It's happening everywhere you look. Family dinners turn into battlefields. Friendships end over political posts. Coworkers avoid each other in hallways. Communities split down invisible lines, and suddenly, everyone who doesn't think exactly like you becomes "the enemy."
Maybe you've felt it yourself—that rush of anger when someone challenges your beliefs, that instinct to dismiss rather than discuss, that growing certainty that your side is right and their side is not just wrong, but dangerous.
Welcome to tribalism in the modern age.
But here's what most people don't realize: this isn't weakness. It's not a moral failure. It's hardwired into your brain—a survival mechanism that once kept our ancestors alive on the African savannah but now threatens to tear apart the very fabric of our democracy.
The good news? Understanding tribalism is the first step to overcoming it. And that matters more now than ever, because our ability to work together, to disagree without demonizing, to find common ground across differences—that's not just nice to have. It's essential for a functioning society.
In this article, we're going beyond the finger-pointing and blame games to explore what tribalism really is, how it hijacks our thinking, and most importantly, how we can break free from its grip. You'll hear from leading researchers, democracy experts, and thoughtful voices who've spent years studying how we can bridge divides and rebuild the capacity for genuine dialogue.
Because the truth is: we're all tribal. The question isn't whether you're affected by it—it's what you're going to do about it.
Subscribe to receive a biweekly collection of the hottest podcast episodes from the network, upcoming special events, expert features, and news from your favorite shows.
Subscribe to our NewsletterTribalism is a strong identification with and loyalty to one’s tribe or social group, often accompanied by an “us vs. them” mentality. It typically manifests as intense in-group allegiance and prioritization of the group’s interests, which can lead to negative attitudes and behaviors toward those outside the group.
Both Christopher Beem—Managing Director of the McCourtney Institute for Democracy and author of The Seven Democratic Virtues: What You Can Do to Overcome Tribalism and Save Our Democracy—and Andrew Heaton, author of Tribalism Is Dumb, explain that this deeply rooted human behavior has evolved over time.
Christopher Beem:
"Tribalism is—at least the way I use it—a neurological category. We are all products of the African savannah, somewhere between a million and 150,000 years ago. That experience is etched into our brains, even into our genes.
What tribalism means is that we understood our survival to be inescapably linked to the survival of our tribe. So, we would always view the world—and any encounter we had with it—in terms of how it helped or harmed our tribe.
That dynamic still lingers, even though we no longer live in literal tribes. We are still inherently, inescapably tribal. That shows up in things like what bands we listen to, where we go on vacation, what brands we identify with, what hobbies we have, and—most relevantly—what political party we support."
Listen to the full episode on Future Hindsight: Democratic Thinking and Acting
Andrew Heaton:
"The evolutionary roots of tribalism run deep. We are a hyper-social species. Not just social—hyper-social. As humans, not just primates, we’re an incredibly social, cooperative, interdependent species, and that goes way, way back. There are really good reasons for that.
In the book, I’m using the word tribalism in a pejorative sense, similar to how we might use partisan. I don’t mean political parties are inherently bad—same with tribes. I think communities are wonderful, and being part of a community is incredibly important.
In fact, I believe a lot of the political rancor we’re experiencing comes from people being increasingly adrift—lacking a place to belong—and finding a new home in politics. So, when I say tribalism, I’m referring to the reflexive tendency to 'other' people, to seek enemies, and to root for 'my team' no matter what the facts are. It’s mean-spirited and dogmatic.
We have this built-in, pro-social, interdependent tribal nature that makes total evolutionary sense. For example, tribes living in the Serengeti 300,000 years ago could share child-rearing responsibilities—like watching someone’s kids while they went to the bathroom to protect them from wolves. That increased the tribe’s chance of survival.
Or if I’m sick and you share the giraffe you hunted with me, I’ll pay you back later. These are great reasons to form tight-knit communities. But alongside that cooperation, there also seem to be preemptively aggressive tendencies bred into humans.
