WASHINGTON, D.C. — For three days last month, in a hotel ballroom in Georgetown that charges $48 for a continental breakfast, eighty-seven of Washington's most thoughtful, most measured, and — it turns out — most carefully pre-selected minds gathered to solve the problem of political polarization in America. The result was 400 pages of consensus, a standing ovation, and what multiple attendees described, without apparent irony, as "a genuine breakthrough in cross-partisan dialogue."
The Harrington Center for Democratic Renewal's Seventh Annual Summit on Political Division and the Path to National Cohesion has been, since its founding, one of Washington's most anticipated gatherings in the field of bridge-building. This year's edition was, by the center's own accounting, its most successful yet. It was also, by the accounting of anyone who looked at the guest list for more than thirty seconds, its most carefully curated.
The Proceedings Today has reviewed the summit's attendee roster, application screening criteria, and internal planning documents, obtained from a source who described themselves as "someone who got rejected and would like people to know about it." What emerges is a portrait of an event that has, over seven years, perfected the art of simulating disagreement while systematically eliminating the conditions under which disagreement might actually occur.
How the Sausage Gets Invited
According to internal planning documents, this year's summit employed a three-stage application review process developed in partnership with a consulting firm called Dialogue Architecture Partners LLC, which charges $400 an hour and whose entire client list, as best as can be determined, consists of other organizations trying to appear bipartisan.
Stage one involved a standard application form asking applicants to describe their commitment to "constructive civic discourse." Stage two involved a thirty-minute screening call with a Harrington Center program officer. Stage three — and this is where the process becomes philosophically interesting — involved cross-referencing applicants' public statements, op-ed histories, and social media archives against what the planning documents describe as a "Dialogue Compatibility Matrix," a proprietary rubric assessing whether each applicant's worldview fell within what the center terms "the productive center of the national conversation."
Applicants whose views fell outside the productive center were thanked for their interest.
"We're not trying to exclude anyone," said Harrington Center President Dr. William Farrow, a trim man in his early sixties who speaks exclusively in the measured tones of someone who has never once been in an argument. "We're trying to create the conditions for genuine dialogue. And genuine dialogue requires participants who are genuinely committed to dialogue."
Asked whether that commitment was assessed partly by determining whether applicants already agreed with the center's general conclusions, Farrow smiled and said: "We prefer to think of it as alignment on process."
What Was Discussed, and By Whom
The summit's agenda was, on its face, admirably ambitious. Panel titles included "Bridging the Partisan Divide," "Restoring Faith in Democratic Institutions," and "Moving Beyond the Culture Wars," the last of which was moderated by a former cable news contributor who left television, as her bio noted, to "pursue more nuanced work."
Attendees included former elected officials from both parties, three foundation presidents, two university provosts, a retired general who now sits on four corporate boards, and what the program described as "a diverse cross-section of civic voices" — a description that holds up if diversity is measured primarily by professional title rather than ideological range.
The panels proceeded smoothly. Participants agreed that polarization was bad. They agreed that social media had made things worse. They agreed that local journalism mattered and that trust in institutions was declining and that something should probably be done. At one point, a panelist described a conversation he'd had with someone who held genuinely different political views, and the room listened with the rapt attention of anthropologists hearing a field report from a distant culture.
"That," said a moderator, "is exactly the kind of story we need more of."
The room applauded. Several people nodded.
The Report Itself
The summit's findings were compiled into what the Harrington Center is calling "the most comprehensive assessment of American political division produced by a nonpartisan institution in the current cycle" — a distinction that is easier to claim when you define nonpartisan as "having attendees from both parties who nonetheless agree on everything."
The report runs to 412 pages. Its executive summary is eleven pages. Its key findings, condensed:
- Polarization is very bad.
- It has been getting worse.
- Trust in institutions is low.
- Local communities matter.
- More dialogue is needed.
- The Harrington Center is well-positioned to facilitate that dialogue.
- An eighth annual summit is recommended.
The report's policy recommendations section, which begins on page 287, proposes the establishment of a National Commission on Civic Dialogue, a Federal Office of Constructive Discourse, and a pilot program in six states that would fund "community conversation initiatives" through a grant process administered by — and here the document becomes genuinely clarifying — organizations with demonstrated expertise in dialogue facilitation, such as, the footnote suggests, the Harrington Center itself.
"This is a roadmap," Dr. Farrow said at the closing plenary, to sustained applause. "Not just for Washington. For America."
Reaction
Reaction outside the ballroom was more measured. Dr. Sandra Okafor, a political scientist at the University of Michigan who studies political polarization and was not invited to the summit, reviewed the report's methodology at The Proceedings Today's request.
"It's a well-produced document," she said. "The bibliography is extensive. The graphic design is excellent." She paused. "I'm not sure what problem it solves, exactly, given that it was written by people who weren't polarized to begin with."
A spokesperson for the Harrington Center, responding to this characterization, said the center "respectfully disagrees" and noted that Dr. Okafor was "welcome to apply" for next year's summit.
The application window opens in January. The Dialogue Compatibility Matrix has already been updated.
Polarization, meanwhile, remains available for study.
