is this on video or just audio just audio we
don't do anything okay yeah i was like i'm not
putting on a dress shirt for this so where yeah
where's your tie guys come on let's class it
up a little bit here welcome to county connection
the official podcast of the Washington State
Association of Counties, where we dive into the
legislative issues shaping the future of our
communities. From budgets to public safety, infrastructure
to elections, we'll break down what's happening
in Olympia and how it impacts counties from across
the Evergreen State. Stay informed, stay engaged,
and join us as we amplify the voice of Washington's
39 counties. Welcome back, everybody, to the
County Connections podcast. I'm Paul Jewell,
the Government Relations Director for the Washington
State Association of Counties and your host on
County Connections. I know it's been a while
since we've done a podcast. We've kind of taken
a little bit of time off since the session. We've
only had a couple, but we have a really big treat
for you today. I'm super excited about our podcast
and the guests that we have. It's something that
I've actually been wanting to do for quite a
while. A couple of guys from Snohomish County.
that I know not a lot of you know. I'll let them
introduce themselves. But Councilmember Meade
and Councilmember Nearing, welcome to the podcast.
Thanks for joining us today. Good to be here.
Yeah, thanks for having us, Paul. Yeah, you bet.
You guys are actually not here in the studio.
You're hanging out via Zoom. So how's the weather
up in Snohomish County today? I've been trapped
inside. I have no idea. I have no windows in
this room. No windows. It's not. Yeah, it's not
too bad. It's not raining. It's just nice. I
think the rain is coming tomorrow. Yeah, we're
certainly starting to enter that fall period.
Council member Meade, are you which one of you
is newer to the council? Are you newer or is
council member Meade? OK, that's you. And you're
the chair this year, right? Nate's the chair
this year. I was the chair last year. Oh, OK.
So you guys have flipped everything that I did
as far as research on your podcast. Talk about
you being the chair. In fact, I read I read one
article that called you the president of the
county. And Council Member Nearing was the vice
president of the county. So that's that's. Well,
Council Member Nearing, so you're the chair.
For those who maybe don't know you very well,
maybe just introduce yourself, talk about your
background really briefly and how long you've
been on the Snohomish County Council. Sure. Yeah.
So I'm Nate Nearing. I represent the northern
part of Snohomish County, which is District 1.
And I joined the county council in 2017. I was
appointed at the age of 21 and then ran for election
that year. And I'm now up for reelection to a
third term this year. And so I've really enjoyed
working in county government. I love the issues
we get to tackle and great community organizations
to work with, great colleagues like Jared and
others on the council. And so just really enjoy
the work. personal side, my wife and I live in
Arlington. We've got four kids. We have a six
-year -old, a five -year -old, a three -year
-old, and a three -month -old. So I like to tell
people we're playing the zone defense and having
a lot of fun with that. And we were just talking
a little bit before the podcast started about
our weekends. And I spent all day Saturday at
the soccer field. So that's a good weekend. But
that's a little bit on the personal side. But
yeah, again, just really enjoy getting to work
in county government and look forward to this
discussion. So four kids and a county council
member. That's a lot to put on anybody's plate.
You don't have any pets, too, do you? No pets.
Yeah, the kids are enough, I think. Yeah, I think
so. So I ran into a dog breeder this weekend
who had some really cute little puppies, lab
puppies. And I took a picture of one and sent
it to my wife and she just sent over one word,
divorce. Yeah. So I know the feeling of trying
to balance all those all those different competing
interests. Councilmember Mead, so you've been
you're you're a little newer to the council.
You know, you served in the state legislature
at one point as well, did you? Correct. Yes.
Why don't you introduce yourself for the folks
who are listening? Yes, I'm. Jared Mead. I'm
Snohomish County Council member. I represent
District 4, which is the south part of the county.
It's actually the smallest geographic district.
And Nate's District 1 is the largest geographic
in the north. So it's an interesting piece. I'm
a Democrat. He's a Republican, but also our districts
are vastly different. Yeah, before I served,
I've been serving on the county council since
2020, April of 2020. I was appointed to fill
a vacancy after my predecessor vacated his seat.
