They Have Worked on Conflicts Overseas. Now These Americans See ‘Red Flags’ at Home.

I think the risks for a civil war are much higher in the US. Guns are abundant and long list of divisive conversation: guns, women’s lib, LGBTQ, politics. Moreover we have a commander in chief that throws kerosene on the fire. God help us!

Amen. Listening is the beginning. To give someone unlike yourself the time and space to be truly heard and acknowledged is a gift that keeps on giving. I am very pleased that the NY Times ran this story. It’s why I still subscribe.

Wishing success with the endeavor, as it's past time for reconciliation. I doubt they will find many takers on the Rep. side. They are confident of their rightness, and of their mandate from God, that along w/ T they have the only LEGITIMATE right to control the Government.

This is unspeakably silly. Why? 1. Either Dr Green is a linguistic genius who mastered both Burmese and Serbo-Croatian before undertaking work in Myanmar and Bosnia, or she is willing to intervene in societies whose people she cannot talk to and whose newspapers she cannot read. The latter is clearly the case. Let’s keep that in mind. 2. Note that the article only mentions acts of political violence committed by partisans of one side of our political divide. Hmm ... 3. This false equivalency defies facts. Someone needs to tell women from rural areas who carry guns in their purses that no data support the idea that that will keep them safe. 4. How would Dr Green have practiced “conflict resolution” in the America of 1860, I wonder. By seeking to listen to and understand slave-holders? 5. Mr Trump IS vulgar and dystopian. It does no service who stand with him to free them from the need to face up to that fact.

'ask curious questions of each other and simply repeat back what they were hearing without giving opinions. This is a technique sometimes used in marriage therapy' wow - a challenge - but very effective !? now - how can we reproduce that in wider society ?

I share some of the concerns of conflict resolution in our own country. I have lived a significant portion of my working life overseas - out of 43 years in the oil patch - close to 25 years have been overseas. And I do notice that folks in America react to events a lit more different than we Americans overseas. But my impression is for the better. Americans generally take a longer dispassionate views of events surrounding them. And many are astonishingly and sometimes refreshingly ignorant of events beyond borders. The article starts with this conflict resolution expert of having worked in ".. In places like Bosnia, Rwanda and Myanmar, .. " Unfortunately, there are still conflicts there despite valiant effort of these folks. And to me, the primary reason is as much hatred as economic. And often, this economic conflict leads to irrational hatred or conflicts leading to mayhem. In America, economic issues are largely taken care of - so, we have conflicts more based on personal values and social values. Regardless of any conflicts we may have at home - I think our society is much healthier because folks have so many ways of expressing themselves. Sure, sometimes - if leads to mass casualties. But by and large, I still subscribe to Alex Toquvilles' America - comprising of peaceful small societies - forging to firm a nation. And the best proof is all these folks overseas from Bosnia, Rwanda and Myanmar - are desperate to start anew in America.

At what point do we need the United Nations oversee our elections? We have “third world” problems with fair elections.

Readers ought to know, this comment was censored by the New York Times. "But wait a minute, the Republicans have used the calculated division of race, via the Southern Strategy since Nixon. Now, they're continuing this tradition with Trump's Wall. Division isn't a bug for them, it's a feature because they are, being the party of rich interests, the natural minority party. Division is the only way they can achieve majorities. Well that, and voter suppression. I don't have a problem with Republicans' humanity, they're all too human in their willingness to suck up vile myths and sanction the BS that fuels them. And tune into Republican Talk Radio or FOX demagogues for a constant, spittle laced vilification of their ideological enemies. Sorry, but there's no substantial such propaganda apparatus that's the "other", to the Republican disparagement of non-Republicans. Equivalency is seen a weakness by the Talk Radio Project zealots, because it inflates their calculated divisiveness."

