From KQED in San Francisco, I’m Leslie McClurg in today for Mina Kim. Coming up on Forum, the polarization in America continues to widen. The discourse between political parties is painfully hostile. Gridlock is the norm in Congress. The presidential race is quickly escalating, and many fear the country is dividing in irreconcilable ways. We turned to negotiator William Ury for advice. Ury is the author of the bestselling book, Getting to Yes, and he has a new book out called Possible, How We Survive and Thrive in an Age of Conflict. We’ll speak to Ury about his career as an international negotiator and how these methods can help Americans find common ground. That’s next after this news. This is Forum. I’m Leslie McClurg. I’m in today for Mina Kim. You may have noticed that President Biden, when he was heading into Camp David, he had a book under his arm ahead of the State of the Union address, and it was written by William Ury. And that book is Possible, How We Survive and Thrive in an Age of Conflict, and it draws on Ury’s nearly 50 years of experience as a negotiator and a consultant for the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon, and as one of the co-founders of Harvard’s program on negotiation. And he’s going to join us today to talk about how he mediated these conflicts in the Middle East, Colombia, the Balkans, these really intractable political hotspots, and how those negotiations offer, I think, some very insightful lessons that we may be able to apply to the U.S. today. William Ury, again, is a negotiation and mediation expert. He’s the co-founder of Harvard’s program on negotiation, and again, his new book is Possible, How We Survive and Thrive in an Age of Conflict. Welcome, William, to the conversation today on Forum. It’s a pleasure to speak with you, Leslie. So you cite that some polls say that two out of five Americans think that we are headed towards a civil war. That is terrifying. Is it true? Do you foresee that as a reality that could play out? Well, it is a possibility. It is a negative possibility from which then we should take motivation to seize the positive possibility, which is we have an enormous opportunity to prevent something before it happens. It’s not by any means a certainty, but there are some warning signs. Experts are saying that Americans fear that, and there’s a lot that we can do to prevent it. What are those warning signs? What are you seeing out there that gives you the indication that that is a very real possibility? I think it’s very hard for Americans to conceptualize that, given our history. It’s almost unthinkable. It’s almost unthinkable for any of us, because we don’t have memories that go back 150 years to the last time. Yet, if you look at other countries around the world, and I’ve worked in a number of them, when rumors start flying, when each side starts to see the other as implacably evil, when disagreement turns into contempt, when people believe that the stakes are existential, when people start to arm themselves, and the fears run rampant, rumors run rampant. Those are some of the early signs that you might be sliding into what could be considerable civil violence and what some people might characterize as civil war. If you had a crystal ball, what kind of timeline? Could this unfold in the near future, in the five years, ten years? What should people potentially be prepared for? Well, I don’t want to feed fear. Our biggest enemy, actually, is pessimism, the pessimism that drives us either into hyperactivation, a lot of anger and anxiety, and then down into despair and not doing anything, because I think we have plenty of chances to prevent this slide, to stop this slide. We can’t end the conflict. The political difference is we’re not going to end them, but we can transform the way we deal with them. That’s the huge opportunity. And I do think in terms of timeline, no one really knows, but let’s say over the next ten years, a great many experts in this field feel that it is a distinct possibility that we ought to be mindful of in order to be able to take action to avert it. You mentioned there we can’t fall into pessimism, and in the book you call yourself not a pessimist or an optimist, but a possible-ist. How do you define that? Well, a possible-ist is someone who believes in human potential, and in this case, the human potential for us to transform conflicts. And the reason why I’m a possible-ist is because I’ve seen with my own eyes over many decades people in different parts of the world, including here in the United States, meet seemingly impossible conflicts that everyone thinks there’s no way, they’re insoluble, and find ways to turn them around. I was in South Africa in the 80s when it seemed like there was going to be racial war between blacks and whites for generations, and yet that turned around within a few years, and you saw a majority democracy emerge under the leadership of Nelson Mandela. I was in Northern Ireland when Catholics and Protestants, sectarian strife that people thought, this is really deeply rooted, embedded, and the troubles in which thousands and thousands died, and yet that also came to an end. I was in Colombia more recently where hundreds of thousands of people died in a 50-year civil war, millions of victims, and yet over five, six, seven years again that turned around. So if Colombians can do it, if Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland could do it, if blacks and whites in South Africa could do it, then surely we can do it here in this country. And so if you had the ear of Biden, which apparently maybe he was carrying, or he was carrying your book on his way to the speech there that we mentioned earlier, if you had his ear, if you could sit down and have a conversation with Donald Trump, what would you say to them in this moment? Well, I would say you have an enormous opportunity to actually make history by preventing, you know, a slide into civil war before it happens. You could go down as heroes in American history, and the opportunity is now. And it’s not by ending your political differences. We need actually in a paradoxical way, we need more conflict, but