So I've been on the council now for five years,
over five years. But before that, I served in
the state legislature, as you alluded to. In
the 2019 and 2020 legislative session, I served
the 44th Legislative District. And before that,
I served on the Mill Creek City Council. That
was where I first was elected to office. Before
that, I had ran campaigns. So our Secretary of
State, Steve Hobbs, he represented the 44th District,
same district as me, where I live and grew up
in. and eventually represented. I ran his reelection
campaign in 2014 when I was in college. And then
Guy Palumbo, who was a District 1 senator, I
ran his race in 2016 before eventually running
for city council and then the legislature myself.
On the personal side, just as Nate said, I mean,
I've got four kids as well, a six -year -old,
four -year -old, three -year -old, and a one
-year -old. So my youngest is a little older
than his brand new three month old, but we're
competing. I'm winning because I have two dogs
and he has no. For now, he's winning for now.
And and also we had a pet scenario where my wife
texted me this weekend about getting a cat for
one of my daughters. Oh, wow. So I got to get
the reverse end of that. No, thank you. Yeah.
Yeah. That's a, it's always a bit of a negotiation
when you're talking about bringing a new pet
home, regardless of the family situation. Especially
when you have three bedrooms. Yeah. Four kids,
two dogs. That's where we were stuffed. All right.
So is it two girls and two boys? Are you guys
completely even, or is it three in one, all four
of boys or girls? What's the, what's the status
there? We're two and two and two. Yeah. So you're
both. So, okay. So a three bedroom house works
out really good when you're two and two because
the kids can share, right? Yeah, except they're
opposite ends of the age. So I have boy, girl,
girl, boy. So the one year old and the six and
a half year old are not ready to share a room
yet. We'll see. We'll cross that bridge when
we get to it. Right now, we're OK with the baby
still in the walk in closet. Well, those are
big families, especially by today's standards.
I don't think you see a lot of folks out there.
going all the way to four kids as much as maybe
in the past. So you guys must be busy all the
time. So you have a lot in common, right? I mean,
you were both appointed. to the council. You're
both fairly young gentlemen. I'm not going to
say how old you are. We don't have to divulge
that. He's the youngest, just so we're clear.
That's why he does not have a furry beard on
his face in that photo that you can't see on
this podcast. Nate's the youngest. Paul tried
to card me. He tried to ID me before we started
the podcast. That isn't true, but no one would
blame me if I did. But, you know, big families,
you live in the same community. A lot in common.
And that's kind of what we want to talk about
today, because even though you have all those
things in common, Councilmember Meade, you mentioned
you're a Democrat. You mentioned Councilmember
Nehring is Republican. Obviously, those are,
in most cases, opposing positions ideologically
when you talk about politics. But you guys are
kind of forging a new path. And I wanted to talk
about that a little bit. Even though you might
be from opposing parties, you're working together
on quite a few things, including a pretty big
project that you guys have been putting out there
called building. It's called Building Bridges.
Is that right? Yep. The Building Bridges project.
Yeah. Let's talk about that a little bit, because
I think this is one of the most interesting things
that I've seen in quite a while in this idea.
Well, first of all, whose idea was it? Was it
both your ideas or did one of you bring it to
the other? I think it was really combined. Yeah,
honestly, genuinely, I think it took years for
us to get to the point that we're at, even with
starting an actually official project in a nonprofit.
The evolution, it kind of got us there almost
naturally, I'd say. And we could go over the
origin of it and maybe it would make a little
bit more sense to do that. Yeah, I think that
would be good to hear. Since you both kind of
came up with it together, what spurred it? What
was the... What was the catalyst? What was the
reason behind it? And then maybe we'll talk a
little bit about what it is. Yeah, so I joined
the county council, like I said, in April of
2020. And if you could get your head back to
2020, that was especially in April of 2020. That's
right at the very beginning of COVID. smacking
washington in the face that's what i was thinking
about was 2020 that's the pandemic right yes
and i i so i had left the legislature joined
local government april may or may one month later
george floyd's killed so all of the basically
we lost our in my this way i describe it at least
lost our collective minds in america In the summer
of 2020, we had the reforms or defund police
movement happening during that summer. You remember
the Summer of Love in Seattle? And then you're
also dealing with the pandemic. And in local
government, you and your position in WASAC understand
this better than any, that local governments
were where COVID really hit the worst, budget
-wise, but then also policy -wise when it comes
to defund the police. You're not talking about
defunding the State Patrol or federal, police.