I can (psychologically) empathize with a coal miner's plight or a rural wage earner's difficulty as s/he faces huge adjustments to these changing times. I can (intellectually) rationalize that that individual must have felt slammed against the wall by our political dysfunction as they pulled the lever for the GOP. But I also realize that, after the past few decades of a GOP tax/finance/foreign policy untethered to fiscal responsibility, I can no longer justify anyone's vote for the GOP. I live in the ultimate border city, theoretically at the frontline of the immigration "problem" and the existing chasm b/t my understanding of this 21st century reality... and the GOP's is...well...unnerving. Why can we all not see that rural America's issues are really the same issues faced by our disadvantaged urban/coastal citizens? At some point, rural Americans will have to face the fact that many millions MORE of (legal) voters voted for the other party and understand why. I just hope the Dems, if given a chance at an undivided gov't, will remember those rural voters are not the enemy--in contrast to the current administration's appalling/vengeful treatment of 66 million Hillary voters.

The problem, you say, is with certain confused or anxious people who stereotype and/or caricature whole groups of people as "the other" in a kind of inverted form of identity politics in which individuals are automatically defined by their real or imagined group identity, and then attacked on ideological grounds because of this association. This seemingly intractable malady has different names (tribalism, racism, etc.) and causes, arising in political, religious, economic, and historical contexts. The United States is no exception to this state of affairs, but then, neither is anyone else the last time I looked. Fear, resentment, ignorance, and hatred are powerful forces everywhere; they have ancient roots; they are often manipulated for dark purposes. Keeping these forces in check is humanity's best guarantee for a livable future.

My particular background equips me to see both sides. I get exasperated with both sides, and I see where each side has points that are misunderstood. I see both sides being idiotic and pig-headed sometimes. I am related to people on both sides, I am friends with people on both sides. I don't know what to do about it. But it is tearing our country apart.

There will be no “conflict resolution” as long as our elected officials are raking in Koch money to defend whatever position they’re paid to hold. Overturn Citizen’s United and pass comprehensive campaign finance legislation. Then we can talk about resolution.

No thanks because our hatred of those racist trumpets is righteous and justified. Just ask Heather Heyer.

I don’t want to see a circle with a bunch of white liberals getting over their differences with white Trump supporters. There is nothing I or any person of color can gain from that process.

I try to read serious conservative columnists as much as I can. The hard core ideologues like Limbaugh are just closed minded; and the Tea Party is mostly ignorant ( “Government, Keep Your Damn Hands Off My Medicare!”). There is no point in getting into discussion with such people. Serious conservatives, though, have many important points. It must be admitted, however, that they would never concede the same about me. One point they are correct about, for example, has to do with climate change. They rightly point out that there is no officially known technology which can replace fossil fuels, and that none of the energy-saving strategies proposed by the Paris Accords etc are anywhere near comprehensive enough to impact climate change even slightly. Therefore such strategies should be dismissed. They are also undoubtedly right that too much regulation and too much Union power are very bad for a capitalist society. But they are just as surely wrong that unions and regulations should be eliminated. I can hear them. But they will not hear me. That’s is the central difference between left and right in America

“The goal was not to change minds, but to broaden them, by getting the participants to see one another as people.” Ok. So what happens next? When is it ok to change a person’s mind? Only during jury deliberation?

The article shares examples, but they are all one sided. Violence and race baiting has been the tactic of the far right since the civil war. Show me an angry mob of Progressives at a lynching and then we’ll talk.

I commend the word being done to help people break down barriers for communication, but I wonder how productive a conversation can be when one side believe in alternative facts. When one side believes in scientific research and the other relies on intuition, where is the common ground? We can’t agree to meet in the middle between evidenced based policies and fear based irrationality.

My personal experience is the opposite of this program’s hypothesis. The more I learn about, understand the motivations of, and interact with the Right, the more polarized and committed to their opposition I become.

It's hard to dismiss the importance of unifying politics because in its presence things are manageable, people aren't out to strangle each other, people can listen and make progress. But now we can see what happens in its absence, and it gets very ugly very quickly.