we need healthy conflict. And right now we have a choice. We can actually, you know, we can actually, I mean, even just imagine, I mean, you’re wildest imagination. Even if Donald Trump and President Biden could agree, look, you know, there’s some guardrails here. You know, American democracy, we’re going to have a free and fair election. And no matter who wins in 2025, you know, America can still stand strong. You know, if we could simply agree on that, then I think we would have made some progress. You mentioned there that we should have not just conflict, we should have, you know, we need more conflict, but that needs to be healthy conflict. Why in this moment do we need more conflict? That sounds terrifying. I know it does. And I used to think conflict was something, you know, negative, but I’ve come to realize I’m trained as an anthropologist, you know, student of human beings. And as a negotiator, I’ve noticed that conflict is something that’s natural. It’s part of life. You know, we have differences. It’s part of our great diversity. And it’s actually necessary for us to change, make changes. It’s necessary for us to grow, to evolve. It’s at the foundation of human growth. It’s at the heart of a healthy democracy is vibrant differences. We notice that the best decisions are often made when you have multiple perspectives that come together and engage those perspectives. So in that sense, in the healthy sense, yes, we do need more conflict to deal with all the injustices in the world rather than suppress them. But the choice we have is not to get rid of conflict. It’s to transform conflict, to change the form from destructive, vicious fighting in which everybody loses in the end to constructive dialogue, conversation, listening to each other, and creative negotiation. And I want to get into those steps that you outline very eloquently in your book. But first, I just want to touch on this. So my sense is that people are feeling more and more frustrated, less and less engaged in the country. They’re losing, you know, trust in institutions, in science, in the media. How do you recover trust in people to sort of look to their leaders, to look to where they’re getting their information and trust it? That seems like a core piece of bringing our country together. It is, absolutely. Levels of trust are going down and have been steadily going down for a while in our institutions. And that’s a real danger sign right there. You’re asking for signs. And it’s not easy to turn it around, but it is possible. It is possible. You have to think about what we have to work on. We have a lot of muscle memory, collective muscle memory in this country of democracy, of the way things are working, of institutions, of norms. And even though many Americans fear that there’s a civil war, the majority of Americans, when they’re polled, I’ve seen recently, still believe that, believe it or not, you wouldn’t know this from paying attention to social media or watching cable news. But most Americans still, the majority of Americans, still believe that Americans share more in common than what divides us. Most Americans still believe that it is possible to have healthy differences. Most Americans still believe that it’s their responsibility to reach out to people of different points of view. So there’s a kind of a new silent majority in this country, which has been called the exhausted majority, where the people whose voice needs to come together and be heard, who can say, let’s bring some sanity to the situation, let’s put some guardrails, let’s create a container within which our differences can be held so that we can actually leave a better future for our children and grandchildren. And how do we get those voices to come forward? How do we give them the pulpit, basically? Well, you can see it’s starting to happen, but if you look, for example, I mean, I’ve seen this happen. Like in South Africa, I was giving as an example. In South Africa, it was polarized and there was war, but then the civil society, including voices from the media, but also voices from the business and labor communities, voices from the people of faith, voices from the women’s movement, the university students, the society came together and one voice gave permission to another voice, and pretty soon it became clear that there was a majority in the country that was standing for a peaceful transition to democracy. And I think the same thing exists in this country. I mean, I’ll give you one other example. In Northern Ireland, people were terrified, as some people are in this country, to even stand up and say, hey, let’s try and understand the other side. They were called traitors, you know? And it started in Northern Ireland with the mothers, the mothers of sons and daughters who had died in the war. Catholics and Protestants came together and they started to say, this has to stop. And then they gave permission and courage to the people of faith, the priests and the ministers, who then stood up and said something. And they gave courage to the people in the business and labor community who said, this isn’t good for jobs, this isn’t good for the economy. And then finally the politicians got on board. And something similar could happen in this country. There’s what I call in any conflict, there is a third side. It’s not just two sides. It’s not just red versus blue. There’s a third side, which stands for the whole. And any of us and all of us could be third-siders. May it be so. We’re talking about conflict negotiation in war and domestic politics and in our own lives with William Ury. He’s a negotiation and mediation expert. He’s also the co-founder of Harvard’s program on negotiation. His new book is Possible, How We Survive and Thrive in an Age of Conflict. And his previous books include Getting to Yes. And we want to hear from you. What questions do you have about how conflict negotiation works? Give us a call now, 866-733-6786. Again, that’s 866-733-6786. You can email your comments or maybe you have questions for William Ury. That’s forum at kqed.org. Or you can find us on our social channels. We’re on Twitter, Instagram. Digital community