts in countries including Yemen, Sierra Leone, and Nepal.
Current initial efforts to use entertainment to improve cross-partisan attitudes in the U.S.
To a certain extent, entertainment is already being used to reduce political misperceptions and subsequent divides in the U.S. An upcoming romantic comedy, The Elephant in The Room, tells the story of a progressive and a Trump supporter who try to bridge the gap between their worldviews as they date.
There is also an abundance of short-form content with this aim. In the YouTube video “Cats, Anyone? Finding What We Have in Common When Ideology Divides Us” from NationSwell, two Americans of opposing political viewpoints bond over a shared love for cats. And in the Heineken advertisement “Worlds Apart,” people with contradictory views on different topics find common ground before discussing their differences over a shared beer.
Several organizations are also using entertainment to bridge the gap between those of different viewpoints. Bridge Entertainment Labs, cited earlier for their research into the connection between entertainment media and misperceptions, is working to tell the stories of real Americans of a wide variety of backgrounds in order to contribute to national unity and create a sense of connections between Americans of different political affiliations. The work of Bridge Entertainment Labs, specifically in its whitepaper, aligns closely with the claims made in this article.
PopShift works with major Hollywood studios to connect producers and writers with experts in order to facilitate more accurate representations of those of diverse backgrounds and reduce misperceptions towards certain groups of Americans. Part of the work of Resetting the Table involves training those in Hollywood to have storylines with characters that have “investigated their differences openly and come out the other side,” using tools most influenced by Transformative Mediation, in order to ultimately create a more cohesive America. Braver Angels Music, meanwhile, trains songwriters and musicians to write songs that can bridge political divides, while also providing a space for songwriters to develop material and get to know each other.
The organizations listed above do essential work in bridging the gap between the perceptions Americans hold of those of different political affiliations and the true situations and beliefs of Americans of varying political affiliations. This work aligns with our organization’s, More Like US, initiative to re-CAST fellow Americans in a positive light as more complex, admirable, similar, and worthy of togetherness than expected.
Nevertheless, these efforts are currently small and scattered. Much more of this work is needed in such a large country as the U.S. In today’s decentralized and balkanized media environment, content that improves attitudes toward each other across politics needs to appear not only in TV and movies but in all sorts of entertainment, including social media videos, music, books, plays, and visual art.
Conclusion: Let’s learn from history to create entertainment that improves attitudes of each other across politics
There is a long history of entertainment being used to correct misperceptions of groups that have historically held less power. Entertainment media has proven time and time again its capacity to debunk harmful stereotypes and bridge gaps between people of different backgrounds. Entertainment has unfortunately also reinforced or exacerbated stereotypes in many cases, but these instances can be used as counter-examples of what to generally avoid going forward.
This history serves as an essential guide to fixing modern problems. Americans hold exaggerated negative views of those of different political affiliations. Entertainment media is essential in closing the gap between the truth and these exaggerated negative views. Initial efforts are going in the right direction, but many more people across many entertainment mediums need to create vastly more content. By correcting misperceptions and promoting connection and collaboration between those of different viewpoints, entertainment has the potential to reduce perceived partisan divides and create a more unified America.
James Coan is the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. Coan can be contacted at James@morelikeus.org
Sara Weinstein is a current intern at More Like US.
The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.
I’m grateful to continue my collaboration with the Fulcrum to interview leaders across the pro-democracy sector to attempt to understand the way forward. We originally launched this series to explore how the field could, and should, change. As I’ve continued to lead these interviews, it has become quite stark, in a potentially obvious lesson: there's no single roadmap to “save democracy.”
That may seem obvious. But it’s a useful reminder. No matter how many conversations and interviews are conducted, a singular strategy will not emerge. Instead, hopefully the value lies in continuing to elevate diverse insights and reflections, and occasionally offering my own.
Please let me know if you’d like to contribute to the series (or have ideas of other perspectives and individuals to interview).
The latest five interviews included:
These conversations surfaced several key tensions that continue to animate the field.
What do we mean by “Democracy”? I often worry that we say “pro-democracy” community without fully understanding what we mean by the concept of “democracy.” There is a risk that the field becomes shorthand for “anti-Trump.” This is not to say that the current Trump Administration is not a threat to democracy. But a pro-democracy movement needs to understand what it supports, not just its oppositional focus.
The truth is that most Americans see themselves as advocates of democracy. Indeed, the January 6th protestors would, and do, see themselves fundamentally as protectors of democracy. They felt that their democracy was stolen from them, and that they needed to save it. I profoundly disagree. But their self-perception underscores the power- and ambiguity- of the term.
Francis Johnson spoke to this reality throughout his interview, noting that conservatives and progressives alike advocate for democracy, but are grounded in very different conceptions of what democracy should achieve and how it should function. He argues that progressives advocate for a more participatory form of democracy, whereas conservatives believe in a more representative definition.