I am grateful to see this article. I am certainly one of the people who could benefit from this kind of dialogue. It is so easy for one's vision to be occluded by fear or ignorance. I strive to live in a manner that reflects an understanding that those whose views are so different from mine are still fully human, and to let go of the illusion of separateness that so fragments both myself and society. At the same time, I believe that the those who do not see others as equal in their humanity and deserving of the same care we all desire, are blinded by greed, anger, and ignorance. And: What a delightful surprise, to click on this article and see the photo of Paula Green, someone I met in 1985, when she generously hosted a number of women who were attending a teaching by HH The Dalai Lama in Amherst. I am grateful (and not surprised) that she is involved in this work, which sounds similar to work done by Joanna Macy since the late 1970's. As I strive to remember that those whose views are so different from mine are still fully human, to let go of the delusion of separateness that so fragments society, I still believe that the beliefs and actions of those whodo not see others as equal in their humanity and deserving of the same care

Making the United States a civilised country is not up for debate to me. Rigorous gun control, single-payer health care, withdrawing from foreign corporate profit wars, government-funded tuition are all starting points to begin to bring the U.S. into the pantheon of civilised nations. I would not speak with the Republican Kentuckians. This illustrates their mentality perfectly to me: a public health professor spoke with a group of rural citizens who were negatively impacted by environmental pollution and toxins, and noted the importance of smoking cessation to also reduce toxins in the bloodstream. They interpreted that as 'you are attacking me because I smoke and trying to make me not smoke and trying to tell me what to do'. That is what they concentrated on.

There are HUGE issues here in the US and elsewhere. Look at Europe. But here in the US I find the divide the deepest across nations. It is scary, it is sad, and it is lasting. I believe that it's social media that has been at the root of this divide, and even the NYTimes comment sections are in essence, social media. Happy to hear that some that are equipped are trying to help, but I feel as long as people can saw what they want to broad numbers of their followers, we will continue to sink. Identity politics is, I believe the outcome of social media, an outgrowth. Time to stop!!

Thanks for the opportunity to express my thoughts on the article. My wife and I recently saw Phantom of the Opera for the third time. I was struck by the resolution of the "conflict" between the phantom and the woman heightened by her lover's danger of being hung. In a deeply passionate moment, she was able to show she cared about the phantom and broke through his self-hatred. She thereby saved all three, herself, her lover and the phantom.

Curious to know if it was mostly the Massachusetts listeners who developed empathy, knowledge, and new perspectives, or if the Kentucky people did too.

We need this on a much larger scale and implemented EVERYWHERE! We also need this to go viral and be conducted not only in person but also on line, though I suspect the efficacy is reduced when the other person is not physically in the same space. Indeed, I wonder if this is a conscious effort to avoid using social media through screens as the vehicle for conducting the interaction. It would also be very helpful if the discussions themselves could be made available to others simply to allow people to see for themselves how such forums are conducted. We have very few examples of people acknowledging the other and discussing in a civil way what they agree and disagree on. This is not the type of sustained interaction that MSM has any interest in streaming/broadcasting. Paula Green's intuition is absolutely spot on and she deserves much credit for bringing this type of small group sustained and structured interactions to this society. It is vital and essential, and needs to be expanded throughout the country. It is also interesting that she did not express her thoughts on how the current reliance upon social media has greatly aggravated the dystopic trends that rightly concern her. The logistics of the event puzzle me, however. Why not find groups on both sides of the chasm who live a bit closer to each other? That would make it far easier to initiate and sustain this type of "forum for cohabitation in the same public space".

i would like to know if any of the Kentucky women ever had cause to use concealed guns?