is called Discord. Again, or give us a call, 866-733-6786. Stay with us. We’ll be right back. Support for KQED Podcasts comes from Earthjustice. As a national legal nonprofit, Earthjustice has more than 200 full-time lawyers who fight for a healthy environment. They wield the power of the law to protect people’s health, preserve magnificent places and wildlife, and advance clean energy to combat climate change. Earthjustice fights in court because the Earth needs a good lawyer. Learn more about how you can get involved and become a supporter at earthjustice.org. If you had the smartest Wi-Fi, it’d be Xfinity. It would boost speeds to the devices that needed them most and protect you from threats at home and online. Xfinity. Imagine that. Restrictions apply. Welcome back to Forum. I’m Leslie McClurg. I’m in for Mina Kim this morning. And we’re talking about conflict negotiation in war, in domestic politics, and in our own lives. And we’re joined by William Gury. He’s a negotiation and mediation expert, and he’s also the co-founder of Harvard’s program on negotiation. He has a new book out called Possible, How We Survive and Thrive in an Age of Conflict. And your previously wildly popular book was called Getting to Yes, William. What exactly does that mean for those who didn’t read it? What does Getting to Yes mean? Getting to Yes was a book that came out actually a long time ago, but it basically proposed that we treat negotiation not just as a win-lose contest of who’s going to win, who’s going to lose, because most negotiations take place, I don’t know, in families, for example, or in the workplace between people who know each other. And if you’re asking the question, who’s winning your marriage, your marriage is in serious difficulty. So what we propose is to replace a win-lose battle with a search for mutual gain where each side looks for what do you really want, and what does the other side really want. And there’s more listening than talking, and then there’s creativity applied to come up with options that work for all sides. And what does this new book build on in terms of you, I think you felt like you needed to go beyond getting to yes. Why did that need to be expanded in this new work that you just came out with? I did, Leslie, because of the problems that we were just talking about in the previous segment, which is conflicts seem to be increasing everywhere. They’re polarizing us. They’re poisoning some of our relationships. They’re paralyzing us from solving the problems that we need to address. And so I realized we needed more. And what we need to add to the process of getting to yes is there needs, in addition to getting to yes with others, the foundation, the preliminary step is to get to yes with ourselves. I mean, paradoxically, because the single biggest obstacle to us getting what we want in a negotiation, turns out I’ve learned the hard way, is not the person on the other side of the table. It’s not that difficult person, not that difficult party. It’s actually ourselves. It’s me. It’s our own natural human, very understandable tendency to react, to act without thinking, to react out of fear or anger. And as the old saying goes, when you’re angry, you will make the best speech you will ever regret. And you will send the best text you will ever regret. And so the precondition, the foundation of successful negotiation, is the ability to, it’s almost like you go, it’s almost like you’re negotiating on a stage. Part of you goes to a mental or an emotional balcony overlooking that stage. In other words, a place of calm and perspective where you can keep your eyes on the prize, what’s truly important to you, and see the larger picture. And so balcony, it’s like the Golden Gate Bridge. I grew up in Marin County some years there, and I used to cross the Golden Gate Bridge a lot. The Golden Gate Bridge, it’s a bridge, right? It’s a golden bridge, and we need that in negotiation to kind of span those two things. But you also need these two giant pillars. And one pillar on one side I would call is the balcony, is getting to yes with yourself. And then there’s another pillar on the other side, because these things are really hard, which is the engagement of the surrounding community, of what we were just calling the third side, of the people around, which is an untapped resource, because it’s hard for people to build bridges these days. It’s hard for people to go to the balcony. We’re so reactive. We often need people around us who can help us, calm us down, help us build those bridges. And that third side, the community, is… So you need all three components. You know, you have the golden bridge, you have the balcony, and you have the third side. You need all three all at once to be able to transform the tough conflicts we find today. Well, let’s go to our callers. Janet in Half Moon Bay, you’re on the air. Good morning. Hold on. I’m just going to pull over and plug in my phone. Can you hear me? I can hear you great. Yeah, go for it. Great. So I have had this knot in my stomach for years since Trump got into office, as many people have. And by the way, your speaker, what he just described is just, I need help in that department. So I have been really struggling with this because I don’t know how to start the conversation with people that are on the, not even on the other side, people that are on, and I hate to say side as you describe it, but that’s the reality. And so even the people that are on the place that I believe, they’re even rabid and militant, and they’re not open. And I’ve often thought, you know, maybe in my book club group, there are a couple people that are on that side, so we just don’t go there. But if there were a forum where people could come together and do exactly what the speaker is talking about, I’m in. And I know other people would be in. We need help. Thank you, Janet. William, any ways to start that conversation? I think we’ve all been there, and I know myself, I’m just like, oh, politics, let’s just table that. How do you do it? That’s it. You know, we fall into what I call the 3A trap, which is we avoid, you know, or we attack, which goes