A couple of months, and several tariff wars, lawsuits and protests ago, I asked readers for their thoughts about the polarization rife in society today, and whether they had found a way forward in their own lives or had given up.
Many of you shared thoughtful responses, wondering how to communicate more effectively or be open to other viewpoints while keeping boundaries intact. There was more hope than despair.
This cross-section of responses is part of the ongoing Between Us project, which examines the factors that contribute to polarization and prevent good governance, good citizenship and good relationships — and presents solutions. Some submissions have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
— Melissa Davis, deputy opinion editor
Help!
I’m collaborative by nature, inclined to seek common ground in every interaction. But the polarization era is testing that spirit.
A few years ago, I was paired in a local golf tournament with a man whose bag sported a “(Expletive) Biden” sticker. Although taken aback as a supporter of President Joe Biden, I still enjoyed playing with him, in the way golfers typically find camaraderie on the course.
But … our conversations never touched on politics, which raises to me a huge question: How does one productively discuss political differences, even (maybe especially) with people with whom we would otherwise be friendly?
This came up again in a recent chat with a good friend from high school. We hadn’t spoken in decades, and really enjoyed catching up. However, when he spoke of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and derided mentions of “the oppressor class” in his son’s schooling, I quietly listened and moved on to other topics.
Some other friends and relatives are Trump supporters; I’m decidedly not. We get along fine in other contexts, but I haven’t discussed politics with any of them in recent years. I’m genuinely curious about their perspectives, and would like to share mine. Yet I can’t bring myself to initiate conversations along those lines, for fear of devolving into acrimony and raised blood pressures, at a time when civic discourse is too often framed as black-and-white/good vs. evil, ignoring nuances and shades of gray where (I believe) the “truth” generally resides.
My negative views of Trump and MAGA, and particularly the threats to democracy, are very unlikely to change. But I am open to greater mutual understanding with those who believe differently. I just don’t know how to get started. Help!
— Mark Ohrenschall, Kenmore
Use democracy innovations
Around the world, democracy innovations have made problem-solving across differences possible, and they are expanding more rapidly than ever. Many individuals today are doing the hard work of traversing differences to find common ground, but they shouldn’t have to do it alone. We can institutionalize democracy innovations to scale their impact on our fractured political environment.
Consider the citizens’ assembly, where a government convenes a random, representative group of residents to deliberate on a difficult issue, then formally responds to — and often implements — the assembly’s recommendations. More than 700 citizens’ assemblies have taken place in Europe, Canada, Australia, Latin America and now in the U.S.
Or consider It’s Your America, a gamified three-hour workshop where participants wrestle with a tough issue and work together in small, ideologically diverse groups to craft solutions that have broad support. The conversations in this setting are wildly more thoughtful and productive than at your typical city council meeting or town hall.
Some cities have jettisoned the old “three minutes at the mic” public meeting, which set discussions up to be (often needlessly) adversarial in favor of deliberative public meetings, where community members and government officials can communicate and collaborate.
These innovations all have a few things in common. First, they are deliberations, not debates. In a debate, someone wins and someone loses. In a deliberation, participants work together toward a shared goal, knowing that they will not agree on everything. Second, they are facilitated. Critically, people in these settings participate as humans, not as politicized social media avatars. Lastly, they focus on a particular topic, which keeps the conversation solutions-oriented. (More info: ourcivicgenius.org, a project of the National Civic League)
— Jillian Youngblood, Redmond
Thrilling, depressing, alarming
At age 88, it sure is tempting to “throw in the towel.” From Truman vs. Dewey to Trump vs. Harris, I have been a political junkie. The evolution of events in our fraying democracy has been thrilling at times, depressing at many others and frankly, very alarming at present. The decade of the ’60s, as chaotic as it was, held great promise for our country. That promise has evaporated, and now half of the nation is hissing at the other half. I have five children, 11 grandchildren and five great-grandchildren. Although I consider myself fair-minded, I have passed on to them my core values … many of which I feel are nonnegotiable.
I am a bleeding-heart liberal/progressive and have found that when confronted with MAGA/conservative positions, listening is important and making accommodations if possible. I am skeptical that our divide will dissolve any time soon. There seems to be a palpable arrogance on both sides that avers, “we are right, and righteously so, and you are wrong, desperately so!” In any event, I do not take for granted my good luck to live in this blue enclave. I suppose as we all grasp for answers, we may not get a solution, but at the very least, we must remain civil to one another.
Henry Thompson, Seattle
More conversations
I have just retired from teaching journalism and communication at Seattle Pacific University. Before that, I was a journalist for KING-TV.
My biggest problem now is that it’s hard to expand (or blow up) my bubble. I live in Seattle, attend a Presbyterian church that leans more liberal, regularly go to Town Hall lectures, Seattle Arts & Lectures events, bookstore appearances. I volunteer at a tool library and generally give to causes and candidates backed by Democrats. My closest friends are much like me: 60+, white, Christian-but-not-nationalist. Because of my links to campuses, I have some young friends who are people of color, and I learn from them daily.