You're talking about local PDs and sheriff departments.
So local governments are also where that is the
hottest. And so I joined the county council in
the heat of that in 2020. And I had known Nate
kind of peripherally, but I knew his dad more.
His dad's the mayor of Marysville. And Marysville
was a city in the district, the 44th district
that I represented. And so when I joined the
county council, everything was Zoom. Everything
was, you know, it was remote. We were all distanced
from each other. I didn't get to meet staff or
any of the county council members in person.
You must have been wondering, have I lost my
mind? What did I do? It was wild. The only thing
that would have been more wild was being in the
legislature during COVID. The session looked
like hell from the inside. I can tell you, you
know, being an active lobbyist during those sessions,
it was crazy. Right. It was, I mean, like we
had, you know, hearings going on simultaneously.
I'd have three screens going, you know, in my
office. And believe it or not, they would actually
sometimes call me to testify at exactly this.
I believe it. I believe the odds of that were
crazy. But, you know, all the pressure that you
were talking about around defund of the police,
masking, right, shutdowns for businesses, a lot
of that stuff is coming from the higher levels,
federal level, state level, et cetera. But you
guys were catching the brunt of a lot of that,
right? People were they were banging on your
offices. They were making demands of you guys
in the paper and on Facebook to do something
about it. That must have been really stressful.
Right. It was. It was heated politically. And
I'm a Democrat. Like I said, Nate's a Republican
and a lot. And the county council is a split
council. We have three Democrats and two Republicans.
And that's been the makeup since I've been on
council, even as we've switched who fills those
roles. And so it's been a split council. It was
it was very politically tumultuous during the
2020 and 2021 time periods. And so I'm starting
to get to know the council members, how to work
with each other. I started to build a lot of
respect for Council Member Nehring and how he
handled himself during that year. And so we started
to build a little bit of a connection. We're
both similar ages. We both have young kids. We
both are into sports. We're both born and raised
in Selmish County. Wives are both school teachers,
like a lot of similarities on a personal level.
Then you fast forward to January 6th, 2021 and
the D .C. Capitol riots. And you start seeing
what's going on on social media and you're watching
whether I'm watching MSNBC or CNN at the time.
And maybe Nate's watching Fox or some conservative
influenced media. And we started to message each
other back and forth, like watching this unfold
live on TV. And we realized quickly that we were
both kind of in the same mental state as far
as a response to what's happening in D .C., that
it's it's wrong. And it also gives us a lot of
concern for where we're headed as a country with
deep political polarization and what that means
for our kids. And at that time, our future kids,
because we hadn't had all four of them yet. And
I believe. Did you believe what you were seeing
at the time? It was really concerning, really
wild. Absolutely could not believe it, to be
honest. And we realized that both of us were
having the same response. And so Nate said, you
know, we both have a similar perspective here.
I think it'd probably be powerful for us to say
something, maybe publicly, as a Democrat and
as a Republican and as young elected officials.
And so we just started doing a back and forth,
creating what ended up being an op -ed that we
submitted to our local paper, the Everett Herald,
and they put it out. And the op -ed was essentially,
you know, what we just talked about, like this
is unprecedented and this is a concern for the
future. And we've got to try to reel it back
and work together on some things. And we can
send you those links if you haven't read that
op -ed, but that's kind of what launched it because
we both got. What I would say some really negative
fervor from our local political parties. So the
Democratic Party and like the local PCOs and
the local legislative district Democrat organizations
were not excited that I was willing to work on
anything with a Republican. And Nate got the
same thing from his party. And so initially we
were feeling a lot of backlash, but pretty quickly
we started to get pleasantly surprised with the
response we were getting from like our local
chambers of commerce and our local Rotary groups
and Kiwanis clubs and local government teachers,
a college professor at UW Bothell. They all reached
out to us and said, hey, we like what you're
saying. The message is really important right
now. Would you be willing to come speak with
our group? And so we started just saying yes
to all these. So for like a year. We were just
saying yes to a bunch of different group invitations
to have these conversations. And that so that
was not a nonprofit at the time. We were just
going and speaking and talking like this and
showing how, hey, you know, Nate and I have been
on the council for a couple of years together.