So, we’re not just peaceful until an enemy shows up—we’re often actively looking for one. The need for an enemy can actually create the perception of an enemy."
Listen to the full episode on Talkin' Politics N' Religion Without Killing Each Other: Tribalism Is Dumb – Why We're Hardwired for Division & How to Cope
Now that we understand tribalism as a natural human phenomenon, let’s explore how it manifests—starting at the individual level and growing into larger group behavior, often exacerbated by influential leaders.
Tim Urban, author of What’s Our Problem?: A Self-Help Book for Societies, offers a powerful analogy of “low-rung thinking” versus “high-rung thinking,” describing how individuals can get caught in mental patterns that lead to tribal consequences.
Tim Urban:
“When it comes to how we form our beliefs, what the limbic system wants is to feel. It wants to feel conviction—not just about individual beliefs, but about our beliefs, the beliefs of people like us.
It wants to say: ‘We believe these things, and we’re right. It’s so obvious, I don’t even need to research it.’ The system sees your beliefs almost like sacred objects—as if they’re a part of you.
So when someone challenges those beliefs, it feels like a physical threat. The limbic system just wants to confirm those beliefs. It seeks out information that supports them and rejects anything that doesn’t—which, of course, is the opposite of how you actually find truth.
The higher mind, on the other hand, wants to take in all kinds of perspectives—especially those that conflict with your current mental model. It says, ‘Where might I be wrong? Let’s test this thing.’
The truth is, we don’t think purely like either system—we’re a combination of both. On your best days, you're at the top of the ladder. You're focused on truth, you’re humble, and you have intellectual integrity. You say, ‘There’s a lot I don’t know.’
But as you move down the ladder, you start getting emotionally attached to certain beliefs. You might know it’s a debate, but deep down, you really want your side to be right.
By the time you’re at the bottom, you can’t even conceive of being wrong. Of course I’m right. Of course we’re right. And the people who disagree with us? They’re terrible, awful, and wrong.
That’s the internal battle we’re facing—an intellectual tug-of-war inside our own heads.”
One of the challenges that arises when beliefs become entangled with tribalism is the tendency to silence opposing views—not because they're thoughtfully debated and refuted, but because they're seen as threats to the tribe. Anyone who shares our beliefs is "in," while those who disagree are "out"—and must be excluded or even silenced. Tim Urban refers to this dynamic as Idea Supremacy.
Tim Urban:
“So, this is where I realized that the problem isn’t just low-rung thinking in general—it’s a specific kind of low-rung thinking.
For example, on the left side of the spectrum is what I call the non-authoritarian low-runger. That person might be living in an echo chamber, but they mostly mind their own business. They’re not learning much, but they’re not hurting anyone else either. That’s fine.
Then there’s the middle ground: someone who says, ‘Not only am I not going to listen to ideas I disagree with, but I’m also not going to be friends with anyone who does.’ That person is putting pressure on their friends to make a choice: either conform to the echo chamber or lose the friendship.
I don’t admire that behavior—I think they need to grow up—but again, it’s not the big problem. You can still choose not to be friends with them. The campus is still free. Veritas—the pursuit of truth—is still alive.
But then there’s the third kind. This is the real issue. This person says, ‘If a speaker I disagree with is coming to campus, not only will I be mad at my friends for attending—not only will I stop being friends with them—I’m going to shut the talk down.’
They’ll get the talk canceled, or they’ll show up and scream so loudly from the back of the audience that no one can hear, and the event gets shut down.
That is when Veritas disappears. That’s a very specific, concrete, and distinct behavior—and it’s new.
When I was in college in the early 2000s, campuses were still tribal, but they didn’t have Idea Supremacy.”
This behavior doesn’t stay isolated at the individual level—it spreads. As people band together, shared beliefs solidify into group identities, forming intellectual tribes. Tim Urban explains how the dynamic between high-rung and low-rung thinking plays out within these groups.