nowhere, right? Or we simply give in or accommodate, you know, the 3As. But there’s a way out of the trap, which is to lean in and welcome the conversation. And that has to start with us being able to, you know, go to the balcony, go to a place of calm, because we often can get very reactive, obviously, in response to what we see as the other side’s very provocative views and statements. And the key is to listen. And, you know, it’s to listen to the other side. You’re not there to change their views. You’re probably not going to be able to change their views. But you can listen to them. Listen to them not the way we often listen, which is, okay, I want to hear what you’re going to say so I can refute it, but actually listen, putting ourselves in their shoes. My motto in these situations is meet animosity with curiosity. In other words, bring a curious mind. Like, why do you believe that? Why do you think that? What led you to believe that? And just, you know, be curious about them. And I often find that a little bit of respect, then they start to feel, listening, they feel respected. They feel maybe seen and heard. They begin to relax because they’re feeling like they’re about to be attacked, just like you might feel you’re about to be attacked. And a little bit of listening goes a long way. And then very practically, Janet, there’s a really fascinating project that started in the Bay Area that’s spread around the country that you can Google that’s called Living Room Conversations. And it started by a woman named Joan Blades, who was one of the founders of MoveOn, and some colleagues of hers to actually help Americans have those conversations with people with whom they might disagree very strongly on political issues. Let’s bring in another caller. Chuck in Palo Alto, you’re on the air. Hi. Yeah, I have two comments. The first is I was on a bargaining team with teachers back in the 80s, and we worked with a district, and we called it interest-based bargaining. I assume this is an extension of that. And we found that it worked pretty well since, in our case, both sides wanted to get to something that supported kids. Now, what I find my second comment is I’m bothered, not by this gentleman so much, but by the fact that we talk about a polarized society when, in fact, we have a society that’s been radicalized by Donald Trump. And Donald Trump and the MAGA people don’t listen. They won’t meet you halfway, period. What do you do in that case, number one? Number two, I think that I’d really like to see shows like this or TV news people say it that way because that’s the way it is. It’s not about polarization. It’s about radicalization and putting things out of reach. Thank you. Thoughts, William? I hear you. That’s a really very interesting comment. First of all, on your first point, interest-based bargaining, yeah, that comes out of the book that I had the privilege of co-authoring, Getting to Yes. That’s what was proposed is that we look behind our positions. For example, in the union management thing, you want an increase in wages and you want this and ours and so on to look for what are the real interests, the underlying interests, what does each side really, really want, and on that basis see if you can find a way forward. So I’m happy to hear that that served you. Actually, labor management is a really good lesson for us to learn from in the United States because 100, 120 years ago, labor management relations in this country were the worst of any country in the world. There were pitched battles. I worked in the coal mines between labor and management. When I started off, I did my PhD work in anthropology in the coal mines of Kentucky. In those places, there were pitched battles where literally hundreds, thousands of people died in this country in labor management battles and were wounded. And there was a transformation of that conflict gradually into let’s do bargaining and let’s have trade unions. And then there was a further evolution, as the gentleman was just suggesting, into interest-based bargaining where you could look for mutual gain. So to me, that’s an example of where you took very bitter conflicts where people were heavily on one side or the other and gradually transformed it. And that, I think, is something that we can learn from in this country. And it’s true, to the second point, that you’re often dealing with people who don’t want to listen to you, who won’t listen to you. I just want to begin by saying this is not easy work. This is the hardest work human beings can do. And yet, in my experience, working in conflicts where people were radical, they didn’t want to listen to each other. That’s the last thing you want to do, whether it’s in South Africa, Northern Ireland, Colombia, or a dozen other places around the planet. I’ve watched as people started, not just to… started to even bridge those gaps. And in those situations, the blood was flowing, so it was even worse. In our country, we actually have a chance to bring our practical ability to be creative, to collaborate, to listen to these really, really tough situations around us. Is it going to be easy? No. But is it possible? Yes. Well, Chris writes, the concept of the exhausted majority is eye-opening, and it’s interesting. How do you see the two-party system in the U.S. navigating issues such as gun control, abortion rights, or immigration-defined nuanced federal and state policies? How would you compare American hardline conservative and liberal perspectives to those you’ve seen in conflicts abroad? And can we find a way to draw them toward a less extreme mindset? I know. These are really hard subjects. And they’re hard subjects because it’s not just interests are involved, but people’s basic sense of values. And I can say that there are plenty of examples in this country, for example, on these hot-button issues. Take abortion, for example, a hot-button issue, where there are plenty of examples, which I know of, where you have people on one side and the other side sit down. They’re completely on opposite sides. And yet, through conversation, through listening to each other, through patience, persistence, they come