♪ ♪ This program is brought to you by the members of WCNY.

Thank you.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ KATKO: Welcome, America, to "Balancing Act," the show that aims to tame the political circus of two-party politics.

I'm John Katko.

This week, is bipartisanship still possible?

In the center ring, we'll ask Todd Kashdan, a professor of psychology at George Mason University.

Then Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Jared Golden of Maine discuss the importance of bipartisanship in politics on the trapeze.

Then I'll close with my take.

But first, let's walk the tightrope.

♪ ♪ KATKO: If bipartisanship feels like a thing of the past, it's worth remembering how some of America's early political figures settled disputes - with duels.

Most of us don't need to see Broadway's *Hamilton* to recall that in 1804 Vice President Aaron Burr shot and killed former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in a duel.

Disagreements ran so deep that leaders were willing to risk their lives over them.

But bipartisanship is also central to the American story.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, large and small states were deadlocked over how Congress could be structured.

Aptly named, the Great Compromise broke the stalemate.

It created the House and Senate system we still use today.

A few years later in 1803, President Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican who favored limited government, joined with key Federalists to approve the Louisiana Purchase.

The deal doubled the size of the nation, even as party divisions ran very high.

Fast forward to the depths of the Great Depression, the Social Security Act of 1935, part of the New Deal, created a basic safety net for Americans.

It offered benefits for the elderly, the unemployed, dependent children and those with disabilities.

In a national crisis, the parties worked together to meet the moment.

Nearly 30 years later, bipartisanship again shaped a defining moral turning point in this country.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed only because a cross-party coalition of Democrats and Republicans broke one of the longest filibusters in Senate history.

And bipartisanship isn't just about policy.

It's also about people.

In the 1980s, President Reagan, a conservative Republican, and House Speaker Tip O'Neill, a liberal Democrat, clashed publicly and often.

But after 6:00, by O'Neill's own rule, the two shared drinks, traded Irish jokes and worked out key deals on Social Security, tax reform and immigration, to name a few.

Cheers to that.

Other landmark bipartisan success has followed.

The Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 passed with overwhelming support from both parties.

Guaranteeing accessibility and civil rights for millions.

And as recently as 2021, a deeply divided Congress still managed to come together to pass a bipartisan infrastructure law, a major investment in roads, bridges, broadband, and clean water systems.

I was proud to have helped get this bill across the finish line.

If the leaders of the past can go from taking shots at each other, literally and figuratively, to working out solutions, perhaps today's leaders could put down their weapons of words and do the same.

It's a tall order but one we'll explore with our expert in the center ring.

♪ ♪ Joining me in the center ring is Todd Kashdan, Professor of Psychology at George Mason University.

Welcome, Todd, and I want to hear about your research into bipartisanship in general and how this term, curiosity, plays in that study again and again.

KASHDAN: Yes, so what we have Soon by colleagues of mine and ourselves is this rise in what we call political animus, sort of great hatred for people that have disagreeing views from you in the world of politics.

We wanted to find a solution.

So we looked at the work on curiosity, the desire to seek out new information, the desire to explore new perspectives, new ideas.

And what we uncovered in three studies is that people that tend to be more curious—there is a different way of becoming curious—they tend to be less inclined to just share time with people who share their political views.

They're more likely to socialize with people different than them, more likely to consider the views of other people.

They have a sense of intellectual humility and this courage to speak out against what the tides are leaning towards.

KATKO: So the curiousness crowd, it seems like they're on the wane as a group of Americans.

It seems like it's far more polarized than it has been in the past.

Is that what you found as well?

KASHDAN: Yeah, if you look at the spectrum of ideas on a bell curve, you find that over the past 20 or so years, the margins, the two extremes have become really large, very intense, very vocal, and research done at New York University found that the people who express the most rage or extreme negative emotions, those are the posts that go the most viral.

So it feels like everyone has the same perspective on whatever the political issue is of the day, but it's actually a small minority of people that are making people believe that everyone is at the extreme margins.

KATKO: I'm curious what prompted you to do this study?

KASHDAN: Well, I have been studying curiosity for 25 years, and then I've also lived near D.C., so I have seen the political tides change.

And just, you know, mix your peanut butter with my chocolate, realize this could be a solution because we need simple, quick strategies that get people to be less defensive, less anxious and realize that maybe there is some wisdom and knowledge on the other side of the aisle.

KATKO: When my time in Congress especially, I really found that the media is segmented now and gone are the days of the three major networks fighting for ratings and they all were fighting to make sure they were totally non-biased.

And now it seems like you can turn on any station and get a steady diet of just what you want to hear, the same with the internet.

How does that contribute to the lack of curiosity?

KASHDAN: Tremendous amount.

It's all what is called motivated reasoning, is that I am seeking out information.

So I will tell people, I follow the science.

I follow the evidence.