Tim Urban:
“We’re a very social species—one of the most social in all of animal history. Our minds are hugely influenced by group dynamics. It’s deeply human to fall into groupthink or to gather with people who think like us and form an intellectual culture together.
So, when I talk about the ladder—this concept of high-rung vs. low-rung thinking—we’ve mostly been looking at it on the individual level. But it applies to groups too.
Think about a group chat with friends, or your family gathered around the table at Thanksgiving, or just you and your spouse alone together. Every group, no matter the size, has an intellectual culture, and that culture sits somewhere on the ladder.
In a high-rung group culture, it’s cool to disagree. It’s cool to say, ‘I don’t know.’ Saying that makes you sound smart. People respect you for admitting uncertainty. Disagreement is fun. If people are agreeing too much, it gets boring. No one takes it personally when you say, ‘I think you’re wrong,’ because they understand: you’re just challenging the idea, not the person. They might say, ‘Help me make it better,’ or ‘Let’s have our ideas spar.’
That’s a high-rung intellectual culture—what I call an Idea Lab. Like a science lab, ideas are experiments. The people involved are experimenters. We try to break each other’s ideas, not to destroy them, but to improve them. No one takes it personally, because the goal is to refine the truth.
If you’re trying to cure cancer, you want someone to point out what’s wrong with your experiment. You want better tools, better data, better thinking. That’s high-rung culture.
Now contrast that with the low rungs. That culture becomes what’s often called an echo chamber. In an echo chamber, the group holds certain beliefs as sacred. These aren’t treated as hypotheses anymore—they’re sacred objects.
Disagreeing with those beliefs? That’s dangerous. Best case: you’ll be mocked. Worst case: you’ll be ostracized. People might stop talking to you. They’ll whisper about you behind your back. There’s enormous social pressure not to disagree. Instead, you just sit through a three-hour dinner where everyone—using different words—says the same thing over and over:
‘We’re right. They’re wrong. We’re good. They’re bad.’
That’s an echo chamber.
And I’m not criticizing those people from the outside—I’ve been in groups like that. I’m still in some. I can feel it when the vibe shifts that way.
The danger is, when you're in that kind of culture long enough, it starts to infect your thinking. The low-rung culture polices high-rung behavior, silences dissent, and spreads.
Over time, you start to think more simplistically. You get bitter. You dehumanize the other side. You convince yourself they’re all evil or stupid. You become this childish thinker—even though you’re better than that. You know you’re a nuanced thinker. But suddenly, you're so sure you’re right you don’t even need evidence anymore.
You just know you’re right—and anyone who disagrees with you? They’re an awful moron.
That’s when you’ve slipped into low-rung groupthink.”
Listen to the full episode on Village Squarecast: What’s Our problem?
What happens when tribes come into direct conflict? Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, explains how tribal groupthink—amplified by social media—can sometimes lead to threats or acts of violence.
Rachel Kleinfeld:
“Stochastic just means probabilistic. And what we’ve been seeing in the age of social media is this:
People with massive followings—Tucker Carlson, Libs of TikTok, Trump, others—can put something out into the world without explicitly telling anyone to act. They’re not directing a hit, the way a crime boss would. But when you have that many followers, it’s likely that someone in that group will be a little more aggressive, a little more impulsive, a little more unhinged—and willing to take action.
So what happens? Someone posts, ‘This person passed on a thumb drive that tampered with the election,’ and suddenly people are showing up at that person’s home to threaten them.
Or a post says, ‘This judge is treating me unfairly,’ or ‘This witness is lying,’ and those individuals start receiving death threats.
We’ve seen this frequently during Trump’s trials—he’ll tweet something, and hours later, the person he targeted gets swatted. In one case, it happened on Christmas Day. Judges have had people show up at their homes. Some get doxxed.
