This commentary is by Dan Smith of Burlington, president and CEO of the Vermont Community Foundation.People are tired of politics. Mistrust and polarization have that effect. Trust is the connective tissue of civic structures, and the trend is to trust leaders and each other less. As elections increase in intensity, we should reassess what needs to get done (policy) and how we choose to do it (civic design and approach to leadership). Community and democracy thrive with a sense of shared fate and the potential for progress. Polarization and stalemate offer neither. In Vermont, the need to address our demographics, build homes, stabilize health care, adapt to dramatic weather and create the conditions for a strong economy require a political system that functions as we were taught it might, instead of how it currently does. This erosion of trust is something that the Vermont Community Foundation watches closely, because we try to build community by bringing people together. That work becomes much harder when people are polarized.Polarization is deeply corrosive. It carries an emotional weight that is broadly shared. According to the American Psychological Association’s “Stress in America” poll, the future of the nation and the election were top drivers of stress and anxiety, along with the economy.Interestingly, there is abundant research showing that people are much less divided than we think. There are broad areas of agreement. Yet, despite that common ground, we still feel divided. Why?Polarization is a chosen political tactic taken by professionals. According to Rachel Kleinfeld of the Carnegie Endowment, people wrestle with a high degree of “affective polarization.” We are pushed to dislike and distrust people “on the other side.” Affective polarization is purposefully accelerated by technology, rhetoric and the professionalization of politics and advocacy. READ MORE Bill Schubart: We need to rethink our systems of governing by Bill Schubart December 1, 2024, 7:11 amDecember 4, 2024, 11:00 am A hallmark of Vermont communities is people’s willingness to look out for each other. People do so when they feel connected. We make a decision with devastating consequences for communities if we accept the narrative of polarization and conclude that every neighbor who votes differently represents the worst of the opposing extreme. Affective polarization obscures vast areas of common opinion and shared values. Polarization is compounded by the design of elections and governance. In 2017, Katherine Gehl and Michael Porter wrote about the failure of the political system to retain public confidence. They noted that parties are insulated from accountability and meaningful pressure to address community conditions. They survive as the lesser of evils. Our current civic design puts our sense of community at risk and erodes confidence in the representative value of elections. No industry — and politics is an industry — should reflexively avoid innovation.Elsewhere, organizations are pushing new ideas like mobile voting and open primaries, ranked choice voting and nonpartisan redistricting. Alaska, Maine, California and DC have all moved from partisan primaries to ranked choice voting. When Michigan ended partisan gerrymandering, it stemmed from nonpartisan, nongovernmental organizations. Only one other state still has a two-year gubernatorial term. Gehl and Porter observed, “We can fix our political system, but it will require sustained citizens’ initiative and significant investment.” Election cycles generate a lot of money — politics is a thriving industry. Kleinfeld describes “conflict entrepreneurs.” There are abundant philanthropic strategies to increase connection and understanding between people across the spectrum, but the tools for fundraising and ballot access still run through polarizing structures. Compromise is necessary for effective governance, but political success comes more directly from feeding affective polarization. The industry thrives while satisfaction among those it serves goes down. Vermont may be different but is not immune. Outside of a few contests, ballots in Vermont are consistently noncompetitive. I’ve heard from many Vermonters who shared Bill Schubart’s experience writing in candidates. Pressure to deliver depends on the risk of losing, which requires political competition. Without pressure, problems go unaddressed and compound over time. Lost time further erodes faith in institutions. Working through challenges as complex as imbalanced demographics and an economy insufficient to support the systems it has to carry will take time and focus. Vermont can’t afford to waste either with polarizing tactics. In our organization, recent community engagement revealed declining civility and a hunger for leadership. People are frustrated. Communities face an array of crises and they are tired of waiting. Leadership in this environment means understanding their frustration and responding productively, not competitively. At this point, Vermont’s challenges are clear enough to drive a focused agenda. But leadership is not just policy. Communities will continue to erode if Vermont leaders, parties and the advocates that surround them fall back on rhetoric that drives people apart. There are choices to be made right now to de-escalate. People need to see leaders working together on their shared frustrations. It isn’t a stretch to expect them to do so. Vermont needs a clear demographic strategy and a commitment to reining in the conditions that make Vermont unaffordable. We need a longer-term assessment of civic design.In addition, I’d suggest a new benchmark for our expectations of leaders this session. Working together means compromising. Effective compromise should make vetoes avoidable and the session short. Avoiding any vetoes and adjourning by mid-April will demonstrate the willingness to work together and with shared focus.Success would signal to those Vermonters losing faith that leaders recognize their role in a democracy that brings people together, instead of abiding politics that thrive by driving us apart. Read the story on VTDigger here: Dan Smith: Send a message by working together.