I work full-time on reducing toxic political polarization, an effort that is often misunderstood. Many assume the goal is to make Americans “calm down” or “meet in the middle” — to ignore their political passions. That’s why some Democrats and Republicans see such work as “helping the bad guys.”

I have received messages about Trump’s recent bull-in-a-china-shop activity saying things like, “I want to reduce political toxicity, too, but we’re on the road to autocracy. The bridge-building can wait.” This reflects a common misunderstanding: that depolarization is at odds with activism. But one can do both — and I’d argue aiming to do both actually makes one’s activism more persuasive and less likely to create pushback.

Some people also see this work as overly idealistic and “kumbaya.” I get why. People trying to reduce polarization often emphasize that we do have much more in common than we think. While that is true, it can also make people think we’re naïve.

But conflict resolution principles can exist alongside passion, frustration — even immense fear and anger. If such ideas were not of value during the course of a conflict, they’d be worthless.

Working on this problem is about helping Americans see that we are caught in a self-reinforcing cycle of contempt and provocation, what political scientist Lee Drutman calls the “doom loop.” When people see that, they will also see they can pursue their goals while trying to avoid contributing to the toxicity that’s tearing us apart.

Others sometimes assume that I’m pro-Trump, or maybe that I lack strong feelings about him. No — I am highly critical of Trump because I believe he amplifies us-versus-them hostility. Even some gung-ho Trump supporters I’ve talked to see his personality........

© The Hill