It’s a way of directing violence without accountability. Because of America’s broad protections for free speech, people are allowed to say things like, ‘This hospital is doing something harmful’—and it’s happened to hospitals that provide transgender surgeries.
The speech itself isn’t violent. But when it comes from someone with millions of followers—and when they know the tendencies of their audience—the effects can lead to real-world violence.
And legally, we don’t have a clear way to address this yet.”
And what is a tribe without its chief? Kleinfeld explains how political leaders can intensify polarization and influence the behavior of their followers.
Rachel Kleinfeld:
“I think it started with the elites.
If you look at how polarization has evolved in American society, political parties in the 1950s and 60s were actually not very polarized. There’s even a famous academic paper from 1952 arguing that parties weren’t polarized enough—that voters had no real choices because both parties were so similar.
We don’t have that problem anymore.
Since the 1970s, political leaders have grown increasingly ideologically polarized—on a range of issues. Where the parties used to have significant ideological overlap, now there’s almost none. That shift unfolded over about 50 years.
And here’s what’s critical: our elected leaders have become far more ideologically polarized than their voters. So I believe it started with them.
As politicians became more extreme, the futures voters saw became more divergent. You weren’t choosing between Eisenhower and LBJ—who shared a number of positions—you were choosing between Trump and Harris: radically different visions for the country.
That’s when voters became emotionally polarized.
People started projecting extreme figures—like J.D. Vance or AOC—onto average voters, assuming the base was just as radical as the leadership. Even though that wasn’t true. Most regular voters are in the muddy middle.
But geographic separation meant people didn’t interact much with those from the other party. And that made it easier to conflate extreme politicians with everyday citizens.
So people began to hate and fear the other side—not just their policies, but their very existence.
That’s where the polarization really took root.”
Listen to the full episode on The Context: US Systems Amplify Polarization—But They Don’t Have To
So how do we move beyond tribalism? Chris Beem believes the answer lies in democracy.
“If you are going to have a free society, Madison famously said that liberty is to faction as air is to fire. So if you're going to have a free society, you are going to have these groups—these tribes—manifest throughout society. And those groups are not going to see the world the same way.
They're not going to value the same things, and often, those tribes will even be antithetical to one another. The most benign example I use in the book is Bears fans and Packers fans. Those are two distinct tribes, and they see the world very differently—but the same logic applies at higher political and cultural levels.
The point is, when you're talking about democracy, you're talking about a system that starts with the presumption that people will disagree. They’ll organize themselves into groups with competing, and sometimes conflicting, objectives. The purpose of democracy is to allow people the freedom to do that while still maintaining a society that can live in some form of civil peace.
That’s not a simple thing to achieve. But if you're going to have a free society—and you don’t want that society to descend into civil war—then democracy is the way you do it.”
American democracy is at a crisis point. To fix our politics, we must first change our culture. We all have a role to play in cultivating a culture that upholds democratic values. For Beem, this begins with how we think, how we act, and what we believe.
Christopher Beem:
“Before you act, you consider your condition and think about what you should do. The three core virtues I lay out are humility, honesty, and consistency.
Humility is the recognition that all of us are biased. You can’t not be biased—that’s part of our wiring. Your biases activate before you're even consciously aware of the thought. You can’t stop it; you can only mitigate its effects. And that matters, especially in argument, because the way we see the world is inescapably influenced by how we want to see the world.
It's only when we recognize that truth that we're in a better position to have a constructive argument.
Honesty is saying, ‘Look, we're already starting from a place of bias. So if we can’t limit our untruths to the ones we genuinely believe—if we're unwilling to honestly reflect on our own thoughts, opinions, and values—then argument becomes a waste of time. There’s no point in having a discussion if I’m not sharing what I truly believe.’
And consistency—that’s one of the ways we mitigate bias. The idea is: when you're at a baseball game and you're a Red Sox fan, you’re going to see balls, strikes, safes, and outs differently than a Yankees fan would. But consistency means trying to apply your standards of virtue the same way, no matter who you're evaluating.
