At last week's DNC convention, many speakers emphasized the need to build bridges across policy and party divides. This message aligns with a core belief of Cohesion Strategy — that our nation’s diversity is one of our greatest strengths—but only when it is intentionally and thoughtfully engaged.
At the same time speakers last week uplifted the need for bridging, they also emphasized the need for changing policies, activism, and social change. It’s no secret that bridgers and activists take different approaches, and that these can sometimes be at odds with each other.
This begs the question: Are bridging work and activism antithetical?
Many would have you believe the answer is yes, suggesting that efforts to connect across divides could dilute the intensity of advocacy work. But the truth is, activism needs bridging, and bridging needs activism. In today’s polarized political climate, where these two approaches are often viewed as opposing forces, it's more important than ever to see how these approaches complement each other, correcting for the other’s shortcomings. These two approaches must work together to be truly effective.
I’ve previously written about this topic and spoke about it at a recent webinar:
Activist movements can be generative spaces for envisioning new and more positive ways of being in community. They can also be effective tools for policy change. However, activism, when pursued in isolation, is unlikely to lead to long-term change. In our deeply divided electorate, relying solely on activism can result in flip-flopping policies that shift as different parties come into and leave power. Activists may find that their hard-won gains are rolled back in a matter of months or years because they lacked the broad coalitions necessary for lasting change.
On the other hand, bridging initiatives, when done right, can expand the reach of creative ideas and offer space for iteration, collaboration, and the democratic practice of negotiation. Policies supported by broad, bipartisan coalitions are more likely to withstand political shifts and survive future election cycles. Bridging efforts also foster relationships, which are the real foundation for enduring success.
That said, there are real tensions between the approaches. In some cases, bridging strategies can undermine activist efforts, a reality bridgers need to attend to and correct. And in order to think creatively about new possibilities—which is the brilliance of activist movements—activists can’t be asked to tie themselves to someone else’s idea of a middle ground.
To succeed in creating and sustaining a thriving democracy that honors all participants, we really do need both sets of strategies and all the tension between them. But bridging and activist strategies can also function collaboratively.
So, what kind of organizations can we look to as examples of how activism and bridging can work together?
Multi-Faith Organizations: A Model for Success
Multi-faith organizations intentionally include, partner with, and bring together institutions and individuals with differing theologies, traditions, and cultures. They often embrace ideological diversity within their membership, allowing them to practice a kind of together that mitigates some of the risks of other bridging efforts. They also tolerate disagreement, shatter typical binaries, manage shifting alliances, foster local relationships, and extend their influence broadly.
These six strategies are key to ensuring that bridging and activism work complement rather than undermine each other. I dive into each strategy in depth in an upcoming Foundation Review article, “Advocacy and Bridging Strategies are Failing on their Own - Multi-Faith Orgs Embody Six Solutions for a Pluralistic Democracy,” which will be out in October.
In many ways, multi-faith organizations are a microcosm of society. They can teach us how to navigate the most challenging political and identity-based differences. They can demonstrate how bridging and activism are able to coalesce in ways that reduce animosity and create meaningful political progress.
Despite their effectiveness, they are often overlooked by politicians, society, and funders. In a time when both activism and bridging are needed more than ever, we should be spotlighting our most effective multi-faith organizations and their leaders, not letting them fall to the side. One example is Together West Michigan, a broad-based organizing group based in Grand Rapids that organizes religiously, politically, and racially diverse communities toward shared goals like expanding quality childcare. By doing so, we can create the kind of change that not only endures but also brings us closer together.
Our society stands at a crossroads, and the path forward lies in embracing both activism and bridging—not as competing forces but as complementary approaches. Let's work to uplift those who understand how to bring people together, even amid our most profound differences.
Get in touch with me to learn more about how your organization can get started today!
Comentarios