A Different Kind of Power: How Authentic Relational Conversations Lay the Groundwork for Democratic Renewal
Illustration by Rima Lyma
Introduction
Idaho is a state that serves as a powerful example of how authoritarian populism has grown in the United States. Largely rural and conservative, communities across Idaho—like many other rural and conservative states across the United States—have been strategically targeted by anti-democratic and far-right extremist groups (1). Capitalizing on the pain of communities exploited and abandoned by systems that have failed them, authoritarian populist actors have successfully positioned their worldview as a viable antidote to the suffocating reality of many rural communities. Authoritarian populist actors have increasingly won footholds of power in the state legislature, reflecting a decades-long far-right strategy to target Idaho and other historically conservative and rural states as testing grounds for their extremist ideologies to be spread (2).
By contrast, progressive social change movements have largely ignored rural communities, long considered too conservative to be worth engaging. While nearly one-in-five Americans are rural, less than 7% of philanthropic dollars are directed to rural communities—and only a fraction of that supports community organizing efforts (3). Progressive organizing in the United States in the post-Civil Rights Movement era has largely prioritized engagement with “moveable” demographics based on perceptions of persuadability. Despite the level of institutional and financial investment in this approach, in 2024 President Donald Trump increased his vote margin in every state, including in places that have historically favored Democrats (4).
The United Vision Project (UVP) seeks to disrupt this paradigm by showing that rural communities are not only worth the investment, but critically important to the process of creating an inclusive, multi-racial democracy the likes of which has never before existed in the United States. The people who live in these communities—who many of us, though committed to bridging and belonging, may see as our political opponents—will be in the future we are building. How we relate to our opponents in the present will shape what is collectively possible for all of us in the future.
In this era of rising authoritarian populism around the globe, affective polarization between political opponents—how we feel about each other based on our political identities— has reached historically high levels (5). To have ideological differences between political groups within a democratic system is not in and of itself a danger to that democratic system—group conflicts are the lifeblood of democracy (6). Affective polarization is distinct and dangerous because it undermines the public’s ability to serve as a democratic check in the face of democratic backsliding. Studies have found that in highly polarized electorates, voters who are faced with a choice that pits democratic principles against partisan interests appear to be willing to make the trade off (7). Because affective polarization erodes an electorate’s ability to resist authoritarianism, finding ways to turn down the temperature on affective polarization is critically important in our efforts to counter authoritarian populism (8).
United Vision Project (UVP) offers a unique approach to reducing the intensity of affective polarization within interpersonal relationships and communities—the approach: Authentic Relational Conversations (ARC). A communications methodology developed over decades in one of the most conservative regions of the U.S., ARC is a process of engaging in deep listening and de-escalation across extreme political divides, laying the foundation for bridging across ideological, economic, and racial divides.
United Vision Project (UVP) is a national initiative born out of the local community organizing undertaken by United Vision for Idaho, Idaho’s only progressive, multi-issue network. In 2016 United Vision Idaho (UVI) launched its largest ever rural organizing campaign. Knocking on more than 10,000 doors in areas of the state experiencing a rise in authoritarian extremism, UVI organizers and volunteers were trying to understand, What hurts? What would make a difference in people’s lives, families, communities? With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, UVI began having these conversations digitally, resulting in more than five hundred thousand text-message based conversations with individuals across Idaho.
Recognizing that anti-democratic sentiment was becoming more widespread, UVI launched the United Vision Project in early 2021. A national effort that connects people with left-leaning views with people from rural communities across the country, that is, bridging amongst those that have extreme differences, UVP seeks to understand the genuine grievances and partisan interests that have compelled so many to reject democratic principles (9). What are the cultural and material conditions that have made rural and conservative communities so susceptible to the influence of authoritarian populist actors?
Authentic Relational Conversations
UVP trains individuals and organizations to engage in text-message based conversations with individuals who primarily identify as white and Christian, and who live in rural and conservative communities across the United States. These conversations are designed to develop understanding and build rapport and trust across extreme ideological differences, aimed at reducing affective polarization for both individuals engaged in dialogue. Texters begin each conversation with just one scripted text to frame the context for open ended questions and dialogue: “Hi [name] this is [volunteer], a real volunteer with the United Vision Project (reply stop to opt out). Our country may be more divided than ever before, what do you think is causing this?”