So if your preferred politician does something you disapprove of, consistency means saying, ‘Yeah, I don’t like that.’ And if someone on the other side does something genuinely courageous or honest, you should be willing to praise that, too.
That doesn’t mean you're free from bias—we are going to be biased. But what we strive for is to apply these virtues consistently. That, at its core, is the ancient notion of justice: treating like things alike, and different things differently.
And that doesn’t get you all the way there. It’s hard to say what counts as alike or different, and whether those differences matter. There's been a lot of ink spilled on those questions. But what you can do—and insist on—is the commitment: ‘I'm going to try to be consistent in how I apply these virtues.’
That’s democratic thinking.”
Chris Beem:
“We have to go out into the world, and there are four cardinal virtues that go all the way back to Plato: courage, temperance, prudence, and justice.
I’m picking two of those. As I alluded to earlier, courage means you’re willing to risk something. It could be your life—you might run into a burning building to save a child. That’s courage. But if you're willing to stand up in a room where you don’t know what other people think and say what you believe—that takes courage too. And it’s an essential part of being a democrat: being willing to accept that kind of courage.
I call it everyday courage. You put a bumper sticker on your car—you know it's not unusual for someone to flip you off. That’s not going to physically hurt you, but it’s not the most pleasant thing in the world. If you go door to door canvassing, you’re going to get doors slammed in your face. That’s not very pleasant either.
Part of democracy is just accepting this level of discomfort as part of the cost. In a polarized society, we often think of courage as standing up against the other tribe. But I’m saying—that’s not that hard right now. That doesn’t carry much risk. What takes an enormous amount of risk, and an enormous amount of courage, is standing up in the midst of your own tribe and arguing against the natural escalation of the conversation.
Just asking questions:
“Are you sure that’s true?”
“What about that argument?”
“Doesn’t that seem a bit overstated?”
That requires courage right now. And that’s one way we can use virtue to mitigate tribalism—to push all of us away from that kind of escalation.
Temperance is the other side of that coin.
People often associate temperance with the temperance movement, Prohibition, the 18th Amendment. But that’s not what I mean at all. Temperance means you're willing to accept—and live with—the fact that other people have points of view that are completely contrary to yours. And they have every right to express them, as long as they do so within the bounds of democratic laws and norms.
Going back to Aristotle, I argue that there’s a big difference between anger and hatred.
Anger is something you sign up for when you live in a democracy. When you look at the Constitution, you see that the First Amendment gives you the right to petition your government for a redress of grievances. Grievance is a word almost indistinguishable from anger. If you have a grievance, you’re angry. So anger is written into our constitutional DNA.
But just as anger is essential, hatred is disastrous. Because hatred burrows into our very core—it corrupts us. It becomes part of our identity. And when we hate, we can no longer function as a democracy.
We have to accept the reality that we’re going to be angry. And we have to fight against the temptation to hate.
It’s incredibly unnatural to do—but it’s something all of us have to struggle with.”
Chris Beem:
“Democratic belief comes from Thomas Aquinas. Faith, in this context, is simply the belief that democracy can work.
There are plenty of good reasons—and many political scientists—who argue that democracy doesn’t function the way we often think it does. Most of us don’t form our opinions and then seek out politicians who agree with us. More often, it’s the opposite: we find politicians we like, and then adopt their positions.
But there are also powerful examples in our history where democracy has worked exactly as it should—where people stood up, voiced their beliefs, and were heard. The Freedom Riders are a classic example. Or Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who, at just 14, began striking outside her country’s parliament with a sign demanding climate action. Within a year, her action sparked global student-led protests involving millions.
These are data points too. You can't dismiss them. They are reason enough to have democratic faith.