around. And it’s not that they don’t agree on everything. You agree to disagree on many things. But then you can agree on things like, hey, we’re both in favor of reducing teenage pregnancy. Actually, that may be the major source. And so you find things you can work on and work together. And slowly, that’s how you begin to turn things around. Is it easy? No. It’s hard because it means having to sit down and listen to people who say things that really push your buttons. That’s why that first stage of being able to go to the balcony, being able to get to yes with ourselves, being able to listen to ourselves, precedes being able to listen to others. What I hear there is it’s going to require an awful lot of patience, because you’ve got to listen for a long time. It does. It does. It requires patience and persistence. That’s the thing of negotiation. This is not easy work. But is it doable? Yes, it is. And given the stakes, I mean, otherwise, what kind of country are we going to have? What kind of country are we going to leave our children and our grandchildren? So this is the work we’re called upon to do right now. And we have an enormous opportunity to do this now before we get into really the kind of serious conflicts I’ve worked on most of my life, which are civil wars. And do you find that eventually, if you listen long enough, that the other side opens for you? I imagine sometimes people are not very good at turning that conversation around. If you give them the opportunity for them to speak, they’re just going to keep going. So how do you look for, OK, now it’s my turn. How do you get the conversation going so it’s mutual? Yeah, it’s true. It’s true. But this is the thing. This is what I talk about in my book is those experiences. I mean, is this going to work with everyone? No, it’s not going to work with everyone. But it doesn’t have to work with everyone. It just has to work with enough people. And that’s the thing I’m talking about with the exhausted majority is for us to realize it’s the majority of the country who actually believe that they want to get along with each other. And what happens is because of social media and because of social media and cable news, they tend to drive, they tend to bring on just the people who are most fervent and most antagonistic. Why? Because that drives engagement. And engagement is what the algorithms are trying to precede. So we get a false impression. There is a very false impression, for example, as polls would suggest, Democrats have very false perceptions of Republicans and vice versa in terms of things like, you know, like most Republicans, for example, believe that Democrats, you know, want to throw out all of our history. And that’s not true. And most Democrats, you know, may believe that Republicans want to throw out democracy. But that’s also not true. So if you actually, what’s amazing is when these people from these different points of view get together and start listening to each other, it’s quite astonishing the shifts that take place. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. I mean, that’s very inspiring. May it be so. Let’s go to another caller, Megan in Martinez. You’re on the air. Hi. Hi. Thank you so much for taking my call. I love this discussion. And as soon as I heard it, I was like, oh, my gosh, I have to call. So I’m a mom of a kindergartner in the Martinez Unified School District. And through a series of events, I’ve started working with some other parents to work on bringing some DEI initiatives to our school, which is diversity, equity, and inclusion. We definitely have some struggles going on in our district, really bad struggles in terms of students feeling like they belong in the schools. We have, we still have bullying. We still have racism. And I say still because part of me is like, didn’t we solve this in the nineties? But no, we didn’t. It’s still happening. And the district is doing its own effort to bring these issues to light. Well, all the other elementary schools in our district were able to sort of start this effort through their PTA and use PTA funds to do things like have speakers and events and cultural events and, you know, parent education. And at our elementary school, we had this, we have this pocket of parents who are just absolutely anti DEI, no matter what they, those three letters just turn them off. And so we decided to do something a little bit different, which was post a like offsite informal, not, not affiliated with the school, a meeting at a clubhouse where five of us rented a space and did a presentation on what we believe DEI means and tried to find a way to model inclusiveness by inviting our opposition. And they came and they were mad and they said a lot of things that were hurtful and other parents came and shared about their kids being bullied. And it left us feeling the hardest part. And we still don’t know where to go with it is that afterwards, what happened was our own group that hosted the meeting started to fall apart because we didn’t know how to move forward. We didn’t know what to do now and all of the emotion and stress and feelings and the responsibility we feel now. And now we’re looking to the school and the district to say, please give us some leadership. Like please let us know what to do because these people were reading from, I say these people, but these are my fellow moms. Like I care about them and dads. And they said, you know, DEI is trying to silence white people. And, you know, if we bring in anything about LGBTQ rights, it’s about they’re worried we’re going to bring sexuality to their, like to the children or something. It’s just, and we are like, it’s just so hard to bridge the gap. So anything you have to say about that and just about the emotional side and about how to be within your own community and get through it. Thank you so much for sharing that. It sounds incredibly frustrating, Megan. William, we’re going to turn to you for a response just after the break. We need to go to a quick break and then we’ll be right back with William Geary. He’s a negotiation and mediation expert. He’s also the co-founder of Harvard’s program on negotiation