But when people are motivated in their reasoning, they're only limiting particular sources that they know are going to match up with what they think.

They're quickly holding very different standards for evidence that is for or against their views, and what we found, which is very exciting, is that people who tend to be more curious say, you know what, I'm going to turn on Fox News, I'm going to turn on CNN and I'm going to turn on NBC and listen to some random people from Sri Lanka because I want to get the whole perspective of this issue so I can make an idea and an opinion on my own.

KATKO: So how do you talk to people out there and encourage them to do this?

What is the incentive because if somebody tells you they watch a certain news station, the sky is black and they're going to say the sky is black even though it's white.

That's just the way it is.

How do you break through that?

KASHDAN: So let me tell you about our evidence, which is pretty exciting.

There is this thing called the black sheep effect and I think a lot of people nod their heads who are listening, is that when someone in the in-group—your friends and allies who think the same way—says, you know what, maybe we should pause, maybe we are not answering this the right way, maybe we are taking too extreme of a view.

These people get beaten down, ostracized and excluded more than people on the other side.

They say they're a traitor, you're Benedict Arnold.

We find what happens is when we expose people to the fact that people are less inclined to ostracize you if you disagree with the people in your group, that makes them more inclined to say, oh, if that's the case, then I'm actually going to be a little bit braver and I'm going to be a little more open to considering other sources and vantage points of people and include my social circle because I don't know everything and I'm around smart people.

KATKO: That is dangerous ground, isn't it, because we have heard stories again and again—at least I have, it happened to me—people who disagreed with my politics once I got into office, lifelong friends no longer talked to me because I happened to be a Republican, not a Democrat, and vice versa.

How do you break through that?

KASHDAN: Right, so that's the black sheep effect, and it's real.

So what are the things we know from 40 years of science, The best way to actually break down the divides between blues and reds, particularly in the United States, is to get people to engage in activities that have nothing to do with the political domain.

And in Northern Virginia, where I live, there used to be—or at least still are—these great softball games that happened when you get Republican and Democratic senators and congressmen and women who are playing the sport.

And when they're in between innings, when they are walking back to their cars, that's where real conversations and friendships take place.

The whole goal is can you create a friendship outside of politics so it can serve as a sort of force field to protect yourself if you disagree with them within the political realm?

KATKO: It's funny you say that because I just thought back every morning when I was in Congress, I would go to the gym at 7 a.m., a bunch of Democrats and Republicans were there.

The entire spectrum was there and they were not sniping at each other, and more work got done in the gym working out next to you than did any other time.

I think you're right about that.

Let me ask you this much.

What is wagging the dog more with respect to partisanship?

Is it partisan political leaders or is it partisan political leaders doing what they have to do to get re-elected by saying the things they're saying even if they don't believe it?

KASHDAN: So as a scientist, I like to be precise.

I think we are seeing a greater level of over-identifying with our political affiliation as that is the core element of our personality, our character and a sense of who we are.

And the more that we do that, the harder it is to actually look into the backpack of what this identity is and say there are some things wrong with it.

I agree with 83% of my party.

But the other 17%, not only do I disagree, I really want to say something.

I really think what is wagging the tail is this hyper-identification, and I hope everyone listening just reduces the impact of what that political view is as “this is you,” as opposed to “this is one of many things I believe in.” KATKO: Todd, tell us what is the impact of social media on this whole dynamic?

KASHDAN: What you find is that the 10% at the absolute extremes of political views — left and right, just for now we'll call it that—those get amplified more than anything else that is happening, especially in the middle.

So it feels as if anyone is holding the same view, really extreme, like absolute yes, hell-freakin-no views, whereas the vast majority, the silent majority in the middle, are like, sometimes, it depends.

KATKO: Todd, talk about being in your tribe, your circle of friends, and you all have similar political views.

I go through this a lot with my high school friends on our little chat box thing and we have different views and sometimes you step back when you go into a different area.

But how do you give some advice to people if you are trying to wade into a subject matter that people in your tribe may be disagreeing with you on?

KASHDAN: I'm so glad you asked that question.

Let me give you two concrete bits of advice off the bat.

One: “How” is the greatest question you can ask, but the inflection in your voice is absolutely essential where you are truly showing interest and non-defensiveness.

You would say, I hear what you are saying.

It's not how I typically think about it.

How would that work?

And so you can see in my voice that I really care about what you are going to say.

I'm not going to challenge it immediately.

I'm going to sit and listen to it.

And what typically happens is people have these strong views but don't understand the mechanics of it and might not even know the terms.

And so it gets a little playful as you realize, I don't even know what fracking means.

I don't even know what DEI stands for.

I'm not even sure what Marxism is and how it's different from Communism.

You want to get there where you can smirk a little bit and have some humanity.

That's part one.