And then there’s charity—a concept Lincoln captured beautifully in his second inaugural address: ‘With malice toward none, with charity for all.’ As democrats, we are obliged to extend the benefit of the doubt to others.
That doesn’t mean we have to keep doing so indefinitely. Sometimes we may conclude that someone isn’t arguing in good faith, or doesn’t truly care about democratic values—and at that point, it’s fair to disengage.
But initially, we should presume the best: that the other person loves their country, loves their kids, doesn’t want to be a bad person, and genuinely wants to do the right thing. If we can start from that place, we can have a constructive conversation.
And if each of us can personally commit to these democratic virtues—faith and charity—and call them out when we see them in others, especially those in power, then maybe we can begin to change our culture.
And by changing our culture, we just might change our democracy.”
Listen to the full episode on Future Hindsight: Democratic Thinking and Acting
But what about practical things to say today—right now—when you have to interact with someone from a different “tribe”? Andrew Heaton offers some highly useful tools for everyday conversations to help overcome our tribal patterns.
Andrew Heaton:
"One of the tools I’ve learned that I think is surprisingly useful is this: when you're arguing with somebody—assuming your goal isn’t to piss them off, which I’m guessing most of your listeners would agree with—a very simple thing you can do is quit using the word you and start using we.
Let’s say, theoretically, Cory and I are arguing about building the big, beautiful wall on the southern border. For our purposes, Cory’s very much in favor of it, and I’m opposed. To quote the late, great P.J. O’Rourke, I think it’s a $20 million subsidy to Mexican ladder companies. I just don’t want it to happen.
If I say, “Cory, what do you do about the fact that the majority of undocumented immigrants came here legally and just overstayed their visas?”—that comes off as very accusatory. What I’m really saying is, “Cory, you’re an idiot—defend yourself when I point out your lack of logic.”
Nobody likes being painted into a corner. Very few people are going to say, “You’re right, you out-argued me. I’m a moron.” People are deeply reluctant to sacrifice their team’s honor or to lose status in an argument.
But if I say, “That’s interesting, Cory. What do we do about the fact that most people who overstayed their visas came here legally?”—now I’m implying that we’re jointly tackling a question. That we’re facing the same direction. I’m asking for help in solving a problem, not wagging my finger at him.
Another good trick—I learned this from my friend Brian Brushwood, whom I mention in the book—is to just replace “you idiot” with “that’s interesting.” Build that into your regular conversational pattern.
Because honestly, a lot of the time it is interesting how someone arrived at their conclusion. If you say, “That’s interesting—how did you arrive at that conclusion?” it helps a lot.
Personally, one of the issues I struggle with is sounding condescending when I argue. I’m not trying to be, but I’m aware it can come off that way. One thing that’s helped me a lot is trying to paraphrase back to someone what they said in the smartest possible way.
I’m not arguing with them. I’ll say, “Okay, I just want to make sure I understand where you’re coming from. You’re saying that housing prices are too high, and the main reason is a concentration of corporate power. They’re colluding on prices, there’s not enough competition, and we need to strengthen antitrust enforcement. Do I have that right?”
And if they say, “Yes, exactly, thank you”—just that moment of being heard, of communicating that I’m really trying to process their point of view, removes a tremendous amount of tension. It’s a gesture of respect. And by giving that respect, the other person is far less likely to come at me aggressively.
They might say, “No, no, that’s not what I meant.” And I can go, “Ah, got it—I misinterpreted. Please, what are you saying? I don’t want to be the guy arguing against something you didn’t even say.”
Another tool—I got this from Peter Boghossian’s book How to Have Impossible Conversations—is to communicate that the conversation we’re having isn’t a loyalty test. It’s not about deciding whether the other person is evil.
And the good news is, I genuinely believe most people are good. I really do. Most of the people in this country are decent folks trying to make their communities better and who care deeply about the state of the country. So I don’t have to lie when I say that.
