26 Lessons for 2026 - Part II

A healthy, functioning, truly representative democratic system of government that supports thriving communities does notrequire everyone to become an activist or policy expert. As Mike Kenig and I outlined in our overview of the current movements, the answer to “What can I do?” is to contribute what you can of your 3Ts: time, talent, or treasure.

“Time” is volunteering in all the ways that can mean, such as making phone calls to help coordinate logistics, showing up in person, driving people to a larger gathering… you get the idea.

“Talent” means contributing a particular skill set, like cooking for people who need meals, helping a nonprofit set up their website, supporting project management, being the group videographer or photographer… the list goes on, and includes delightful examples of craftivism, like MWEG’s Peace by Piece project. 

“Treasure” means funding. Big or small, your donations MATTER. This is particularly important these days as cuts in funding have hamstrung many organizations.

Not everyone has all three Ts to give. And among the three, what you have may vary over the course of your life and career. For example, the way a parent of four young kids contributes looks different than that of a college student on summer break, which looks different than that of someone recently retired from a long career with specific skill sets.

Do what you can at the level of generosity and safety that feels right to you.

Across conferences and conversations this year, a critique came up often: how quickly people on a particular side “eat their own.” If that sounds revolting, good. It is.

The phrase referenced the bad habit of expecting everyone in a movement to hold exactly the same beliefs, use the same language, or agree with every position without question – i.e., ideological purity.

I see ideological purity as the “shadow side” of belonging. After all, it’s comfortable to be among people who are just like us, right? While our intent is to create spaces where everyone belongs, we can fall into practices that look a lot like “us v. them” in impact.

Lest I sound like I’m preaching from a soapbox, let me be vulnerable here for a sec: I cringe to think of the times I’ve told my own parents, “We don’t say that anymore.” Or “the right way to see this is…”

Yikes. Younger me turned conversations with my own family into a test they were afraid to fail. Thankfully, I’ve matured and we have healthy conversations now. I maintain that words matter and being able to see an array of perspectives is important. But if using a “wrong” or outdated word or venturing outside a narrow range of “acceptable” perspectives gets us thrown off the island, well, it’s going to be a sparsely populated island.

Put another way, some ideas can’t co-exist.

Valuing differences in our experiences, backgrounds, identities, and resulting perspectives doesn’t jive with operating as if there’s only one “correct” way to think, talk, or act politically. Folks join the pro-democracy movement at different stages of learning, come from different communities, and thus bring different perspectives – and that’s a good thing!

The goal isn’t to create a club of perfectly like-minded individuals; our goal is a broad, resilient coalition capable of making meaningful change together.

Or as Charles Leiske eloquently put it in a recent gathering of Better Together America hubs, “We’re in this for the long haul. Let go of some words and see the big picture.”

In our ComNet panel, Sandra Brownrigg shared the story of how Braver Angels’ CEO Maury Giles connected with thousands of people by starting with only seven. In the aftermath of the murder of Charlie Kirk, Maury contacted seven people to inform a response. In mere days, those seven put together an online gathering that drew hundreds who, in turn, reached thousands. The response ultimately contributed to conversations on Capitol Hill that prompted a powerful statement from the Problem Solvers Caucus.

Individually, we may feel small. But just as the largest quilt is made from countless individual threads, so too is our social fabric woven by countless individual people.

Change often begins with small (and sometimes imperfect) steps. Each small step can build skills, confidence, and networks that prepare people to take on larger challenges. They also create visible signs of engagement that encourage others who may feel isolated or powerless.

Individual contributions – a conversation, a letter to the editor, a cancellation of a subscription – may seem small, but repeated across many hands, they shift the fabric of public norms and expectations.

Never underestimate what one person – including you – can set into motion

In talking about the importance of metrics in our webinar series last year, Seth Turner quoted a movie whose name I’ve now forgotten but whose line I’ll never forget: “If you go with your gut, you have sh!t for brains.”

In recent years, a wider array of organizations have come to recognize the importance of data. Research ensures we don’t mistake our assumptions for reality, which is increasingly important in an era where our “multiple realities barely intersect,” as Mike Allen of Axios recently shared with AMPAC members. That’s true for all of us, including those working to bridge divides and seeking to understand those multiple realities.

