Bridging the Partisan Divide - a Podcast
Our "Truth Wars" and Increasing Political Polarization Need an Intervention.
It started with a phone call one April morning in 1995. Republicans, in the 1994 elections, had won historic victories during President Bill Clinton’s first mid-term election. The GOP recaptured control of the US Senate, led by Majority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-KS), and control of the US House for the first time in 40 years, led by new Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and the “Contract With America.”
House Republicans wasted no time going to work on their agenda, which relied heavily on block granting scores of federal programs for the states to administer with greater flexibility and responsibility. This included federal food and nutrition programs. As you might imagine, national anti-hunger advocates (for the record, there are no “pro-hunger” advocates) didn’t like that very much. They had won many victories from prior Congresses and administrations to structure national “food stamp” and school nutrition programs, and had an agenda for further expansion.
That phone call was from Ed Gillespie, then the staff director for the House Republican Conference, led by then-Chair Dick Armey (R-TX). Ed would later become chairman of the Republican National Committee, serve as a senior advisor to President George W. Bush, and narrowly lose elections in Virginia for US Senate and Governor. Ed had agreed to appear at a Food Policy Conference to debate Rob Fersh, then-head of the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) about food and nutrition policy.
“I need a favor,” Ed asked. He couldn’t appear at the food policy conference and asked me to fill in for him. I was reluctant to do that, given that Senate Republicans, whom I worked for, were not necessarily aligned with House Republicans on block grants, especially food and nutrition programs. But I reluctantly agreed.
On the intervening Sunday, I pulled out the Parade Magazine insert from my Washington Post to find Rob Fersh featured on the very topic of hunger in America. I immediately knew I’d been set up for a potential disaster. I knew little (at the time) about food policy, and I was being forced to defend policies my bosses were not necessarily supportive of. But I’d made a promise to my friend, Ed.
I made the drive toward the L’Enfant Plaza Hotel with dread and trepidation. I was determined to survive it, not make news, and get back to work with as little damage as possible.
I was shocked when Rob, instead of launching the customary Washington assault on a messenger of a policies he opposed, in front of an audience that was aligned more with his agenda than mine, asked questions. Thoughtful questions. Non threatening questions. Questions designed to learn, not judge. Questions designed to find common ground, not divide and conquer. It made quite the impression on me. We agreed afterwards to have coffee in the near future. We did.
Thus began, for this long-time political warrior with 35 political campaigns under his belt, a new adventure into bridge building and political civility. It led with me partnering with Rob’s launch of the Convergence Center for Policy Resolution, on whose board I served for nearly a decade.
The sad thing is that people of the left are seem more interested in dialogue than people on the right. So I've been told not only by my colleagues at Convergence, but also a new friend at Braver Angels, a grassroots organization that works also to bridge the partisan divide at the community level. Why is that? First, because conservative and especially pro-Trump voices are terrified of being "canceled." They do not want to lose their jobs, their contracts, or be discredited or destroyed - or their families. Those fears are real. Second, they are often unprepared for these discussions, frequently outnumbered, and fear these discussions are nothing more than an effort to force them to "compromise." It's an either/or proposition.
The fears of cancel culture are real, for sure, that is why building trust - not persuasion - is the first step towards real dialogue. But the second issue is false. This isn't about forcing anyone to abandon their principles or force people to accept unwelcome compromise. Sometimes we won't agree, and that's OK. But dialogue serves to educate and enlighten both sides - you may be surprised how little people on the left know of our positions, and why we hold them. You might even be more surprised how some - not all, obviously - are genuinely interested, and even persuadable. Best of all, dialogue can lead to new, creative solutions that incorporates the best ideas from both sides of an equation. I've seen it.
I have fallen off the wagon a few times. I still do, sometimes disastrously. Once a political warrior, always a political warrior. But we can have strong views on issues and still be civil, even break bread, with people with whom we may strongly disagree. It’s called being human and realizing that not everything is political, or should be politicized. I always climb back on the civility wagon. I hope it keeps welcoming me back. It’s better to be on the civility wagon than in a partisan ditch. Let’s hope the wagon doesn’t break down. Even if it did, I think we’d work together to find a way to fix it. And that’s kind of the point.
Rob and I authored an op-ed recently on how two people who disagree on most everything agree on one thing - how to bridge the partisan divide. And now, we’ve appeared on a podcast sponsored by the Common Ground Committee.
I hope you’ll take a moment to read the op-ed and listen to the podcast. We had fun on a serious topic that deserves attention from all Americans.