and his new book is possible how we survive and thrive in an age of conflict. Stay with us and we’ll be right back to talk about Megan’s call. Support for KQED podcasts comes from Genentech, the original biotech pioneer forging life altering scientific breakthroughs to help improve the lives of all patients. Learn more about Genentech’s commitment to patients and society at gene.com slash our promise. We all have a legendary comeback and degree original Cool Rush is back and better than ever. Cool Rush isn’t just a scent. It’s a movement, a fan favorites that delivers bold, fresh vibes and all day sweat protection. Whether you have a man that spends hours in the gym, heads into the office early or is just trying to stay fresh on a long day. Cool Rush has their back. Head to your local Walmart or target and grab degree Cool Rush, the fan favorite scent from the world’s number one antiperspirant brand. Welcome back to forum. I’m Leslie McClurg. I’m in today for Mina Kim, and we’re talking with William Geary about conflict negotiation. His new book is possible how we survive and thrive in an age of conflict. And we want to hear from you. Do you think the U S still has a role to play as a mediator and conflict across the globe? Do you agree with William Uri? That conflict is ultimately beneficial for us. Email your comments or your questions to forum at KQED.org, or you can find us on our social channels. We’re on Twitter, Instagram, discord. You can also just give us a call right now at 866-733-6786. Again, that’s 866-733-6786. And, and William, before we went to a break there, we were having a really heated conversation or comment from, from Megan about DEI that’s diversity, equity, and inclusion. And it is a hot topic. You, you wouldn’t think that that would be such a polarizing you know, conversation, but it is so thoughts on Megan’s, you know, meeting that she described there. Yeah. Well, first of all, Megan, I I’m with you. I hear how frustrating it could be because you made a good faith attempt to really try and explain what DEI meant for you and your, and your, and, and, and then, and then you received, you know, a lot back and a couple of things to think about. One is you know, we often polarize around like DEI and it becomes like a flag and, you know, we’ve got, we’ve got our flag and they’ve got their flag. And, and so what I find helpful in those kinds of conversations is to go beyond the words and actually tell stories about your kids. And it sounds like some of that went on, but just to talk stories about, you know, how my kid was bullied, how my, you know, this and that, but, but very personal stories. Then I find people actually have more appetite to listen. And then you invite them to tell their stories. People share their stories of what happened in their experience. So it’s not their ideologies. It’s not what they believe, you know, it’s, but it’s like the stories of human needs of like kids. And then you, and then you can also talk about what, what do you want for your kids? What, you know, ask each parent, what do they really want for the kids? And you find that actually there’s a lot more in common, as you said, you know, with mothers whom you know, then you, then you would imagine. And then within that space, then, then you can kind of look, okay, how do we create the environment, the safe environment that we want to the inclusive environment we want for all of our kids? Is it easy? No, but it’s like, it’s, it’s that, it’s that work. And again, it’s like, you’re not going to solve it and you’re not going to change their minds necessarily, but it’s just that little bit of listening, a little bit of approximation, step-by-step, you can start to make unexpected progress. At least that’s my experience. Again, patience, I think is coming up more and more in this conversation. Steve on Discord writes, I have a trust issue on the broad political front. I have seen too many instances of bad faith bargaining where a far right politician accepts the compromise offered by the left, but does not reciprocate with any compromises on their side. On both sides, I see the extreme fringe undercutting everyone who even leans their way. If those aren’t extreme enough to suit them, I think many ordinary citizens may be amenable to discussion and compromise, but how do we get those voices reaching up upward into their leadership? William? Good question. I believe their strength in numbers and right now the exhausted majority is silent or relatively silent. Their voices aren’t being heard, but if some voices from the exhausted majority should start to be heard, they will encourage others to come to the forward. And it’s about in negotiation, you have to build what I would call a winning coalition, a winning coalition for the kind of country that we want, which is large enough to actually hold people with all sorts of beliefs and that’s safe for differences. And so to me, I think sometimes about, for example, how the astonishing revolution in attitudes, public attitudes towards gay marriage, how that shifted so rapidly in this country came because more and more voices, people came out of the closet, people spoke up and it was like a little cascade. And I’m wondering if something similar could not happen in terms of like civility in this country and certainly the prevention of violence and preserving of democratic norms so that we can keep the democracy rather than lose it. Let’s bring another caller in. Colby in San Francisco, you’re on the air. There is a book by a man named Dr. Robert Sapolsky. It’s called Determined, A Science of Life Without Free Will. I know that’s an alarming idea that we don’t have free will, but hear me out. If you think about it, I’m not going to get into the science of how free will doesn’t exist, but if you just accept that, it makes it really easy to think about interpersonal conflict and tribalism. I mean, if you just think of each person is just a person, we’re all just people. It really lets you let go of that tribalism mentality. And we could talk about Trumpism ad nauseum, which we already have on like all the time and how Republicans say the liberals