For some time, I subscribed to The Wall Street Journal, so I was forced to read its op-ed page. It was usually thoughtful and definitely not my political leaning. But I am rarely in a place for conversation with those who voted for President Donald Trump. I would love to do more to have to listen more — to put myself in harder places that challenge me.
Peg Achterman, Seattle
Different treads, different folks
The Seattle Times’ recent call for civility is a nice gesture, but it is too little, too late for Trump’s America. We granted him this platform — first through our belief in civility, then our hope for it and now our desperate cry for it. As we teeter on the edge of a slope greased by billionaires, tech bros, fanatics and an entitled, casual apathy, our right-wing foot willingly begs for the descent while the left-wing foot hopes its computer-designed, non-GMO, vegan treads will grip just long enough for a miracle. As if a tectonic shift could unexpectedly erupt and upend that trip into the abyss. No such miracle is likely.
Michael Monteleone, Seattle
Cool the flames, then work it off
Lately, I’ve come to think of myself as a kind of human fire extinguisher; constantly pushing back against extremes, trying to douse the flames of outrage while searching for slivers of common ground. Whether it’s Israel and Gaza, or our own national and local divides, I find myself standing in the middle, feeling the heat from every side.
Friends, classmates, family, people I love hold strong and opposing views. The intensity is everywhere.
So what helps? I try to listen without interrupting, to ask questions that clarify rather than challenge. I look for small openings for empathy. I focus on what we share, not what separates us. And afterward, I run or exercise some other way — that’s how I process the anger, confusion or hurt that lingers.
I write letters to editors, send op-eds and reach out directly to leaders with ideas or questions. I volunteer in my community, where common purpose still feels possible and conversation can flow without flaring up.
I collect stories that spark hope, like Utah’s Republican governor describing on “60 Minutes” how he collaborates with Democrats to get things done.
I remind myself that others before us have endured darker times. As “Ethics of Our Fathers,” a compilation of Jewish ethical teachings, states: “It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you free to desist from it.”
My father, father-in-law, uncles and cousins fought to preserve our democracy. My duty now is to keep it alive by cooling the flames, not feeding them.
Michael B. Goldenkranz, Seattle
Keep it local
Hyperlocal journalism offers an antidote to polarization. While national news algorithms feed us rage and division, neighborhood news brings us back to shared reality.
In Fremont, we don’t debate abstract culture wars, we discuss whether the roads should close for bus line upgrades, how to support local businesses, and promote civic event information. These aren’t red or blue issues. They’re neighbor issues.
When I launched fremontneighbor.com, I saw firsthand how the loss of local news creates a vacuum. Without trusted, shared information about our immediate community, neighbors drift toward national outrage cycles that have nothing to do with our daily lives.
Hyperlocal journalism does three things that counter polarization:
First, it forces us to see each other as whole people, not labels. When I cover the Fremont Neighborhood Council or profile local businesses, readers encounter their actual neighbors: complex humans with valid concerns, not strawmen from social media.
Second, it creates shared stakes. We all care about the same potholes, parks, and school zones. These common concerns remind us we’re in this together, even when we disagree about state or national politics.
Third, it demands accountability and accuracy at a scale where trust can be rebuilt. National media feels distant and suspect. But local journalism? People know if I get it wrong. They see me at the Fremont Market or walking on Stone Way. That proximity breeds responsibility.
I don’t claim hyperlocal news will solve all our divisions. But in an era where we can’t agree on basic facts, our own blocks offer the common ground we desperately need…verifiable, relevant, and shared.
Alyson “Aly” Teeter, founder & editor
Despair? Never
Polarization? Yes. Despair? Never. Reliable polling shows repeatedly that most Americans occupy the broad middle, agreeing on many social and economic issues. Polarization is driven by the small, vocal minorities (less than 10%) on each end of the political spectrum whose opinions are amplified by media, both mainstream and social (controversy sells!). They do not speak for us.
The answer is twofold. First, consume a wide and varied diet of information. Blogs and Substack posts are fine, but seek out and read not just people you agree with but also some you don’t agree with. Include many sources that are edited and vetted (e.g., newspapers, magazines). Do you like The New York Times? Also read The Wall Street Journal. Do you prefer conservative talk radio? Make a point of listening to NPR and reading The Atlantic.
The second part of the solution is to ask questions and listen. Confirmation bias is a strong human tendency. We seek out and heed information that supports our existing beliefs. Look for opportunities to engage with those whose opinions differ. Rather than lead with your opinion, ask why they believe as they do. Ask how they arrived at their conclusions. Ask if they see any alternative approaches. There are intelligent, caring people on both sides of any complex problem. Finding solutions – and dialing back the enmity- requires that we listen and learn from each other.
It’s fashionable these days to say that we haven’t been this polarized since the 1850s, but it’s not true. Anyone who knows about the New Deal, anticommunism, the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam War knows that, in their day, they were viewed as struggles for the survival of our great American experiment. We survived those battles, and we will survive today’s.
Ross Elkin, Seattle
This project is funded in part by The Poynter Institute as part of its Beat Academy for reaching polarized audiences.