At the same time, research is a tool, not a dictator of strategy. As we continue to collect helpful data – including data that shows we are less divided than we think we are! - it’s important to use that data as one part of a larger conversation about strategy. Being “data-informed” means letting research guide us without letting numbers overshadow nuance.

To sum up this section: Fewer herds, more trees.

In a powerful conversation at NCoC, Gary Bass of GDP Consulting, Kumar Garg of Renaissance Philanthropy, Kathryn Peters of NewProfit, and Wafa Ben-Hassine of Omidyar underscored how civic work requires upfront investment, followed by patience and ongoing courage to stick with a strategy long enough to see meaningful change.

Supporting civic engagement is not “crawl-walk-run,” they explained; it is “commit-grow-sustain.”

With sighs of exasperation, they lamented how funders “move in herds,” shifting priorities too quickly to allow long-term work to take root. What an appropriate metaphor for an approach I’d hear a few months later from Bobby Milstein of Rippel Foundation! Bobby told us about Pando Funding, named after the Pando Grove in Utah. That connected grove of 47,000 “quaking aspens” is one of the earth’s oldest and largest living organisms. (I encourage you to read more here.) 

The Pando Funding approach recognizes key concerns about philanthropy that came up repeatedly in conversations this year, including:

• We need to fund urgent work, not just the emergency work.

• Funders should be partners, not just checkbooks.

• We need infrastructure, not just projects.

• That infrastructure can seem invisible, but it’s absolutely essential.

Inter-movement coordination, data systems, measurement and evaluation tools, and the like are unglamorous, but without them, we’re fragmented and won’t realize our full potential. Short-term outputs and deliverables may feel satisfying in the short-term, but we need durability and resilience.

The Pando approach is a win for everyone, including funders. Staying involved means understanding the nature of the work, becoming a champion (not a source of stress. (link to NonprofitAF)), and funding real, sustainable, and meaningful change.

Think in decades, not election cycles… which brings me to #19...

If I had a dollar for the number of times this theme came up, then multiplied those dollars by the number of decibels people pleaded, “REMEMBER THAT DEMOCRACY IS MORE THAN ELECTIONS,” I’d fund learning community scholarships for decades to come.

On one hand, it’s understandable that elections spring to mind in conversations about democracy. Just look at imagery, education, and our attention spans: democracy is often depicted by a ballot box. For too many, civic education starts and stops with participating in elections. And with all that’s competing for our attention these days, presidential elections every four years are one of the few things that gain widespread attention.

But to those funding this work, you know better. You know that supporting voting access is essential, but not sufficient.

Voting selects leaders on election days.

Democracy is every day - 24/7/365 (+ 1 on leap years).

Democracy is the ongoing strengthening of communities and institutions, which depends on how actively people stay engaged between elections.

Democracy depends on an active and attentive public that cares about and is informed on issues, policies, laws, and systems that affect everyone.

Democracy needs all four Bs – Block, Bridge, Build, and Belong – and the 12.5K+ organizations doing the extensive work associated with each of those four Bs and organizations and coalitions ensuring interconnectedness all need funding to operate.

There are risks to working in any of those four areas, which brings me to #20….

The work of civic engagement can be dangerous. People face doxing, online and in-person harassment, being targeted on dating sites, and sometimes weapons in the room. Even a civic town hall on the issue of helping people who don’t have a place to live isn’t immune from threats of violence.

Unfortunately, many organizations are still wrestling to fund basic operations. Sure, programming seems more exciting than salaries, but as much as we believe in our missions, we cannot pay bills with the moral clarity of living on the right side of history alone.

Which means it may seem like a stretch to say that in addition to an income that covers cost of living, organizations should also be able to protect those they employ and serve. But I agree with Sofi Hersher Andorsky that organizations in this space should offer safety, including digital safety, as an HR benefit, which means those funding this work need to support them in doing so.

A healthy democracy protects its guardians.

(Sofi mentioned many helpful resources, including Delete me, Kanary, and Tall Poppy. I wasn't able to find a working link to the third, though it's mentioned by the Coalition Against Online Violence. Are there more you’d add to this list? Let me know and I’ll update it.)

I note in #18 the importance of investing in movement infrastructure. At the same time that we need overarching support, we must must must engage and support people locally.