want to do this and that. One toxic tribalism thing on the left that I hear, that it’s really touchy subject and I’m kind of afraid to bring it up, but when people say all cops are bad, that drives me nuts when people say that. Because even if it’s literally true that all cops are somehow just bad, which if you even can believe that people can just be bad, then it’s still not a good thing to say because a cop is going to hear that and think, well, I guess everybody already thinks I’m bad. So I have no incentive to behave good, right? And so on. And so I think the red flag that we should all be looking out for is an appeal to tribalism when people say, all these people are like this, because you can really let go of that when you just know that people are just going to behave the way that they’re going to behave. They don’t have free will and people are just people. Everyone is just a person. Thank you, Colby. William, what about tribalism? I mean, that is, my sense is, is just getting louder and louder and social media is sort of fueling that fire. How do we do what Colby is saying and see each other as people again rather than the groups that they belong to? Well, I think that’s, he’s speaking to a basic truth, which is we’re all human beings. And actually, if we can sit down and listen to each other, we see that we’re all human beings. If you hear the story, there’s an old quote from Longfellow, which goes, if I could read, let’s see if I can remember it, but if I could read the secret history of my enemy and see the suffering that they’re going through or whatever, all anger and fear would dissolve because essentially, you know, through empathy and we’re, as human beings, we’re endowed with empathy and the ability to try and understand the other side. We just have to make it easier by, you know, speaking in a way that actually talks about our story, not about blaming the other. And I do think there are ways, we see this all the time. I mean, every one of us, you know, we see it in the conflicts in our families. We see it all the time that there are ways in which, this is what we try to teach our kids is to listen to each other, not just to blame each other. And this is the eternal lesson for human beings. And right now we’re being faced with a particularly strong challenge, but I believe we can do it because we’re human beings. This is how we get along. This is how we’ve learned. This is how we created our democracy in the first place. So, we have that potential within us to actually transform conflict. We have that ability to build bridges. We have the ability to listen. These are all innate. This is not rocket science. These are innate human abilities we just need to cultivate. Let’s go to another call. Jim, I guess you’re at Stanford. You’re on the air. Yes, correct. So, interesting. Sapolsky is a colleague here. He was absolutely crucial. You talked about South Africa. And without Nelson Mandela, I think we’d still have war between the blacks and the whites in South Africa. And I think what you need is leadership, mature leadership on both sides, and a willingness to, because I think, as the previous caller said, there is a sort of a tribal instinct. And so, you do identify with different groups. But if you don’t have a good leader that tries to pour fuel on the fire between, it’s never going to change. So, I think leadership in the Republican Party, somebody’s got to step up that’s going to change things. Thank you, Jim. Appreciate that comment. A listener writes, and this is kind of an interesting question, how should kids be taught to negotiate conflict the same as adults? How should we deal with conflict? And teaching our children about conflict. Thoughts on that, William? Yeah, thanks, Leslie, because it’s true. First of all, children naturally negotiate. Anyone who’s a parent sees other children learn naturally to negotiate. And they can learn conflict resolution skills. And there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of schools that are beginning to, that have programs, you know, have peer mediation programs where kids learn how to resolve conflicts. And there are even peer mediators on the playgrounds helping their schoolmates resolve their disputes. And so, what I regard, I mean, I’ve spent my life, you know, teaching adults about ways of conflict resolution. And I think I’m engaged in remedial education because these are things that actually are best learned young by kids. And you can see it. There are plenty of good examples of young mediators growing up and being taught in schools. Well, Kerry writes, I love getting to yes. That was your first book. Thank you. I lean left and have a son whom I’m very close to who’s conservative. And I have learned so much from listening to him and have moved more toward the center as a result. I’ve joined two groups, Braver Angels and Crossing Party Lines, which are both about bridge building. I’m an artist, and I’m going to start holding discussions in my studio, possibly using art as a way to communicate ideas. I agree that we all have more in common than the media and social media would have us believe. Thank you for that comment, Kerry. And David writes, if people have opinions with violent intentions attached to them, then they have already violated my core principles, and I go away from the listening phase and become more guarded. Listening to someone converse in hateful, polarizing rhetoric can be tough. Any suggestions there, William, when the other person gets angry at you? Absolutely. Well, first of all, I really appreciate these comments that are coming forth about leadership. And I would just add that for every Mandela, there are examples where the leadership actually comes from among us, not just from the people at the top of the system, but ordinary people. I gave an example, for example, of how leadership in Northern Ireland started from ordinary mothers who just said enough is enough. Our sons and daughters have died here. And there are plenty of examples of that. So leadership is essential, and leadership can begin with us. And then also, yes, a wonderful example from Kerry of starting to listen to