If I’m arguing with someone, I’ll try to say something like, “Cory, I can tell it’s really important to you to help people…” and then I’ll keep talking. What I’m communicating is: this debate we’re having over tariffs isn’t about whether I think you’re selfish—I don’t think you’re selfish. I think you care deeply about working-class jobs, and I respect that.
I’m not a tariff guy, and you are. But I get that you’re trying to protect people’s jobs. I respect that. As we argue, I want you to know: I’ve already decided you’re a good person. That’s not what this is about.
There are lots of little things like that you can do to keep conversations grounded in respect. And those tools help you avoid so many of the common pitfalls.
Of course, you’ll still run into pigheaded people. You’ll still have to deal with insufferable ideologues and hyper-partisans. But often, you can avoid getting worked up—or even move them in a positive direction—so that by the end of the conversation, you both walk away thinking, “Pretty good chat.”
Listen to the full episode on Talkin' Politics N' Religion Without Killing Each Other: Tribalism Is Dumb – Why We're Hardwired for Division & How to Cope
We've journeyed deep into the tribal mind—from the ancient wiring that kept our ancestors alive to the modern echo chambers that keep us apart. We've seen how individual bias becomes group hatred, how leaders exploit our deepest instincts, and how the very tools meant to connect us can drive us further into our separate corners.
But we've also discovered something hopeful: tribalism isn't destiny.
Every day, you make dozens of choices that either feed the tribal fire or help extinguish it. When someone shares a view that makes your blood boil, you can choose to listen or to attack. When your own "side" says something that doesn't sit right, you can choose courage or comfort. When you encounter someone from a different political tribe, you can choose to see an enemy or a fellow human struggling with the same complex world you are.
These aren't small choices. They're the building blocks of democracy itself.
The experts we've heard from aren't just academics theorizing from ivory towers—they're offering you practical tools that work. Starting today, you can:
Transform Your Conversations
Upgrade Your Thinking
Show Everyday Courage
Create Idea Labs, Not Echo Chambers
Here's what happens when you choose these tools over tribal instincts: you don't just change one conversation. You model a different way of being human together. Others notice. Some copy your approach. They influence their circles, who influence theirs.
This isn't naive optimism—it's how cultural change actually works. The civil rights movement didn't succeed because everyone suddenly became enlightened. It succeeded because enough individuals made the daily choice to treat others with dignity, even when it was hard, even when their own tribes resisted.
Democracy is the same. It's not a system that runs itself—it's a choice we make, conversation by conversation, day after day.
So here's your challenge: pick one relationship in your life that's been strained by political differences. One conversation you've been avoiding. One person you've written off as hopelessly tribal.
Apply these tools. Approach them with genuine curiosity about how they see the world. Listen to understand, not to win. Look for the human being behind the political position.
It won't be easy. Your tribal instincts will resist. But remember: every healthy democracy in history has been built by people who chose the harder path of understanding over the easier path of dismissal.
The choice is yours. The time is now. And the future of American democracy may well depend on what you choose to do next.
Because in the end, we don't overcome tribalism by defeating the other tribe. We overcome it by remembering that there is no other tribe—just fellow citizens trying to build a country worthy of our highest ideals.
Your voice matters. Your choices matter. And your democracy is waiting.
Subscribe to receive a biweekly collection of the hottest podcast episodes from the network, upcoming special events, expert features, and news from your favorite shows.
Subscribe to our NewsletterWhy do smart, well-meaning people turn into political enemies overnight? Discover the hidden psychology behind modern tribalism and learn practical tools to bridge divides, improve conversations, and strengthen democracy—starting with your next difficult conversation.
Making Peace Visible Founder Jamil Simon shares why reframing conversations on peace is essential to reducing global conflict.
.png)
Novels explore the power of direct democracy
Engaging in civil discourse. Inspiring civic engagement. Exploring the future of our democracy.
Join our community and never miss your favorite episodes from the Democracy Group.
Subscribe to our Newsletter