A survey of many pro-democracy organizations revealed that their communications shops spend most of their time talking to “elites” – i.e., elected officials, subject matter experts, etc. - while failing to reach the general public. Yikes. BIG yikes.

Just yesterday, a fellow bridge builder remarked how she is the only person many of her friends know in the pro-democracy movement. We agreed that the work underway has buoyed our spirits this year, and how disheartening the world would seem if we didn’t know about the movement to fix what’s broken. Unfortunately, many people don’t.

That’s something Stories Change Power aims to remedy in our monthly webinar series, and we'll specifically kick off 2026 with Cristin Brawner, Executive Director of the National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI), sharing a toolkit for people wanting to address a challenge or build on an opportunity in their neighborhoods, communities, classrooms, and beyond.

Beyond better communication, we collectively need local capacity. Yes, we live in one country, but much of our lives is decentralized; even as national politics takes up oxygen, we live at the local level, and need healthy local government, local news coverage, local conversations, and local civic engagement.

As Valerie Lemming of the Kettering Foundation summarized:

That starts with better communication, yes, and we also need local capacity. That means investing in work that encourages proximity, connection, collaboration, and supporting new leaders. As I’ve seen through our work with Braver Angels’ Citizen-Led Solutions, local communities are our “frontlines” and funders need to ensure funding is there.

And as you make that investment, keep in mind…

Solutions created with people, not for them, are the ones that last. Communities know what they need, which underscores the need to involve people from across a community in this work of civic engagement. Wide involvement requires building trust and, as Bryna Lipper of the Humbolt Area Foundation + Wild Rivers Community Foundation emphasized at NCoC, “trust takes time.” (If this sounds hard, revisit #4.)

Along the way, community involvement is often messy and inefficient – even as it’s vitally important. In the midst of urgency and desire to scale, involvement needs to be accessible and flexible (which many noted underscores the need for community foundations to be involved).

As the saying goes, “many hands make light work” – but that saying misses how complicated involving all of those hands can be. I smile when I remember my grandmother trying to ensure all hands in her kitchen did the work exactly as she would. Needless to say, that level of control was impossible – and guess what? An entire meal still reached the table and nourished everyone, even if each dish differed depending on who prepared it.

Local leadership rarely looks “professional,” and that’s to be expected. As Valerie Lemming from Kettering reminded us at NCoC, any expectation that community members be as efficient and effective as professionals is “ridiculous.”

Which brings us to #23…

“Top down” doesn’t work and “bottom up” doesn’t scale. We need both, David Eisner reminded us at NCoC in explaining a key element of Braver Angels’ Citizen-Led Solutions initiative:

"Experts on tap, not on top."

This phrase captures a simple but powerful truth: expertise should serve communities, not dominate them. Too often, public processes are designed so that technical experts set the agenda, define the problems, and prescribe the solutions, leaving space for community members only at the margins, if at all.

When experts are instead “on tap,” their skills and insights are available as resources, helping communities understand trade-offs and navigate complexity, without overruling the voices of those most affected by the decisions. Experts provide data, explain consequences, and offer evidence-based options that people outside of their field wouldn’t otherwise know, but need in order to make informed decisions.

Having experts as partners, not dictators, builds trust and leads to better outcomes. A recent model civic assembly in Culver City, CA exemplifies how experts can “level the playing field” for community members to fully participate and genuinely shape decisions:

(By year’s end, we’ll have another inspiring example, this one from New Jersey, in the Citizen-Led Solutions playlist.)

What’s more, this approach has the potential to repair trust in experts at a time when higher education and professional knowledge are increasingly portrayed as elitist or disconnected from everyday life. When people encounter experts – Citizen Professionals - who listen, explain clearly, and respect community knowledge, expertise becomes less about status and more about service and expanding opportunity. This isn’t learning versus lived experience – it’s both.

I regret to have forgotten which speaker defined trust in science as "the belief that knowledge of the world can be produced by a largely invisible network of individuals and institutions." I’d not thought of it that way before, but would you agree that description makes disbelief less incredible?

As our social media feeds are awash in mis- and dis-information, and people turn to artificial intelligence for answers, “experts on tap” can simultaneously boost civic outcomes and repair trust in scientific and civic institutions.