her own son and starting to be open, to be open to change your views, to be open to move, to see that actually there’s more that unites us than what divides us. That’s what’s key. And I’m trying to remember your question now. What was it, Leslie? Well, if someone gets really mad at you or is throwing sort of hate or anger, how do you respond? Well, this is why going to the balcony is the foundation. You know, I had this experience once that was really formative for me. About 20 years ago, I was asked by former President Jimmy Carter to go down to the country of Venezuela, which was in a very polarized political thing. There were a million people on the streets of the central capital, Caracas, demanding the immediate resignation of the president, Hugo Chavez. And there were a million people on the streets, you know, supporting him, and they were coming to fisty cuffs and violence. And there was fear of civil violence and even of civil war. And at one point, I had a meeting with President Chavez in his palace, and it was at midnight, and I expected to find him alone. In fact, I found the entire cabinet arrayed behind him, and he asked me how things were going. And I said, well, Mr. President, I’ve been talking to some of your ministers here, and I’ve been talking to the opposition, and it seems to me there’s some progress. Well, progress wasn’t the word he wanted to hear, and he proceeded to yell at me, just like you were talking about, and shout, you know, leaning close into my face, and saying, you’re a fool. You third parties, you don’t see the dirty tricks those traitors on the other side are up to, and just pure invective. And I was, you know, about to, you know, it’s hard. I was, you know, I was feeling defensive. I felt like all my work had gone down the drain. I was feeling embarrassed. I was thinking of what to say. And then I remembered to pinch the palm of my hand, because a friend of mine had said, if you’re ever in a tough situation, pinch the palm of my hand. I said, why? He said, because that will give you temporary pain, and it’ll keep you alert. So I pinched the palm of my hand. I noticed my own feelings for a moment, and then I was able to ask myself very quickly in that moment, what am I here for? Is it really going to do me any good if I get into a shouting match with the president of Venezuela? Is that going to help calm the situation? And it took me a few minutes or so of just listening. But just listening to him, paying attention, being curious, you know, the anger started to seep out of it. It was hard to keep on after 30 minutes. And finally, I watched his body language, his shoulders sink. And in a weary tone of voice, he asked me, he said, so, Yuri, what should I do? And that is the faint sound of a human mind opening. Because if you just respond with anger to anger, you know, or even try to use reason with anger, it’s going to go nowhere. But if you listen, the other person gets a chance to calm down, their nervous system calms down. And then I said, oh, Mr. President, it’s Christmas, nearly Christmas, and the festivities last year were canceled because of this. Why not give everyone a truce, a chance to just enjoy the holidays with their families? And he looked at me for a moment. He said, you know what? That’s an excellent idea. And he clapped me on the back, which his mood had completely shifted. And what I learned then and there was the single biggest opportunity you have, the single biggest power that you have is the power not to react, but to pause, to go to the balcony and think about what you really want. You’re listening to Forum. I’m Leslie McClurg. I’m in today for Mina Kim, and we’ve been talking about conflict negotiation with William Yuri all over the world, including in our own lives. And a listener writes, why does it feel like we, the left, have to find common ground? I wonder if the right is having the same conversation and feeling. Thoughts, William? Well, you know, it’s interesting. I’ve talked to people on the right, and believe it or not, there is some mirror imaging here because they have the feeling, too, that the people on the left don’t listen to them. So that’s what I find, is when you actually bring people together as in these living room conversations, when people actually do sit down and listen to each other, they were just like, you know, that you actually have more in common than what you thought, and that you can actually learn to disagree, but without being destructive and disagree in a way that’s civil and a way that you can say, yeah, let’s work together on where we do agree, and here’s where we disagree. But there’s a shift. There’s a, you know, in these conversations, and there have been hundreds and thousands of these conversations, small scale, grassroots across the states, in all kinds of contexts, so I urge you to, if those of you who are interested, you know, look up living room conversations, and there are other examples, too, of bridging initiatives that actually, at a grassroots level, show that Americans actually can sit down and listen to each other. Thank you so much, William Ury, for this conversation and the inspiration. Is there any final word? We have about 30 seconds left. Is there any final thought that you want to leave in our listeners’ ears? I do. I just want to say I’m a possibleist, and I believe that you are all possibleists, too. We’re all born as possibleists, and then if we can just take our innate human potential for curiosity, creativity, collaboration, and bring that spirit of possibility to the conflicts around us, be it at home, at work, in the world, we can transform our lives, and we can transform our country. Well, thank you so much for leaving us with a little bit of possibility and hope in what feels like a very scary moment in our lives. Thank you so much, William Ury. He’s a negotiation and mediation expert. He’s the co-founder of Harvard’s program on negotiation, and his new book is Possible, How We Survive and Thrive in an Age of Conflict. His previous book was Getting to Yes. Thank you so much, all of you, for listening and your excellent questions and comments. Have a great day.