We have learned that ARC offers a powerful first step in reducing interpersonal affective polarization; through authentic and skillful demonstrations of empathy and conversational receptiveness (10), it is possible to earn the trust of someone who is deeply suspicious of “the other.” We know that we have earned someone’s trust when they choose to be honest about their lived experience, and sometimes even vulnerable, with a stranger who at the outset of a conversation they might consider “the enemy.” We have also learned that it is possible to depolarize ourselves and begin to uproot our own ‘us vs. them’ orientation towards our political opponents.
After engaging in more than 35,000 Authentic Relational Conversations, we have learned that by prioritizing empathy and understanding in our engagement with people who have found a sense of belonging within political communities shaped by authoritarian populist narratives and led by authoritarian populist actors, we have the power to create openings and plant seeds of trust between people for whom a trust-based relationship is unlikely. From this modicum of trust, there are infinite possibilities of what might happen next to continue the process of de-escalating political violence and reducing affective polarization.
Authentic Relational Conversation Example
Authentic Relational Conversations have the potential for genuine exchange between participants. Sometimes, that warmth is articulated as appreciation or gratitude by the people that we are engaging with. Examples include:
“No one from your side has ever reached out to me before to ask what I think or feel.”
“Was actually really nice being able to speak my mind this has been very therapeutic for me for the last couple of days And I think if more people have the opportunity to speak without being shouted down we might get along and I have better and more educated conversation this pertains to people on both side thank you for your time and listen [sic].”
“Let me thank you for being so open and listening without judgment! I appreciate that more than I can say!”
“If nothing else, I appreciate what you're doing because things like this can eventually lead to a necessary dialogue. thank you for reaching out to me [sic].”
“Thank you for listening from a neutral position. Most of the people I know, nice people for sure, of both major political parties, would not likely be interested in hearing my list, be willing to discuss it, or would quite likely judge me harshly from some of the things I've stated.”
While these types of interactions offer encouraging indicators of what is possible, a typical Authentic Relational Conversation is generally more varied. The following case study explores the impact that texter behavior has on the responses of their conversation partners (11).
The transcript below, of an Authentic Relational Conversation, reveals both behaviors that create the conditions for honesty and rapport, as well as behaviors that create barriers to understanding and connection. In this excerpt, the texter deploys a number of acknowledgement phrases that demonstrate listening by saying things like “Thanks for answering,” or “Sounds reasonable.” They also find ways to move out of mainstream media discourse and bring the conversation closer to home by asking “Can you give me an example, from your experience?” The texter skillfully engages in a potentially conflictual exchange about race by first seeking to understand the contact’s initial response, “I don't want to make any unwarranted assumptions about what you mean. You say only one race seems to matter. What race is that?” They then go on to express empathy, without endorsing or agreeing with the contact’s point of view, by connecting their experience to a broader pattern and helping them feel less alone i.e. “Do you feel that people who are not black are being discriminated against? I hear this from lots of folks.”
texter: Hi Kathy, this is Deborah, a real volunteer with the United Vision Project (reply stop to opt out). We all know the country is divided, and we're interested in understanding why. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this - what do you think are the main things dividing us?
contact: Only one race seems to matter. The working people are not getting any benefits. While the people not working are getting tax benefits and money to not get a job
texter: Thanks for answering. I don't want to make any unwarranted assumptions about what you mean. You say only one race seems to matter. What race is that?
contact: Black.
texter: Do you feel that people who are not black are being discriminated against? I hear this from lots of folks. Can you give me an example, from your experience?
At this point in the conversation, the contact begins to volunteer personal information about their life.
contact: My daughter got no scholarship money. Everything you see on the news is focusing on the black population to help them
texter: I'm sorry to hear your daughter didn't get scholarship money. I hope she was able to go to school anyway. You say that people not working are getting tax benefits. How does that work?
contact: People who drew unemployment $10,000 dollars of their unemployment was not taxed. My husband daughter and myself all worked everyday last year because we all were essential employees we received no tax tax credit. I feel that the people who actually worked and earned their pay check should of received the same benefits
texter: Sounds reasonable. Thanks for being essential workers. Are there any other issues you are also concerned about ?
