Bridging the divide: Why can't we get along?

The political landscape in the United States has become increasingly fractured. On both ends of the spectrum, rhetoric has grown sharper, louder and more absolute. What once passed as spirited debate often now feels like verbal combat. Instead of persuasion, the aim has become domination. Instead of building common ground, the goal has become destroying the credibility of the other side.

This kind of rhetoric perpetuates the very divide it laments. When people only hear caricatures of their opponents' positions -- delivered in angry, moralizing tones -- they dig in deeper. It creates the illusion that every issue has only two camps, each irreconcilably opposed to the other. The result is a civic atmosphere in which the middle ground is not just ignored but actively scorned.

How the chasm widens

Extreme rhetoric functions like a feedback loop. One side pushes harder, the other side reacts in kind, and the cycle continues. Television pundits, social media influencers and even elected officials discover that outrage brings clicks, donations and attention. Nuance, patience and careful reasoning do not.

This escalation discourages people from admitting complexity. Problems related to immigration, health care, housing or climate change have no easy answers. Yet when voices insist that only one "correct" position exists, compromise appears to be betrayal. The center collapses under the weight of mistrust.

Worse still, trust in institutions erodes. When leaders use extreme language to describe opponents as enemies rather than fellow citizens, they undermine the very legitimacy of government, courts and civil society. The public grows cynical, convinced that nothing can be solved without tearing down the other side.

A path back to constructive discourse

Despite this bleak picture, the way forward is not out of reach. History shows that Americans can disagree vigorously while still working together. Reviving that practice requires deliberate steps.

First, we must model respect in our conversations. That means listening without interruption, acknowledging valid points even from those with whom we disagree and resisting the temptation to mock or belittle. Respect breeds respect. It lowers defenses and allows people to focus on the substance of an issue rather than the hostility of its presentation.

Second, we should reframe issues around shared interests. For example, debates over energy policy can quickly devolve into partisan fights. Yet most Americans want both affordable energy and a healthy environment. If discussions began with those shared goals rather than accusations, solutions would emerge more readily.

Third, citizens must cultivate media literacy. Outrage is profitable, so inflammatory voices are rewarded with more airtime. By seeking out balanced reporting, engaging with a range of perspectives and resisting clickbait headlines, individuals can avoid being swept into echo chambers that deepen division.

Fourth, institutions themselves can foster civility. Legislatures can reward bipartisan cooperation through committee structures. Community organizations can hold forums designed for dialogue rather than confrontation. Even businesses can play a role by encouraging constructive workplace conversations on difficult topics rather than banning them outright.

Finally, we need to return to the basics of civic education. Schools should teach not only history and government, but also the skills of deliberation -- how to listen, how to argue constructively and how to compromise. If young people grow up expecting that disagreement is normal and healthy, they will be less tempted by voices that preach division.

The role of everyday citizens

It is easy to believe that the task of repairing civil discourse rests only with politicians or media outlets. But the truth is that each of us plays a role. In our homes, our workplaces and our communities, we set the tone. The way we talk about those who disagree with us -- whether with scorn or with respect -- matters more than we might imagine.

A conversation at a dinner table or neighborhood meeting may not change national politics, but it can demonstrate that there is another way to engage: one that values understanding as much as advocacy.

Extremist rhetoric will not disappear overnight. It has too many incentives baked into the current system of media and politics. But citizens do not have to reward it. By choosing to listen, refusing to demonize and insisting on respectful dialogue, we can begin to close the chasm.

Civil, constructive discourse is not a relic of a bygone era. It is a skill, a discipline and ultimately a choice. If enough people make that choice, our political culture can once again reflect the best of what democracy has to offer.