There is also a risk that progressives weaponize democracy for a broader agenda, beyond a defense of institutions and the rule of law. I have heard from numerous individuals in the past few months that they are worried this problem is becoming worse, not better, in the Trump Administration, as a pro-democracy agenda has come to encompass a laundry list of progressive priorities. This definitional question seems foundational at the moment.
What is the opportunity and imagination right now? There is a great deal of rightful focus on defending democratic institutions right now. But a defensive strategy is not always inspiring or motivational.
Both Aditi and Connie spoke to the importance of providing a more compelling vision of what a meaningful democracy looks and feels like to individuals, as well as exploring potential opportunities for positive change.
Aditi’s work has attempted to work with organizations and individuals to broaden their horizons of what may be possible, and she notes that the Trump Administration itself has been incredibly imaginative in its (destructive) approach. Connie similarly spoke to the importance of the movement providing meaning, inspiration, and joy.
There may be widespread destruction and fear. But making sure that those in this space are thinking about how to provide meaning and positivity when it’s lacking for so many (especially considering the potential insularity of the sector) is critical.
How can we stay curious? Finally, a question that drove the creation of this series: Can we stay curious?
Too often, organizations stick rigidly to their preferred strategies, whether due to institutional inertia, fundraising incentives, or simply ego. But no one approach will suffice.
A necessary antidote to that behavior is maintaining and growing a basic sense of curiosity. Karissa Raskin gave voice to the importance of, as she noted, leading with curiosity rather than judgment. Too frequently, I’ve found the opposite. I’ve met too many in the “pro-democracy” space who judge those who hold divergent views, rather than asking why they harbor specific perspectives.
We need to ask more questions. Why aren’t our visions of democracy resonating? How might we bring more people into the fold? What might we learn from those we disagree with?
Thanks to all of you who are reading and listening. I’d love your feedback: What’s resonating? What’s missing? And whose voices should we elevate next?
Scott Warren is a fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is co-leading a trans-partisan effort to protect the basic parameters, rules, and institutions of the American republic. He is the co-founder of Generation Citizen, a national civics education organization.
PTSD Awareness Day is not only a time to advocate for veterans' mental health but also an opportunity for all Americans to reflect on the emotional responses triggered by political division.
Each year on June 27, National PTSD Awareness Day shines a light on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), encouraging those affected to seek support. This observance was officially recognized by the U.S. Senate in 2010, following an initiative by Senator Kent Conrad to honor a North Dakota National Guard member who tragically took his own life after serving two tours in Iraq.
PTSD can develop after experiencing or witnessing traumatic events such as combat, assault, accidents, or natural disasters. Its symptoms—ranging from flashbacks and anxiety to mood swings and avoidance behaviors—can be deeply disruptive. PTSD Awareness Day is part of PTSD Awareness Month, which spans the entire month of June, promoting education, treatment options, and community support for those affected.
Veterans who have bravely served our nation deserve comprehensive support in addressing PTSD symptoms. That is why recent funding reductions by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are especially concerning.
DOGE’s budget cuts have affected Veterans Affairs (VA) contracts, including critical services related to PTSD care. Initially, the VA planned to terminate 875 contracts, but after pushback from employees, the number was reduced to 585. Among the contracts canceled was one supporting the National Center for PTSD—a leading institution dedicated to research and education on post-traumatic stress disorder.
Further complicating matters, the VA is undergoing a major reorganization that includes cutting 80,000 jobs. While officials claim that mission-critical programs will remain intact, these reductions raise serious concerns about the future of veterans’ healthcare services, including PTSD treatment.
PTSD Awareness Day is not only a time to advocate for veterans' mental health but also an opportunity for all Americans to reflect on the emotional responses triggered by political division. Political debates can evoke strong emotions, particularly for individuals affected by trauma. Recognizing one's reactions—whether PTSD-related or not—can foster empathy and encourage more measured discussions.
Now more than ever we must reduce hostility in our national discourse…we must create spaces where individuals feel safe expressing their views without fear of personal attacks. This is especially vital for those who have experienced trauma, whether military related or not, as combative rhetoric can exacerbate stress responses.
That is why PTSD Awareness Week matters—not just as a campaign for mental health but as a movement toward patience and understanding in our conversations. When people acknowledge the impact of trauma, they are more likely to approach disagreements with compassion rather than aggression.
This week offers us the chance to reflect—not just on PTSD and veteran care but on the nature of our political conversations. The future of our nation depends on fostering empathy, understanding, and constructive dialogue.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Maeve Zhu, an undergraduate at the University of Washington, said moving to Seattle with hopes of studying computer science quickly became overwhelming.
