David Blankenhorn on Braver Angels and the Fight to Bridge America’s Political Divide

David Blankenhorn, president of the nonprofit Braver Angels, is stepping up his campaign to confront one of the most destabilizing trends in American democracy: escalating political polarization. In a recent in-depth conversation on C‑SPAN, he described the organization’s approach to bringing Republicans, Democrats, and independents into constructive, face-to-face dialogue at a time when mutual suspicion and partisan animosity are near record highs. Rather than viewing polarization purely as an ideological clash, Blankenhorn frames it as a damaged relationship between citizens-and argues that repairing that relationship requires structured dialogue, local engagement, and a renewed sense of shared American identity.

How Braver Angels got started and why it sees polarization as a relationship crisis

On C‑SPAN, Blankenhorn recounted how Braver Angels emerged just after the 2016 presidential election, when a small group of voters from across the political spectrum met in South Lebanon, Ohio. The question they wanted to test was simple but urgent: can carefully structured conversations actually cool political rage? From that local experiment grew a nationwide civic effort based on a core conviction-that Americans can argue passionately over policy while still recognizing one another as equal citizens.

Drawing on his earlier research examining marriage counseling methods, Blankenhorn and his colleagues adapted relationship-building techniques into a civic setting. The first red-blue workshops borrowed some of the same principles used to help estranged couples: clear rules, equal time, and a focus on understanding before judgment. Over time, this approach evolved into a broader framework aimed at rebuilding trust between “reds” and “blues” without demanding that anyone water down their deeply held beliefs. The goal is not consensus; it is to transform hostility into engagement grounded in curiosity, modesty, and a shared commitment to democratic norms.

Blankenhorn characterizes Braver Angels’ long-term mission as an antidote to what he calls a pervasive “culture of contempt” in American life-a culture where people routinely assume the worst about those who vote differently. To push back against that trend, the organization concentrates on several key strategies:

• Structured dialogues that intentionally match people across party lines under clearly defined rules.
• Skills workshops that teach active listening, open-ended questioning, and depolarizing language.
• Local alliances that root bipartisan cooperation in communities across the country.
• Media and campus initiatives focused on young people and institutions that shape public opinion.

This emphasis on relationship-building aligns with broader research: national surveys from organizations like Pew Research Center continue to show that majorities of both Republicans and Democrats now see the other party as “immoral” or “closed-minded.” Braver Angels positions itself as a counterforce to that spiral.

Inside the method: how Braver Angels uses structured conversations to restore trust

At the heart of Braver Angels’ work is a carefully designed dialogue model that treats disagreement as shared civic labor rather than a zero-sum contest. Sessions are tightly facilitated: participants move through timed rounds of speaking and listening, with moderators enforcing rules that discourage showmanship and reward honesty.

Typically, citizens with opposing political leanings are organized into small, mixed groups. They are asked to speak in the first person about their own experiences, to avoid partisan talking points, and to hold off on “fact-checking” one another in the moment. This shift-from debating abstractions to sharing personal narratives-creates space where people can be candid without expecting immediate ridicule or punishment from the group.

• Structured speaking turns ensure that every participant has equal opportunity to be heard.
• Neutral, well-trained moderators keep the focus on understanding rather than winning.
• Values-first questions dig into why people hold their views, not just what those views are.
• Clear norms forbid contempt, humiliation, and interruption.

Blankenhorn likens these encounters to “civic muscle-building.” Just as physical strength grows through repetition, he argues, the habits of democratic disagreement-listening carefully, stating views clearly, and staying in the conversation when it gets uncomfortable-are relearned through repeated, structured practice.

The intention is not to smooth over real conflicts or convert committed partisans to the other side. Instead, the model focuses on lowering the emotional temperature so that neighbors can still cooperate on school boards, local safety, or economic development even when they diverge sharply on national issues. Organizers say that when participants start to assume sincerity instead of bad faith, it becomes easier to see political opponents as trustworthy fellow citizens rather than permanent enemies.

