Dialogue: Agreed, but systemic approach first

• Published date: 01 December 2022
• Author: Rachel Goldberg
• Date: 01 December 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21363

COMMENTARY

Dialogue: Agreed, but systemic approach first

Rachel Goldberg

Peace and Conflict Studies, DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana, USA

Correspondence

Rachel Goldberg, Peace and Conflict Studies, DePauw University, Asbury Hall, Room 105, 100 E. Seminary Street,

Greencastle, IN 46135, USA.

Email: rachelgoldberg@depauw.edu

I find myself both in sympathy with the Burgess's goals and deeply concerned about critical

aspects missing from their message. I too, am dismayed to see the United States society becom-

ing more and more divided, including movement to literally secede by Texas. I applaud the goal

of a collaborative democracy, and agree that our field should be a critical part of it. However, I

am also deeply concerned about arguments for individual acts and communication channels,

when there seems to be a structural analysis missing; false equivalencies; and a lack of distinc-

tion being made between what I will call Authoritarians and Republicans.

I am disturbed, for instance, by how their article characterizes the goals of the “right”and

the “left”—first, as if they are monolithic and do not have meaningful internal divisions, and

second by characterizing the divisions as: “On the right side of the divide, ‘making liberals cry’

has popular appeal. The objective of the progressive left seems more ambitious—to cancel and

drive from the public square anyone who has ever expressed the slightest doubt about the

merits of any aspect of the progressive agenda”(p. 2). It is critical to go deeper an ask what

drives these apparent moves?

I think it is critically important to analyze the systemic roots of the polarization the authors,

wisely, want to dismantle. To go forward I want to stop a moment and make a distinction I am

coming to find increasingly important to me. There are Republicans deeply committed to

Democracy, and dialogue. So, for instance, it is notable that almost all of those testifying in the

January 6 hearings were Republicans, showing by their actions that they believe in Democracy

and that they want to be part of a conversation where the votes of the people matter.

However, I believe some of the current Republican leadership do not believe in Democracy,

and are trying to create an authoritarian government. These may be the “Bad Faith Actors”the

authors refer to, but I think it is critically important to move beyond seeing a problem of “Bad”

individual actors, and look at systems, being coordinated and instituted with intention, across

many levels of the society. I believe the authoritarianism the authors fear is here, now. Much of

the current polarization is by no means a coincidence, but a deliberate, and classic move, by

Authoritarians. The “Manichaean, us-vs-them framing”(p. 3) is part of a larger set of goals.

Response to “Applying conflict resolution insights to the hyper-polarized, society-wide conflicts threatening liberal

democracies”by Burgess, Burgess and Kaufman.

Received: 30 August 2022 Accepted: 4 October 2022

DOI: 10.1002/crq.21363

Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 2022;40:279–283. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crq © 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC. 279