At this point a departure from practice illustrates how the introduction of personal opinions, coupled with leading or closed questions, can shift the dialogue away from personal sharing. Instead, the contact moves into articulating abstract policy views—positions that tend to harden rather than open dialogue. In this example, the texter’s reliance on questions such as “Do you think one party is better at cutting taxes?” or statements like “I wonder if more people would go back to work if the minimum wage was increased” inadvertently directs the exchange toward debate rather than mutual exploration. Once the dialogue turns to policy argumentation, it becomes far more difficult to return to the kind of personal storytelling and relational trust-building that ARC is designed to foster.
contact: The additional federal unemployment money is scheduled to end this weekend I believe I hope that it is not extended. If money is continued handed out people have no reason to go back to work. I know numerous small businesses that are struggling because they can not find employees
texter: I wonder if more people would go back to work if the minimum wage was increased. What do you think?
contact: Small businesses can't afford to pay increased wages. If you increase the minimum wage than the product you are buying price would have to increase to cover the increased wages. Everyone else would expect an increased in wages You have a college graduate or skilled worker making a certain amount and you going to pay an unskilled worker the same.
texter: Do you think it can be difficult for people to find jobs that allow them to pay all of their bills?
contact: Pre. COVID people was able to find jobs and survived. I feel now they just see they can sat back and do nothing and the money comes in. They have free time to do whatever they want why the working people are working 40+ hours a week to pay taxes that are used to pay the ones not working. I was brought up to try to better myself and not to depend on others to support me
texter: Do you think that there is a way for the government to fix some of the issues you raise?
contact: Start supporting the working class individual. The welfare system need to be redone. A individual that is capable of working should only be able to receive benefits for a limited time. They should have to take drug test just like some company make their employees.
texter: How can the government support the working class individuals better? Any ideas?
contact: Stop raising taxes to pay for benefits of those not paying taxes.
texter: Do you think one party is better at cutting taxes? Is one party better for the working class in the US?
contact: No I think both parties are out for what will benefit them and make the most people happy so they can get re-elected. They is no morals
This conversation serves as an illustrative example of why goals of understanding rather than persuasion are at the heart of Authentic Relational Conversations. Persuasion attempts often have the opposite of their intended impact—people are not only unlikely to change their mind as the result of persuasion, they are likely to become more deeply entrenched in their position (12). This is especially true in potentially conflictual interactions between strangers. Conversely, when people believe that a conversational counterpart is willing to learn about their views, animus is reduced and willingness to interact increases (13). Authentic Relational Conversations represent the first step in a longer process to de-escalate political violence and reduce affective polarization in service of an inclusive, multi-racial democracy and in response to dangerous democratic backsliding. While there are inherent goals of persuasion represented in this broader political process, we believe that understanding, not persuasion, must characterize this first step if we are to achieve our broader political goals.
This conversation also illustrates why we place greater emphasis on understanding conversation partners’ personal feelings and experiences rather than primarily seeking to understand their thoughts and ideas. During his presentation at the The 22nd Century 2025 Conference: Forging a People-Powered Democracy, Rich Logis, founder of Leaving MAGA, shared his Do’s and Don’ts for friends and family members of people who have found belonging within the MAGA movement. A former MAGA member himself, Logis discourages debating facts & policies, trying to change the other person’s mind, or bait them into an argument. Because people make decisions based on perceptions, feelings, and emotions—not facts—Logis encourages storytelling, emotionality, seeking common ground, and trying to understand why they believe what they do (14). This is the Authentic Relational Conversations approach.
We have found that simply asking people where they learned something or how they developed a particular perspective (i.e. different ways to explore why someone believes what they do) opens the door to a conversation that can easily stay in the realm of thoughts, ideas, facts, and policies. While these types of questions certainly generate a level of understanding about why the conversation partner believes what they do, and can be a useful place to begin a conversation in order to start building rapport and trust, they ultimately elicit less insight about the individual. Seeking to understand a conversation partner’s personal feelings and lived experiences offers a much deeper level of insight into their political origin story—what are people experiencing, how are they making meaning of their experiences, and how is that shaping their worldview? And how do these experiences become sites of co-optation by authoritarian populist actors who offer their worldview as an explanation for the trauma and hardship experienced by so many individuals who live in rural and conservative communities?
Authentic Relational Conversations Impact on Participants
Authentic Relational Conversations are not only designed to extend understanding and empathy as an attempt to support the depolarization of our conversation partners, but of ourselves as well. In a political and cultural climate shaped by architects of resentment who have successfully turned political opponents into dangerous enemies, engaging in dialogue with people we might have previously considered to be villains is a powerful step back from our own fear-based worldview.