I'm glad to see this, as well as similar efforts like the group Better Angels. It is plain to see that our country is on a dangerous path, with innovative approaches seeming increasingly necessary. As the commenter below said, however, there is the question of scale. If I were as wealthy as Zuckerberg or Gates, here's where I would invest a chunk of my fortune: in the hundreds of thousands of social workers in the U.S., and the hundreds of thousands more of other mental health professionals from psychologists to MFTs and LPCs. How much would it cost to tap into this wealth of knowledge and experience and direct these people's skills towards healing our country's wounds? Imagine if a quarter - even a tenth - of our nation's professional conflict-resolvers hosted weekly community building sessions like the ones mentioned in this article, in cities and towns all over our country. We could rediscover some shared values. Maybe even some mutual respect and humility. Perhaps we could even learn to work together to solve problems again and avoid the increasingly inevitable dysfunction and violence of our current path. I'm not sure what's more important than this. When you can see disaster coming, and you have the tools to change course, it seems foolish - not to mention tragic - not to try.

But what about when the other party really is evil? (Why does everybody assume this is impossible? Do they not remember the Nazi Party?)

The political parties (primarily the GOP) are responsible for the divisions in this country. Trump is the primary example of a careless ‘gatekeeper’ posture by the political parties. In the days past (up until 1968), the parties would never have allowed a Trump to get nominated or actually even be mentioned. Now, nobodies pop up without experience and get into our primaries with borrowed $ (available because of PAC’s sponsored by Citizen’s United funding) and push for nomination without any sound vetting of their abilities for the voters by the political parties who would be their standard bearers. This is a recipe for getting an Autocrat/Dictator in the White House next.

Great idea... but I don’t see one non-white person In the photograph of the discussion.

Everyone pictured in the round table appears to be white, how is this representative of the US? White people's willingness to see the world through other white people's eyes is not the soul-searching or breakthrough either of these two groups of people needs to make the country's future less violent than its past.

Something Andrew Solomon said is spot-on, "It is nearly impossible to hate anyone whose story you know."

Why did people vote for Trump? 1. He was not Hillary and people had been taught for 25 yrs. that the Clintons were evil. 2. Vicious rumors were spread about the Clintons and people accepted them, in whole. One was that they had transferred 1B$ from their foundation overseas so they would have money if she lost. Rumors have always been part of politics, but now they can be spread easily, far and wide. 3. They really didn't get the news about who and what Trump is as a "business person" and human being. They got the image of a television hero first and, with his strong, easy to understand way of speaking, that was enough. 4. The news about Trump's bankruptcies and other strange business practices came too late and were taken as "just another political attack" at that stage. 5. A very high percentage of Trump voters worship at Fox Noise daily and nightly. When driving about during the day, the AM radio band is saturated with "liberals are evil" talk radio. 6. The evangelicals threw their support to Trump, ignoring his moral character. They want to stop abortions to force women back into traditional, "Biblical" roles. Nothing else matters. 7. There has been too much social change too quickly for many to absorb. 8. The opioid epidemic and other drugs are ripping rural places. 9. With men making less money, marriages are crumbling. 10. The Great Recession hurt millions and Trump allowed them expression. Still, more people, 11 million, voted against Trump than for him.

"The people from Leverett believed they were safer when no one had [a gun]. The Kentuckians believed they were safer when everyone did." Listening to each other is laudable, but only one of these beliefs is factual.

I found this fascinating and to some degree encouraging, but I am still at a loss to understand, which goes along with having read four of the six books that the NYT recommended after the 2016 election to explain what had happened - I still don't. My question though comes down to how one resolves understanidng an individual that you have known for 40+ years, who you travelled with and spent time with and who over the last 10 years or so have found yourself gradually losing respect for and then you find out voted for the Grifter-in-Chief when it was all out there? I just don't see how learning about her extended family, she never married, who I know well and have seen grow up will resolve my total disgust. i really want nothing to do with her. It is not like her vote put the Grifter in office, but she is my wife's BFF, and can be the elephant-in-the-room.