How many of you reading this in December 2025 feel exhausted? Civic engagement is hard work, as is the work of promoting civic engagement. As we reach the end of the year, everyone I’ve talked to is scrambling to finish proposals, racing to update reports, or sweating over end-of-year fundraising.

All this, even as we know the that the best way to get people to join something is to make it:

Fun. Easy. Popular.

Or to sum that up in one aspirational word fitting of this time of year: JOY.

Joy is an overlooked but powerful civic tool. Particularly when life can feel heavy, divisive, or exhausting, we need moments of joy to encourage people to show up and stay engaged. That can be a shared meal, like Longest Table, or meals with storytelling, like Community Plate, or music, like Braver Music.

Humor… celebration… don’t you feel lighter just reading those words??

Making things fun lowers barriers to participation, making civic spaces more welcoming and human, especially for those who have felt shut out or burned out by traditional processes.

Joy also reminds us civic life is not only about solving problems, but about building relationships and a sense of belonging. When people experience joy together, they are more likely to trust one another, imagine possibilities beyond the status quo, and sustain the long-term work of collective self-governance.

I admire Leslie Garvin of NC Campus Engagement for making civic joy a priority in North Carolina. And I tip my hat to Ken Powley and the team at Team Democracy for recognizing fun is not frivolous - it fuels belonging, as Ken described in our recent webinar:  

As you think about the work to be done in 2026, I’d also love to hear how you’re making room for joy.

If you rolled your eyes at the mention of joy, you may be tempted to do the same at the mention of art. As a former lawyer, I also used to think logic ruled the world, but that was before a documentary film and local theater changed the course of my life, so hear me out:

Art helps people see one another, our shared challenges, and shared humanity with fresh eyes. Be it murals, performances, videos, or music, art creates entry points into public life that far transcend policy language and political labels.

As several artists proved at the ListenFirst gathering, art lowers the barrier to relationship. As Sage Snider from Braver Music explained, you don’t need to argue in music. As Steven Olikara of Bridge Entertainment Labs noted, there’s no point arguing in a dark theater. And as Jon Adam Ross of Inheritance Theater demonstrated, participatory theater is a dress rehearsal for participatory democracy; these are spaces where we create something new together.

While debate often entrenches us; art opens us. Art can surface emotions, histories, and perspectives that are often left out of formal civic processes. Art, particularly storytelling, can make space for empathy and dialogue across difference. Along with participation, we need to invite reflection and imagination, and art does that beautifully.

Until this year, I’d not fully appreciated what it meant that the arts sector was one of the only major sectors not bailed out during COVID, despite being vital to our civic resilience. That means I’m taking seriously the current consolidation in the entertainment sector, as well as impacts on media. These streaming and broadcasting mergers aren’t just massive deals and funding shifts aren’t just massive cuts.

Investing in art – like investing in access to information - is investing in connection, imagination, and opportunity. Do we want a small handful of companies to control content, distribution, and technology – i.e., what we watch, hear, and share? Or do we want space for creativity, for local context, and for us to see ourselves reflected?

Would you be surprised to hear there are actually many things we agree upon across the country and across political lines? It's true, but that fact runs counter to competing and polarized narratives that distort our reality and threaten our shared future. We may hope “our side” will win the current narrative wars, but the truth is we’re all losing - even the conflict entrepreneurs.

Stories and narratives determine how we understand the world and our place in it. They shape democracy by defining who belongs, whose voices matter, and what change feels possible – or completely unfathomable. Are we telling ourselves that elected officials have all the power and we have none? Do we see civic engagement as something that requires infinite time and technical exercise? Or do we recognize our role, our power, and our ability to participate as part of everyday life?

As we enter 2026, I’m focused on our next 250 years and how we need an honest, inclusive, and unifying national narrative that moves us from merely surviving to thriving together without exception. Such a narrative can expand what’s possible and, by intentionally elevating stories within that narrative that emphasize connection, responsibility, and possibility, we can shift from being observers of democracy (and attacks upon it) to being active authors of its ongoing story.

Let's make the most of 2026 together.

If you'd like to learn more about using the power of narrative and story, join us for any combination of Storytelling 101, Ethical Storytelling, and Storytelling to Bridge Divides that's right for you, or get in touch to talk about the ways we can support you and your team.