"The hardest part for adjusting to life in the U.S. as an international undergrad was also my first year living overseas alone without my parents around me," said Maeve Zhu, an undergraduate at UW. "Trying to manage your time, your money, and your energy, all while being so lonely, the first year felt like living in a nightmare."
Zhu's experience reflects a broader issue, based on a 2023 Purdue University study, nearly half of the 220,000 international students surveyed nationwide experienced major depression, anxiety, or suicidal thoughts. Many UW students are also facing growing mental health challenges as they try to adjust to life in the U.S. This emotional toll was compounded by academic pressure. She said she initially dreamed of becoming a computer science major but struggled with the language barriers and complex coursework.
"Although my TOEFL (English test for non-native speakers) speaking score was very high, I couldn't even get a word in a class full of native speakers," she said. "When I looked at the lecture slides, there were a lot of words I had no idea about.
After that, Zhu began to question her abilities. “I know that I'm not a talented student, I'm not that intelligent, or I'm not that hard working,” she said. "So I just gave up.”
Ariona Scott, a mental health counselor at the University of Washington Counseling Center, explains how students’ upbringing and the stress of a new environment can take a toll on their self-confidence.
"They can't move throughout the world in the same way, things are kind of perceived differently,” she said. “Like confidence difficulties, because they come into a new environment and there are things they're not able to do.”
“There might be different classroom styles and just sort of a lot of things that they might have to adjust to," Scott emphasized. Kristin Liu, a graduate student in information management at the UW, shared a similar struggle. After arriving in Seattle from China, she found herself trapped in mental health challenges.
“Language was my biggest obstacle; it became a psychological barrier,” Liu said. “I rarely talked with native speakers unless I absolutely had to. It made me doubt whether I was capable of doing things or even trying.”
Liu said she has previously undergone therapy for OCD(Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), eating disorders, and mild anxiety and depression. During her life in Seattle, her existing challenges became even more difficult due to the lack of a familiar support system and cultural isolation.
“Isolation is a huge problem; I couldn't find a social support system for me in this new cultural environment," she said. "And then I felt a stronger sense of emptiness after being away from the bustling life back in China.”
A 2023 study in the National Library of Medicine found that Asian international students, especially those from China, faced higher acculturation stress and were more vulnerable to mental health problems. The study noted that 45% of Chinese students in one U.S. university reported depression symptoms, and Chinese students in Australia also showed higher stress and anxiety levels than their domestic peers.
At the same time, political pressure has also increased the psychological burden on these students, leaving them feeling hopeless about their future. According to a report by The Daily UW on April 17, 2025, the Trump administration revoked the visas of 20 students from the UW Seattle campus. Liu said that one of her friends also had their visa revoked. This makes her feel mentally complicated and pessimistic about the world's direction.
“Yes, I have a friend whose visa was cancelled, and she is very worried,” she said. “I feel despair and confusion about this downward spiraling world. I dare not imagine where the future will go. “I don’t know how international students should cope with it,” Liu said.
The uncertainty Liu expressed points to a deeper insight: when political pressure, cultural isolation, and academic pressure overlap, they form a strong mental burden. Many international students have to deal with not only academics but also the political impact.
Despite the challenges, Ms. Zhu is beginning to find ways to manage their mental health, whether through personal habits or campus resources, and is working to regain balance in their life.
“I started going to IMA to exercise, supplementing with vitamin B, D, magnesium, calcium, and zinc. I even started researching food recipes on my own, and stepped out of my comfort zone to try to join clubs to make new friends,” she said. “The Telus Health psychological counseling platform recommended by UW was also very useful.”
Obviously, trying different routines and tapping into campus resources has clearly helped Zhu feel more mentally balanced, and she gradually adapted to life overseas. “I now know what I want and what I should do. I am full of gratitude for the natural beauty and sunny days in Seattle,” Zhu said. “I also hope that my good attitude and good magnetic field can make people around me feel happy, instead of complaining all day long.”
While Zhu found some relief through campus offerings, Liu’s story highlights the limitations of traditional treatments, especially for those dealing with deep-rooted problems or genetic reasons.
“The doctor told me that I was naturally lacking a hormone, which was lower than the normal value,” she said. “I am currently taking the medicine from the school health center, but it has not yet reached the theoretical time when the medicine will start to work, so I don't know.”
Meanwhile, Liu believes that the change of seasons has also made a considerable impact on her.
“In spring, along with the awakening of everything, my traumatic flashbacks and depression are also awakened,” she said. “I was immersed in such emotions for too long, just like a spring that has been stretched beyond its elastic limit and cannot be restored.”
Arsene Chi is a senior journalism student at the University of Washington. He focuses on stories about international students, mental health, cinema, and community culture.
Arsene was one of the students in the "Media Responsibility in a Diverse Society" class, taught by Hugo Balta. Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum, and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. Learn more by clicking HERE.