One person said this: "‘Stupid’ was the adjective I used,” he said, explaining his early thinking. "He wrote in an email that he wanted to understand “how rural white voters could possibly support such a vulgar, dystopian presidential candidate,” language he says he now regrets." I don't think it's a question of just tearing into Trump. It requires a different take. For example, I notice that climate change - an extremely important issue - was totally ignored. While discussing their families, did no one think to bring up the fact that their children and grandchildren will face a much harsher planet? Or did the panel of experts think it was too divisive so it shouldn't be brought up? How can it not be stupid that people don't believe what 99% of climatologists say? (It's no longer 97%.) I fail to see how "listening to others" on this subject could cause anyone to say "I understand you don't believe in climate change, so now I don't think you're stupid any more." To the experts: next time, bring up global warming and see how "understanding" people really are.

"helping them see past their differences so they can live with one another again." Sorry but we educated Americans want nothing whatsoever to do with racist, sexist, xenophobic, alt klux klanners, neo-nazis, gun fetishists, russian colluders...aka republicans. Wring your hands all you want Mrs. Green but appeasing trash is what gave us World War II and the Holocaust and we clean educated Americans simply will not be part of normalizing trump or the pathetic, gun toting, insolvent racist losers who support him. We are done with the likes of ted nugent and his draft dodging president. Live with sean hannity, trump and his fans?!? Grow up Mrs. Green.

A lot of us have ideas that fit in boxes of several different colors. It matters to understand where someone is coming from and what they value. It stops conversation to assume the other person is stupid or evil. I was very, very disappointed that so many of my neighbors voted for our current president. I wish they had heard more in the media about his habit of corrupt business practices. I wish McConnell hadn’t covered up the Russian interference. But most of my neighbors voted to affirm their party and their stated values (guns and pro-life and personal responsibility). They were well intentioned. They don’t deserve to be demonized. Where I live, a lot of the ladies have a pistol in their purse. They are never ever ever going to need to use it. Who knows—maybe it helps that all the criminals know that Granny may be packin’. Can we let Granny carry as long as she has a background check and a child safety lock? Find common ground.

I don't mean to be cynical, but what exactly did the exercise accomplish? I am from New England, but now live in central KY, which isn't nearly as conservative as the eastern part of the state. When I was a working journalist, I lived in Louisville, and was hired to do a report on marijuana growing in eastern KY, by NPR. My friends in Louisville were shocked that I would travel to eastern part of the state alone, to talk about drugs. They feared for my life. The folks I met in Oneida, KY were kind, and forth coming in interviews. But they asked me if I was scared to live in Louisville, with all of its crime. Personally, I thought both sides were crazy, as I never viewed Louisville or eastern KY as dangerous. But clearly, both sides feared each other.

I can find no common ground with folks who defend nazis, cage children, attack the poor, as they enrich the filthy rich, collude with russia, chant "lock her up" at a woman who has not only never been convicted of a crime but has never even been charged with one. Sorry but doing so smacks of appeasement and the last time we did that, nazis murdered 6 million Jews and tens of thousands of US and ally soldiers. Sorry Mrs. Green but reconcile with that crowd? Not on your life.

I like the concept but it seems that all guns should be checked at the door. Furthermore, setting up a binary situation where people are seen as a red team member or a blue team member erases what they might have in common. Some of us have ideas that are in both camps and we can't all be put in a red or blue box.

Sounds nice. Problem is it’s not scalable. What is scalable? Divisive political campaigns, partisan cable news, and social media.

I'm one who thinks he likes to listen and understand, but if you tell me most of the people in the room are packing heat, I'm outa there. That's just not a soft place for hard conversations.

This article is a good argument for not engaging in these kinds of exchanges online or on twitter--if it's this difficult to overcome our prejudices in person. . .

This article gives me hope.

“People are realizing we are not as exceptional as we thought,” Ms. Hume said of the United States. Exceptional? We’ve got a lot of work to get to average, look only to democracy ranking article in today’s NYT dropping us below Latvia.