Since 2021, hundreds of texters have participated in Authentic Relational Conversations, and a small group has been consistently engaged since the inception of United Vision Project. In a series of interviews, these texters were asked to reflect on their feelings towards people with differing politics, as well as their understanding of themselves, as a result of their participation in ARC. Here are some reflections they offered:
“There were times in the past where I would simply walk away from someone once I found out they were a Republican, conservative, etc. Now, I do think we can have conversations across political lines. They are not easy. Nonetheless, I find these difficult conversations to be worth having. Having these conversations online makes a huge difference for me, too. The degree of separation and the structure both help me to back away from just trying to prove a point. I am able to listen, all the while knowing that I don’t condone views I see as hateful.”
“The biggest thing for me is that being right is not as important as being connected. I know I’m not going to get somewhere if I just want to be right. I need to listen, I need to try to understand, and I need to try to connect. This has been helpful from so many different perspectives beyond politics, too. It helps with everyday family dynamics, my work in mental health, etc. I realized I wasn’t doing my best before when I was being pushed. Now, this worldview having been cracked wide open has allowed me to be not only better at recognizing this in politics, but also in all of my roles in life - especially when I disagree.”
“It’s helped me to be more accepting of others' opinions and to try to understand where it is their thoughts are rooted. It also helps me to understand where my own thoughts are rooted. I’m not as angry as I once was, where the anger was directed at the person rather than the actual concept. Now, I can separate the two.”
They also reflected powerfully on the impact that participating in ARC has had on their own personal growth and depolarization:
“I feel that before all this began, I was less open to hearing ideas that were so different from my own. I had a sort of revelation that I was not as open or as understanding as I had thought. This has made me understand my own privileges, my own prejudices, my own need for growth. This has helped me look so much more inward, and I can now also say that I know I still need more of it. I’m never done. This has helped me be more open in general and to look inward for things I need to work on.”
“I sometimes still feel I cannot deal with certain contacts rather than opening up my mind and being curious. Being curious is very difficult at times when one is being yelled at from the other side and listening to such hateful speech. I learned a discipline I thought I didn’t have - the ability to look beyond the language I’m reading and, instead, conjure up a curiosity in the form of a “why”. I’ve learned to sometimes have patience where I didn’t think I could conjure up any.”
“This project has allowed me to confront my “freeze” instinct in a fight-flight-freeze situation. During texting, I can come back to it at my own leisure, which allows me to circumvent my impulse to freeze. My own struggle with long-COVID has made me more empathetic overall, and this project has helped cement that for me. All I can hope is that I’ve planted a seed. The point isn’t to change anyone’s mind, but I want to make sure there is someone there to listen. There is nothing more powerful to me than disarming someone filled with rage with just some understanding and a “tell-me-more” attitude.”
Understanding People’s Grievances
Efforts to engage individuals who might be characterized as MAGA or as holding far-right views are frequently limited to traditional research approaches such as surveys, interviews, or secondhand accounts. These methods often reduce people to statistical outputs or oversimplify their beliefs to fit predefined narratives, creating caricatures of rural people in a way that further entrenches affective polarization. UVP’s approach, however, as Senior Research Advisor Steven Gardiner states,"is the only thing like this that has ever been done. Perhaps the closest thing might be Theodor Adorno studying the rise of authoritarianism after the Spanish Civil War." While many cross-partisan bridging efforts are aimed at understanding people’s personal or community-level needs or concerns, and many polls related to democracy seek to understand perceptions of the most important issues facing the country, Authentic Relational Conversations seek to deeply understand people’s perceptions of what is dividing us. Rooted in the belief that we can’t change what we don’t understand, UVP seeks to uncover what is causing such high levels of affective polarization as a first step to understanding what might be needed to bridge divisions and build on areas of alignment.
With that in mind, UVP conducted a study drawing from a sample of 446 out of a total of 35,844 conversations with one or more replies (15). UVP sought to identify the most frequently expressed grievances across these conversations. We found that the most recurrent concerns were not rooted in economic hardship but in perceived cultural and social threats. While respondents did acknowledge economic strain, healthcare access, and concerns about crime, these were not the dominant themes. Respondents overwhelmingly expressed concern about identity threats, misinformation, and government overreach. Ideological and cultural grievances far outweighed structural pain points in both volume and emotional intensity.
