Bridging America’s Middle: Contempt, Connection & Hope

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/14

Dr. Beth Malow is a Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics at Vanderbilt University, a sleep specialist, and science communicator. She co-authored Beyond the Politics of Contempt and volunteers with Braver Angels. Her work spans sleep medicine, autism, and community bridge-building, including workshops that foster listening, curiosity, and practical civic skills.

Doug Teschner is a leadership coach and former New Hampshire state legislator, founder of Growing Leadership LLC, and a Braver Angels regional leader. He co-authored Beyond the Politics of Contempt and promotes bipartisan trust-building. His work draws on public service, Peace Corps experience, and practical tools for renewing civic relationships. 

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Teschner and Malow argue that America’s real majority is the “exhausted” middle, not the loud extremes. They define contempt as dehumanization, warn about doomscrolling’s toll on sleep and civic life, and champion Braver Angels skills. Their book and Substack offer practical bridge building, emphasizing local projects that rebuild social capital and trust. They urge listening first, slowing reactions, and taking conversations offline. Examples include choirs, service builds, and transportation initiatives that unite diverse neighbors. The goal is courageous, curious dialogue that preserves activism while lowering temperature and countering conflict entrepreneurs. Moving from an “I” society to “we.”

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for joining me today. What inspired you to identify and focus on the two-thirds of Americans who fall outside ideological extremes?

Doug Teschner: Well, we’re appealing to all Americans, but it’s important to understand that those on the extremes are driving much of the conversation. Our concern is: where is our country headed? Where are we going? I just saw a poll indicating that about 23% of Americans think it might require violence to get our country back on track. These are our concerns. We’re truly worried about our country.

Beth Malow: We feel that the middle has been considered the “exhausted majority.” There are more of us than the media may make it seem. The media sometimes—and I don’t want to bash the media, that’s important to me—but certainly social media and some aspects of traditional media give the impression that most of the population is on one extreme or another. That’s simply not true. I’ve heard estimates that roughly two-thirds of Americans are in this middle group, often called the “Exhausted Majority,” with the ideological wings totaling on the order of the low-to-mid teens rather than most people. So we see that as an important audience for us. That said, we feel strongly that there’s nothing wrong with being politically on the left or on the right. The key is recognizing that demonizing the other side will not accomplish anything for our country. We wrote our book to convey that message: how do you work with your friends, relatives, and neighbors in positive, productive ways?

Jacobsen: In relationship and marriage studies, the most prominent researchers are the Gottmans. They have over four decades of research on this topic. One of the biggest warning signs—the flashing red light—is the emotion and expression of contempt, which predicts the breakdown of a relationship, partnership, or marriage. How are you defining contempt, and why is it such an important focus when discussing politics, polarization, and the cultural health of American society?

Teschner: Contempt, of course, is part of the title of our book. It’s an important word, and we quote the Gottmans. We’re familiar with their research. The key for us is that people can disagree—and should disagree. People should debate their positions and advocate strongly for what they believe in. But we cross a line when we dehumanize people—when we say they’re not worthy. That’s very dangerous. When we think about people who don’t agree with us, fine, disagree—but don’t use contempt. We need to examine what we believe in our own hearts that’s driving us apart.

Malow: We gave a lot of thought to our title. I initially wanted to call it From Conflict to Connection, but Doug pushed for the word Contempt. It turned out to be a great decision. When people see that word, they immediately understand. I was at a book fair, and people would walk by, see the title, and say, “Yes, we need to do something about this contempt.” It’s poisoning our relationships. It’s making everyone stressed out. I’m a neurology sleep doctor, and people are literally losing sleep over this contempt. I hope that helps, Scott, in terms of how we define it.

Jacobsen: Maybe that could also be a sociological analysis of sleep. Do societies experiencing cultural stress during election periods have worsening sleep issues across the population? Could that be a factor that exacerbates contempt in politics?

Malow: I’m going to be honest and say I haven’t thought about that. I should, and I will. I’m really glad you brought it up. What I will say is that in my practice and in my research, we know that social media—and the doomscrolling that so many people are doing right now—truly affects their ability to sleep. It’s a huge contributor. One of the first things I tell people is to get off their phones before bed. Make sure your kids are getting off their phones too, because otherwise we become a nation of doomscrollers. It affects both our mental health, as Doug said, and our sleep.

Teschner: We’re all suffering from conflict entrepreneurs—people who are trying to push us apart. We use a graphic of a crocodile trying to eat the American flag. These are people profiting by dividing us. We’re not as divided as we think we are. If we get out of our silos and really talk to people, it’s ironic—people have so many so-called friends, but we tend to operate within our own ways of thinking, in our own tribes, as some say. This is a real concern. 

Jacobsen: We’ve gone from a model of friends as companions to friends as avatars. What is the importance of self-awareness and emotional self-regulation when politics comes up?

Malow: I’ll take that one. We have to start with ourselves. Self-awareness and self-regulation not only help our mental health, they help us respond when something triggers us—maybe a Facebook post or something we hear on the news. We recommend taking a breath and slowing your thinking down. There’s wonderful work about processing—Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman and others—that focuses on the instinctive part of our brains that reacts, and the contemplative part that pauses and reflects. We want people to think first and pause before sharing something on social media that angers or incites them, or simply signals, “This is what my tribe thinks.”

Teschner: People also really need hope. That’s a key theme in our book. There’s a lot of despair tied to doomscrolling and similar habits. But there are practical things we discuss—steps you can take to improve your mental health and strengthen relationships. So many people are struggling with political divides, even within families. You can be an activist, you can advocate, but do it in a way that builds bridges. There are ways to engage without retreating into your own bubble. This book is meant to be hopeful and give people tools to address these problems constructively.

