By Scott Brown

Ask anyone these days and the consensus is that the political divide in the United States is a growing problem, many consider it a crisis. From civic engagement to personal relationships, this divide is increasingly intimidating and destructive. So much so that many of us dodge any confrontation, just think Thanksgiving dinner. But engaging doesn’t have to be that hard or dangerous and it is a critical part of our civic and political process. 

On a personal level, who needs to lose friends? Isn’t unfriending people because of their political affiliation just a little narrow-minded? We need differing opinions because we just can’t think of everything by ourselves — or even in our own friend group. I will, however, definitely concede that it is tiring to hear recycled soundbites echoed on social media. So, managing your media diet is important. But genuine dialogue — focused on understanding values and perspectives — is a different ballgame altogether and social media is probably not as good a tool for that engagement as face-to-face conversation. 

Passionately held divergent opinions are not new to our country. There was bitter acrimonious debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists over our Constitution. And while the Federalists prevailed, it was the Anti-Federalists who insisted on the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, illustrating how engaging with opposing views can lead to better final products. Today, we face many significant challenges that require constructive discourse that prioritizes solutions over polarization. Perhaps we need to start by setting examples and expectations for our elected leaders by practicing constructive dialogue and listening generously to understand the opposing perspectives.

Let me share a personal experience. Back around 2016, Dan Waggoner and I were having a beer in Salisbury. This was our tradition, as I had moved away, we met every few years for a beer to catch up. After catching up on personal lives and family, we started sharing thoughts on the news and world events. Aware that Dan’s political views differed from mine, I expressed my concern over the political divide. I have always valued Dan’s perspective, not despite, but because of our different views. Dan shared my concern.

This led to an impromptu experiment: I bet Dan a six-pack that over the course of two beers we could 80 percent agree on almost any debate as long as we focused on finding a solution to a problem. We set some ground rules (focusing on a solution and not getting sidetracked with party histories) to keep the discussion on track, and Dan chose immigration as our topic. Soon Dan mentioned a border wall. I expressed my skepticism about the effectiveness of a border wall but asked, “What do you want that wall to do?”

Some years later, I realized that when I asked, “What do you want that wall to do?” it shifted our conversation from one where we were bringing competing solutions, to one where we stepped backed to discussing our values and concerns around the issue and jointly offered solutions to each other’s, not always shared, concerns. We were both seeing different aspects of the problem all of which needed to be addressed and would be best solved by collaborative solutions.

By the end of our second round of beer, we had had a very civil conversation, found common ground, and proved a point — civil discourse is not that hard given a little effort. And, well maybe, the beer doesn’t hurt. (Let me here point out two different definitions of “civil,” the first being polite and the second relating to government and that which is best for the citizenry.) But that was nowhere near the end result of our little exercise. We became closer friends that day, began to today talk more frequently, and often still carve out time to discuss politics. We developed a deeper understand and respect one another and our differing perspectives. 

Before you try this on your own, I realized several factors contributed to our success. First, we were already friends who understood each other’s political leanings, creating a natural incentive for civility. People are inherently social creatures and naturally avoid losing friends. Second, by focusing on solutions rather than party histories, we fostered collaboration instead of competition.

That said, there are ample online resources and organizations that provide high-quality guided participatory experiences for engaging across the political divide. Just Google “organizations bridging the political divide.” Many of these provide instructions and basic guidelines, and host moderated discussions that aim to foster understanding. I’ve participated in a few Braver Angels events, which offer structured interactions that encourage meaningful dialogue. In these discussions, I’ve had insightful conversations with others and even maintained follow-up connections over lunch. I highly recommend participating in a few of these events for both the insights and camaraderie. And, If you don’t have a friend with a different political persuasion, I highly recommend you find one. And one of the structured experiences is a fabulous place to meet one.  

As we navigate the complexities of modern political and social life, fostering constructive conversations is crucial. By prioritizing dialogue over division, we can create a more inclusive society where diverse opinions lead to innovative solutions. To do this we must listen generously, seeking to hear and understand before we try to respond and convince. It is essential for individuals, communities, and leaders alike to model civil discourse, even in heated debate over contentious issues. And to work toward mutual understanding which is essential for our democracy. Only then can we hope to bridge the political divide and work together toward a more harmonious future.

Scott Brown is a graduate of Salisbury High School. He currently lives in Chapel Hill.  He grew up in Salisbury, a descendant of Michael Brown of the Old Stone House in Granite Quarry and Lee Overman of Salisbury, North Carolina’s first U.S. Senator elected by popular vote (prior to Senator Overman’s election the legislature appointed senators until the passage of the 17th Amendment, adopted in 1913).

Scott went to Salisbury High School, graduating in the Class of 1979, which is having its 45th reunion this Saturday, Oct 12. After high school, Scott went on to earn an undergraduate and Masters of Public Health degrees from UNC Chapel Hill. After which he served 27 years at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, retiring in 2022. He then relocated back to Chapel Hill for retirement where he keeps busy taking classes while not away visiting friends and former colleagues scattered around the globe.