KATKO: It's interesting you say that because a lot of times when I say something or my friends say something and we have disagreeing views, our tone of voice changes or the way we type it out on a text changes.

And it gets more aggressive.

So you are saying take a non-aggressive stance and that helps diffuse it and maybe generate a conversation?

KASHDAN: And really lean on the “how” question.

The second part—and this is even more important—this relates to all emotionally charged conversations.

I call it the discomfort caveat.

You can start conversations by saying, I love our relationship.

I was not going to say anything, but—and I'm a little uncomfortable about revealing this—but just because we are talking about it, bear with me for a second because I might not get the words right.

When you have some opening before whatever it is you are going to say, people's defenses come down.

They get less anxious and they become more intrigued.

What is so exciting?

What is so powerful that you are anxious about in the first place?

Of course you are my friend.

Whatever you want to say.

So instead of just jumping into the topic, open up with how hard it is for you to open your mouth in the first place and you are going to have, at least, a fair hearing for whatever view you have.

KATKO: I look back to the great leaders in our country's past, as a student of presidents, and as a student of presidents, and I look at Lincoln, F.D.R.

and J.F.K., and I look at Reagan, and even Bill Clinton, his personal shortcomings aside.

They all had this common thing, and this common thing was the ability to lead — and lead for all Americans.

How much of an impact would it be to get someone like that back in the White House again on this whole narrative?

KASHDAN: I think what happens is you have now had about four cycles of real extremism from one side to the other side.

And normally what takes place is the pendulum swings too far, and so you have over-correction afterwards.

If you have multiple over-corrections, I think you just might get to a point where people say, I just want the smartest, most rational person who actually thinks about keeping my family safe, keeping some money in my wallet and in my bank account, and making sure that the people that actually deserve to get good jobs get good jobs.

KATKO: Todd Kashdan from George Mason University.

Thank you so much.

Now let's take to the trapeze.

♪ .

KATKO: We continue our focus on bipartisanship as we welcome Representative Brian Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania and Representative Jared Golden from Maine.

Members of the Problem Solvers Caucus—you are going to learn a lot in the next few minutes.

Jared, let's start with you.

Thank you for coming on the show.

Can you explain to the folks out there exactly what the Problem Solvers Caucus is?

GOLDEN: Absolutely.

It is one of the only caucuses in the House of Representatives that is made up of both Democrats and Republicans.

And I think when we look back over the last 10 to 15 years, a lot of the best work that has come out of the House of Representatives has been the result of hard work done by the Problem Solvers Caucus or members of it, to include myself and Brian—Brian in particular through the years—and also you, John, when you were in Congress.

I think your last big effort with the Problem Solvers Caucus was the bipartisan infrastructure law.

KATKO: Yes, it was.

I remember that fondly.

But I also remember how much consternation it caused for the extreme elements of both parties.

Anyway, Brian Fitzpatrick — I call him Fitzy because he is a good friend of mine — You are co-chair of the caucus.

What do you hope to achieve in your role as co-chair?

FITZPATRICK: Thanks for having us, John.

It's a two-party group.

We believe in a two-party solution, Noah's ark rule.

If you want to join, you have to find somebody from the opposite party to join with you.

So we are a one-to-one ratio that tries to advance two-party solutions and add bipartisanship in Congress, which sounds like a strange concept in this climate.

But our goal is to not make it a strange concept but to make it the norm, and to take the same approach to government that we take toward our personal relationships—that you don't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Take 80% of something over 100% of nothing.

You come to the center, try to see the world through the other person's eyes and advance a compromise, consensus-type two-party solution to all issues: healthcare, child care, housing, affordability, taxes, foreign policy—you name it.

It's basically taking the same approach to government that we take toward our personal relationships.

It's not much more complicated than that.

KATKO: So, Jared, tell us, how often does the Problem Solvers Caucus meet and what goes on in those meetings?

GOLDEN: We try to meet weekly, John.

Schedules are difficult, trying to get a big group of members together, but basically weekly.

Some meetings are more what I call informational or educational, where we will invite some people in to talk about a core issue and how it's impacting them, whether that be healthcare or permitting reform, for example.

Those are the types of meetings where we might start to see together what the common problems are that we can agree about.

Other meetings are just members where we try to get into the nuts and bolts of hashing out a deal.

One of the things I would say about the Problem Solvers is whether it's Brian, who I partner with on many issues, or you, John, when you were in Congress, Fred Upton, Jamie Buehler—every Republican that I have had a close relationship with and worked closely with on something that got done for the country was a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus.

And I think that's part of the beauty of the group.

It's the relationships you form.

KATKO: It's almost like we are exposing a nice secret about Congress—that actually Republicans and Democrats meet and they try to do things in a bipartisan manner.

So Brian, let's take one of your bipartisan efforts that you all are working on now and tell us basically what is going on with that to start with.

FITZPATRICK: Healthcare obviously is a big issue, a massive issue.