To identify the most recurrent themes, UVP applied digital tags that coded for a variety of issues. The following digital tags indicating threats, biases, and conspiracy theories were identified a minimum of 50 times across the sample, representing a minimum of 10% of conversations. For example, ‘Democrats / Liberals / Progressives’ was mentioned as the greatest source of division in the United States, as it was mentioned in 214 cases, representing 48% of conversations.
Respondents with far-right political ideologies indicated that Democrats / Liberals / Progressives; Leftist Social Movements; Corrupt Politicians, and the U.S. Federal Government are primary drivers of the United States’ deep political divisions. According to multiple respondents, these are “the elites” who are driving the cultural and political changes that threaten “traditional” American identity, stoking a sense of cultural marginalization and existential threat among white, conservative, and religious respondents.
In response to the initial text message question—“Our country may be more divided than ever before, what do you think is causing this?”—one respondent replied,
“Elites who live in group-think echo chambers and speak as if they know better than everyone else and who are treated as if they are above the law (they are not prosecuted for serious violations that would land others in jail) and who do not believe in diversity of thought but believe that everyone must agree with them or endure their demonization, censorship, persecution and who believe hypocrisy is ok for themselves and whose god is power.”
When asked to further describe what the respondent means by ‘elites’ they reply,
“The word "elites" is a catch-all word to describe those who exhibit the behavior(s) in the first point. These are often folks who are in the public eye and whose names many would recognize. This includes many politicians - a recent example is AOC who shows up to the $30k/plate Met Gala this week wearing a dress with TAX THE RICH emblazoned in huge letters who is completely tone deaf in that most everyone in attendance at that event who arguably are her targets for the message - ignoring the fact that the top 1% are paying 21% of all taxes currently as if they are not paying any taxes and in the process stirring up class envy (talk about destroying unity) oh btw what is she doing there on her <$200k salary? or how about the "masks for you but not me" politicians too numerous to mention? This also includes institutions such as those in social media who have decided to be arbiters of truth by placing warning labels on tweets, posts etc or blocking accounts for those who do not toe their political line. I could go on and on and on, but you get the point.”
Respondents also shared their distaste for the “othering” or “us vs. them” narrative that they have experienced or perceived. In response to the initial text message question—“Our country may be more divided than ever before, what do you think is causing this?”—one respondent replied,
“The Media, trying to tell us we are all racist, and telling we have homophobia. Tell us it's wrong to vote a certain way. 90^ of the people I know have one, or a few blended ethnicities in their family. I'm so done with it [sic].”
Another, when asked how they see political leaders using issues to divide us, wrote,
“I speak to customers every day, these aren't only my thoughts and opinions. I have not had ONE PERSON of ANY RACE, SKIN COLOR, RELIGION, OR CREED say they support or agree with BLM, or any other group that singles out one from the other as more or less important. ALL LIVES MATTER! Every creature wants and has the same basic needs, dont we? Food, shelter, love, affection, a sense of purpose and belonging. the right to live freely and peaceful enjoyment of daily existance [sic].”
Conclusion
At its core, ARC is a practice of engaging in the deliberate, long, slow work of deep culture change. It is a first step in an iterative, non-linear process of de-escalating political violence, reducing affective polarization, stopping democratic backsliding, and bridging across ideological, economic, and racial divides to create a democratic system within which everyone belongs. ARC creates openings and plants seeds of trust between people for whom a trust-based relationship is unlikely in any other context. One texter shares an example of using ARC to create an opening in her community,
“I was working the polls in my community, and an election denier came in and confronted me and the other poll workers and made a big scene in front of the crowd who was there to vote. After his outburst, I thought about how I might approach this situation if I were texting. I approached the man and said, "Sir, it sounds like you have a lot of concerns about this process, has anyone ever walked you through it before?" I then introduced him to each poll worker and shared something personal about them and what they had given up to ensure the process ran smoothly. Afterwards he addressed the crowd to say, "This young lady just walked me through the process and I don't know if voting everywhere will be fair, but I can assure you our votes will count.”
By creating the conditions for constructive dialogue, this iterative approach is indispensable to reverse democratic backsliding and foster institutions grounded in trust. By demonstrating how relational dialogue shifts dynamics in polarized environments, ARC contributes to the long-term project of reducing political violence and fortifying democratic resilience.