Gauging results: where Braver Angels is making a difference and where limits remain

Blankenhorn points to a range of indicators suggesting that Braver Angels is changing behavior, not just generating positive press. Post-event surveys show that participants commonly leave workshops feeling more hopeful about the country and more open to engaging with people on the other side of the aisle. Internal figures also show high rates of repeat attendance and a growing volunteer corps of moderators serving conservative, liberal, and politically mixed regions alike.

Early findings from partnerships with schools, congregations, and civic organizations reinforce a key insight: sustained contact appears to matter far more than one-time events. Communities that maintain ongoing dialogue circles often report longer-term shifts in language and engagement-less demonizing rhetoric, higher willingness to vote and volunteer, and a greater readiness to collaborate on concrete local issues. In some towns, it is now routine for law enforcement, clergy, activists, and business leaders to meet in joint discussion groups that would have seemed unlikely only a few years ago.

At the same time, Blankenhorn is candid about the constraints. Measured against the magnitude of polarization-reinforced by partisan primaries, gerrymandered districts, and algorithm-driven news feeds-Braver Angels’ footprint is still relatively small. Efforts to penetrate highly partisan media ecosystems or win over influential online personalities have produced limited progress.

The people who are most entrenched in a combative, win-at-all-costs approach to politics often dismiss depolarization projects as either naïve or covertly partisan. As a result, the organization tends to be most effective with citizens already uneasy about permanent conflict and actively looking for alternatives. Those who thrive on outrage, or who benefit professionally from inflaming divisions, remain largely outside its present reach.

Looking ahead: Blankenhorn’s advice for citizens, journalists, and elected officials

Blankenhorn’s roadmap starts with personal responsibility. He urges ordinary Americans to deliberately seek conversations across party lines, to build a media diet that includes at least one news outlet that challenges their existing views, and to practice what he calls “intellectual hospitality”-asking more questions than they answer, and listening long enough to understand before responding.

He also encourages local institutions-faith communities, neighborhood groups, libraries, and civic clubs-to convene structured forums whose purpose is not quick conversion but the normalization of respectful disagreement. In his view, any lasting civic renewal is more likely to originate in living rooms, community centers, and town halls than in national press conferences or party conventions.

• Citizens: diversify news sources, join or start local dialogue groups, and resist the pull of online outrage cycles.
• Media: highlight stories of bridge-building, and pursue greater ideological diversity within newsrooms.
• Political leaders: model cross-party collaboration and push for reforms to primary systems that currently reward extremes.

For news organizations, Blankenhorn argues that the business model built on conflict as spectacle must be rethought. He calls for newsroom metrics that reward solutions-focused coverage and public-interest reporting at least as much as raw clicks, shares, and viral clips. That change, he suggests, would begin to realign incentives away from outrage and toward public trust.

His message to elected officials is equally direct: stop framing the opposing party as a mortal threat to the nation’s existence, and start treating it as a necessary partner in governing a diverse republic. That shift, he says, should be visible in concrete actions-appearing together at town halls, co-sponsoring legislation around shared priorities, and affirming the legitimacy of electoral outcomes even when those outcomes are disappointing.

Conclusion: can efforts like Braver Angels scale to meet the moment?

Blankenhorn’s appearance on C‑SPAN underscored a modest but urgent premise driving Braver Angels: the future of American democracy may hinge less on persuading people to abandon their beliefs than on rebuilding the trust required to live with profound disagreement. Whether initiatives like this can grow beyond living rooms, local halls, and Zoom sessions to meaningfully shift national political culture is still an open question.

Yet as partisan conflict continues to influence everything from school board meetings to workplace relationships, efforts that prioritize face-to-face dialogue and the humanization of political opponents are likely to remain a significant-if sometimes contested-part of the broader response to polarization. In that sense, Braver Angels offers not a quick cure, but an evolving experiment in how a deeply divided public might still learn to share a common civic life.