This current year, 2025, at the end of the year, the ACA tax premiums are set to expire.

And myself and Jared came up with a two-party solution, as did several other of our colleagues, to try to offer a two-party solution to send to the Senate to hopefully have them pass it and at least deal with this piece of the healthcare puzzle.

There are a lot of different cost drivers in the healthcare system.

We have to unmask and drill down on all of them.

But this is one of them.

We can't ignore any of them.

This is the most time-sensitive, given that they're set to expire at the end of the year.

We tried to get a two-party bill to the floor.

Since that option was taken off the table for us, we ended up signing a discharge petition, which is a mechanism to force a bill to the floor for an extension.

KATKO: Let me interrupt there.

You said try a two-party solution.

I presume both of you tried to work with your own parties to get them behind it, and you faced headwinds.

Is that correct?

FITZPATRICK: That is correct, GOLDEN: But the beauty, John, the beauty is in the Senate.

They need 60 votes.

They're going to take whatever the House passes and they're going to push for the deal that Brian and I have been working together on.

That's a deal that can get Republican and Democrat party votes.

KATKO: How do you feel about getting a consensus to do what is called the discharge petition, which is an esoteric rule where you basically go around leadership on both sides and force a vote on the floor?

How did you guys go about building that consensus?

GOLDEN: Brian and I have been working together on discharge petitions now for about two years.

We started with the issue of funding for Ukraine.

We kept the pressure on through those discussions.

We didn't successfully pass a discharge, but we did keep the pressure on both Democratic and Republican leadership to ultimately do something more regarding the conflict in Ukraine.

We did it again recently, successfully—Brian and I—where we didn't agree that the President should just be issuing an executive order to do away with collective bargaining rights that were already in place, negotiated and agreed to.

So Brian and I did a discharge petition.

It took us four or five months, John.

One of the things I want to point out is that we have really learned to create space.

The process—the steps you take and how you sequence it—can determine whether members of both parties feel comfortable coming along with you and signing on.

Even how you message it and talk about it matters.

You have to be careful that it does not alienate the other side.

I think Brian and I have learned how to put forward that type of partnership over seven years of working together.

KATKO: Even though you have daddy duty going on, you are doing double duty, and we appreciate that.

Brian, over to you now.

What are some of the things you hope to achieve going forward other than the Affordable Care Act, and how important is it for you to be working with the Problem Solvers Caucus?

How important is it to Congress overall?

FITZPATRICK: It's everything, John.

George Washington, in his Farewell Address in 1796, warned of the dangers of the two-party system.

He was very prophetic—an amazing president for a whole host of reasons, including that.

And here we are in 2025, about to enter 2026, and the strains are really tugging at the threads of our Constitution because of the two-party system and hyper-partisanship.

The bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus is a pressure relief valve for that.

We are providing space for members who want to approach government like they approach their personal relationships, who believe in two-party solutions and not allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

The same way people manage their businesses and households.

As far as what we look forward We're trying to take that same approach to government.

As far as what we look forward to in 2026, in the first or second week of 2026 our caucus will be unveiling what will ultimately manifest as the Problem Solvers Caucus Affordability Agenda for 2026.

We will identify all the pressure points in families' budgets—healthcare, child care, housing, and more—and unmask the cost drivers within each of them and try to provide relief.

That's the project we look forward to aggressively moving forward.

KATKO: I think I speak on behalf of all Americans when I say that I dearly hope you continue your missions in a bipartisan manner in Congress.

The American people want it more now than ever.

You are 100% right—we compromise all the time in our private and business lives and we should do the same in Congress.

There is not enough of it.

Thank you both very much.

We wish you a happy New Year, and now it's time for my take.

♪ ♪ KATKO: Bipartisanship is not an abstract theory.

It's about agreement between two parties that usually oppose each other.

But it's not just essential to good politics.

It's essential to us all.

At its core, bipartisanship is about compromise.

No business deals get done without negotiation, some give and take.

The same is true for families, friendships and workplaces.

Yet somehow that basic truth often vanishes when we get to Washington.

We need leaders on both sides of the aisle who are willing to do what is right, not just what is politically expedient.

That means voting one's conscience, not one's job security.

In fact, it's that belief and cooperation in my own bipartisan record in Congress that led me to be asked to host a show called "Balancing Act."

The idea was simple.

Create a place where political issues are discussed honestly, respectfully and without party blinders.

So when you are choosing your next political leaders, look beyond party labels.

Look at character, because character counts now more than ever.

And that's my take.

That's all for this week, folks.

To send your comments for this show, or to see "Balancing Act" extras and exclusives, follow us on social media or go to *Balancing Act with JohnKatko.com*.

Thank you for following us, and remember, in the circus that is politics, there is always a "Balancing Act."

I'm John Katko.

See you next week, America.