Endnotes
1. Southern Poverty Law Center. 2024. “White Nationalist.” SPLC Extremist Files. https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/white-nationalist
2. Berkes, Howard. 2024. “Idaho GOP Primaries Oust Moderates as Hard-Right Candidates Gain Ground.” ProPublica, May 23, 2024. https://www.propublica.org/article/idaho-republican-primary-election-culture-wars
3. Ben Gose, “Rural America Is Struggling. Where’s Philanthropy?,” The Chronicle of Philanthropy, September 10, 2024.
4. Henrik Pettersson, Byron Manley, Zachary B. Wolf, and Matt Stiles, “America’s Red Shift: See the Counties Where Trump Boosted His Share of the Vote,” CNN, November 7, 2024.
5. Naím, Moisés. 2022. The Revenge of Power: How Autocrats Are Reinventing Politics for the 21st Century. New York: St. Martin’s Publishing Group.
6. Milan W. Svolik, “Polarization versus Democracy,” Journal of Democracy 30, no. 3 (July 2019): 20–32.
7. Carothers, Thomas, and Andrew O’Donohue. 2023. Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What the Research Says. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. September 2023. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/09/polarization-democracy-and-political-violence-in-the-united-states-what-the-research-says
8. Ibid., 22.
9. Outreach is targeted using Southern Poverty Law Center's hate mapping to identify areas of increasing extremist activity and influence which is cross tabulated with counties and zip codes provided by area social justice groups and overlaid with predictive scoring indicating alignment with authoritarian beliefs.
10. Michael Yeomans, Julia Minson, Hanne Collins, Frances Chen, and Francesca Gino, “Conversational Receptiveness: Improving Engagement with Opposing Views,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 160(2020): 131–48.
11. The responses of conversation partners are shaped by a number of variables. This case study articulates ways that texter behavior may influence conversation partner responses, without claiming that these texter behaviors are the only variable shaping conversation partner responses.
12. Hart, P. Sol, and Erik C. Nisbet. 2012. “Boomerang Effects in Science Communication: How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization about Climate Mitigation Policies.” Communication Research 39 (6): 701–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646
13. Hanne K. Collins, Charles A. Dorison, Francesca Gino, and Julia A. Minson, “Underestimating Counterparts’ Learning Goals Impairs Conflictual Conversations,” Psychological Science 33, no. 10 (2022): 1732–52.
14. Rich Logis, “Understanding MAGA As a Community” (presentation, The 22nd Century Conference: Forging a People‑Powered Democracy, Atlanta, GA, June 21, 2025).
15. This sample size was chosen for statistical significance with 95% confidence and +/-5% margin of error. This sampling of our dataset is based on conversations with a middling and substantial 6 to 10 number of replies as well as those with a minimum of 4 unique tags and a maximum of 8 tags applied.
Author bio:
Rachael Reichenbach is a facilitator and cultural organizer rooted in the Southern United States. With over a decade of experience, they design and lead relational processes that strengthen individual and organizational capacity for equity-rooted systemic change. They have guided national leadership programs, workshops, and cohort-based learning experiences for organizers, movement leaders, and policy advocates, bringing clarity and care to complex conversations. Rachael’s work focuses on bridging divides and cultivating belonging as strategic practices necessary for countering authoritarian populism and creating the conditions for a truly inclusive multi-racial democracy.
Adrienne Evans is a nationally and internationally recognized leader in social justice and democratic renewal whose work is redefining what’s possible in some of the most divided places in America. For more than fifteen years, she has led United Vision for Idaho (UVI) — the state’s only multi-issue progressive network — where she has built bridges across deep divides and ensured that rural and conservative communities are not written off, but recognized as essential to the nation’s democratic future. In 2020, Evans launched the United Vision Project (UVP) to confront the rise of authoritarianism and rebuild trust in democratic institutions. Through its groundbreaking methods — Authentic Relational Communication and Authentic Relational Organizing — Evans and her team have reached more than 1.4 million people across twelve states, holding over 107,000 transformative conversations that reveal how empathy, understanding, and authentic connection can bridge divides once thought unbridgeable.
Editor's note: The ideas expressed in this blog are not necessarily those of the Othering & Belonging Institute or UC Berkeley, but belong to the authors.