Malow: I just want to touch on that activist and bridge-building theme. It’s very important to me as someone who leans left. I fully support activism and peaceful protest, but I don’t think that’s incompatible with talking to your neighbor who might have voted differently or holds a different view on immigration, abortion, or climate change. They’re compatible because if you truly want to understand someone and where they’re coming from, curiosity and empathy are invaluable. Those same skills help you when you try to persuade them—say, about taking a certain stance on climate change. Activism and bridge-building together are a winning combination, and that’s something we really wanted to emphasize in the book.

Teschner: People can also reach out and connect with others who are interested in this work. For instance, Braver Angels, the national organization we’re involved with, offers many free workshops. You can feel better about yourself by taking small steps, learning, and preparing for these kinds of challenges. 

Jacobsen: How should someone self-regulate, in a practical sense, when they present their views—politically, socially, or otherwise—and someone misreads them based on prior assumptions? Often the response is accusatory, imputing positions the person doesn’t hold at all. How does one respectfully rebut that? It can happen in many ways. Someone might post something, and instead of addressing it, the reply becomes “What about this?” or “What about that?”—classic whataboutism. How can a person recenter the conversation, focus on the dignity of others, and express that they don’t feel heard? It’s a combination of skills. What do you think are proactive ways to do that?

Malow: If I can clarify, Scott—when you say they don’t feel they’re being heard, do you mean the person trying to respond or the person making the accusation?

Jacobsen: The person making the accusation. And it doesn’t have to border on an epithet. It could simply be that they’re imputing a position the person doesn’t hold.

Beth Malow: Let me take that. We teach these skills in Braver Angels, and we actually have an online workshop on social media. That said, my preference is always to take these conversations off social media. What we teach—and why one-on-one may be more effective than public online exchanges—is that you first want to listen to understand. If you feel strongly about an issue, it’s much easier for me to share why I feel the way I do if you believe I’ve heard and understood you. You may say the most inflammatory thing, but if I can diffuse it and show that I hear you, that I get where you’re coming from—even if I don’t agree—I can ask questions of curiosity. For example, “Scott, tell me how you came to believe that.” Once you connect with someone that way and they feel heard, they’re far more likely to listen in return. Now, that doesn’t always work on social media; you’ve got everyone’s friends jumping in, and it can turn ugly fast. But in a one-on-one conversation, I feel like I can talk with anyone—anyone—and have a civil discussion. The key is to connect first and make sure the other person feels heard, even if you don’t agree.

Teschner: I’d add that when you get into these difficult situations, you have choices. One is to fight—argue it out—and usually nobody walks away satisfied. Another is flight—just leave the room, which isn’t satisfying either. Then there’s avoidance—keeping quiet but feeling irritated. What we emphasize instead are courageous conversations: using skills that require curiosity, active listening, and humility. It’s a rare, almost lost art. You’re never going to convince someone to consider your view unless you truly listen to them and show genuine curiosity. They might not change their mind—but they might. And you have to be open to the possibility that your own opinion could shift too.

Jacobsen: Is American society a lower-trust society now? 

Teschner: Absolutely. We’ve seen compelling research—Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone documents the decline of social capital, civic participation, and community institutions such as churches, bowling leagues, and Rotary clubs. He also examined historical data, noting that during the Gilded Age in the late 1800s, social trust fell sharply, followed by an upswing until around 1960. Since then, we’ve shifted from a “we” society to an “I” society, marked by declining trust. We need a new upswing—one built on reconnection and renewed trust. People are deeply distrustful; surveys show rising suspicion even toward neighbors. It’s not limited to politics—just look at the aggression on highways, the road rage, even shootings. We need to look inward, be self-reflective, and show small acts of kindness to rebuild that trust.

I’m a big solutions person. One of the Braver Angels solutions we really embrace—and discuss in a full chapter of the book—is coming together in your communities with people who may be different from you. They may have voted differently, belong to another religion or race, or come from a different socioeconomic background. It might be singing in a chorus, building a house, or working on a local issue like transportation. It’s powerful because you’re not only accomplishing something together, you’re also building trust. The byproduct is social capital—the kind Robert Putnam talks about—that sense of we can work together, we can make a difference. I think there’s real hope in that.

Jacobsen: Any final quotes you’d like to include?

Teschner: The work of the book is ongoing, and we have a free newsletter on Substack. If your readers are familiar with that, they can get an email every week. For example, I just put one out this morning about my experience exhibiting books in Nashville, Tennessee, while a “No Kings Rally” was happening nearby. The themes and ideas in our book—activism, bridge building, mental health, escaping doomscrolling, and building local community—are timeless, at least for now. I’d love for them to become irrelevant someday, but I don’t think that’s happening soon. We expand on these topics weekly in our Substack, Together Across Differences, at togethernow.substack.com. It’s free, and readers can interact with us, leave comments, and continue the conversation.

Hope is possible. You can take small, specific actions—the book outlines many. I’d like to close with a quote from Edith Wharton: “Life is always a tightrope or a featherbed. Give me the tightrope.” Yes, this is hard, but it doesn’t have to be that hard. Little steps, little things you can do. Or another favorite from John Shedd: “A ship in harbor is safe, but that’s not what ships are built for.” You can act, you can do things, and you’ll feel better about yourself. The book offers very specific, doable ways to start.

Malow: Mine is: “Be kind to everyone; you never know what they’re going through,” by Ian McLaren. It’s on my bulletin board. You really never know, and kindness can ripple outward. One conversation may seem small, but it could profoundly affect how someone treats others. That ripple can become a wave.

Jacobsen: Beth, Doug—thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.

Malow: You’re so welcome. Thank you, Scott.

Teschner: Thank you, Scott. It’s been a great conversation.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.