We disagree on plenty. He's a Republican and
I'm a Democrat. If we were in Congress, we would
vote opposite on a ton of these emotionally charged
issues that, you know, draw people to the various
parts of the different parties. We vote differently
on the county council and you can see it in our
voting record. But we've found ways to work together.
In fact, we've found ways to co -sponsor ordinances.
At this point, we've got like six or seven ordinances
that we've co -sponsored, a Republican and a
Democrat, that are now county code because we
were able to compartmentalize and set aside some
of these bigger differences to work together
on things we can find agreement on. And that
message was really resonating with people. And
then you fast forward one more year and we decided
to get a little bit more proactive rather than
just reacting to people inviting us. And we created
what we called the Building Bridges Tour. And
that was, again, before a nonprofit was ever
established. And we put together these town halls
on the four corners of the Snohomish County region.
Yeah, I read about those. It was like a series
of four, right, across the county. Now, that
op -ed that you mentioned, is that the same one
that was published in the Seattle Times? Because
that's the one that I read. I think that was
a different one. Yeah, there's been a few at
this point. But yeah, the first one was right
in the aftermath of January 6th. Okay, so this
whole thing. So the creation of the nonprofit
really wasn't how you started. You didn't say,
let's create a nonprofit. It sounds like you
just said, hey, let's speak up. And let's speak
up as opposing ideological viewpoints on the
same council. And then it sounds like it just
kind of grew organically from there. Yeah, that's
exactly right. I think the impetus was, you know,
we don't want to live in a society or have a
future for our kids where you can't even talk
to somebody who thinks differently from you or
has different political perspective. And so how
can we in our roles as council members, you know,
work to change that or turn the tide? And so,
you know, one of the ways that we could do that
was by penning that op -ed and then going out
and speaking to whoever would listen about. you
know, our experience together as members of different
political parties, but people who, you know,
we're personal friends and respect each other.
And so, you know, talking about the importance
of being able to do that, like setting politics
aside and being able to humanize people who are
on maybe the other side of the political aisle
from you. And I think that, you know, for me,
that's what was so important, because whether
it was January 6th or some of the other, you
know, events we saw throughout 2020 and, you
know. rhetoric that we still see today, there's
just such a dehumanization of those who we might
disagree with politically. And I think that that's
wrong. And so any way that we can encourage people
and exemplify, you know, being able to communicate
in a respectful way and disagree. You know, disagree
without being disagreeable, I think is the quote
I heard from somebody. And so any way that we
can do that and demonstrate that and encourage,
you know, future generations to do that is really
important. And so that that kind of spurred this
effort of going around and setting up this building
bridges tour and the town halls that we hosted,
along with other organizations like Braver Angels
and the Snow Owl Libraries and others throughout
Snohomish County. And what was really cool about
that was we had people from different geographic
areas, you know, coming together at these events.
And I remember one of the events we had some
precinct committee officers from both of the
political parties there. So there were some really
hardline Republicans and hardline Democrats there.
Yeah, these are the ones who give it their weekends.
Yeah, that's right. So these are this is a tough
crowd that you attracted. It was. And as Jared
mentioned, you know, when we started this, like
with the with the initial op ed, we got a lot
of flack from the political parties. I mean,
they were not happy. I'd like to talk about that
a little bit more. Can you go into some details
there? Because, you know, the idea of bipartisanship
for some of the really hardliners, I think, on
both sides of the major parties, it's almost
like it's almost like they want to spit that
word out like vinegar. Right. It's certainly
not something that they're willing to swallow
under most occasions. And I'm not surprised that
there were folks who didn't think this was a
good idea, being how, you know, Jared, you're
a Democrat and and Nate and I should be calling
you council members. Sorry about that, guys.
No, but I only made my wife call me council member.
Well, it's a tradition here at Wasatch, so I
will try to adhere to it. But council member
Meade, you know, you're a Democrat council member
and you're a Republican. You guys have already
kind of mentioned you got some pushback. But
I have to imagine there were some folks within
the party structure, within your county, who
really thought this was a bad idea. And I'm just
curious, could you share with the listeners kind
of what some of that pushback was and how you
felt about that? Yeah. Go ahead, Jed. All right,
I'm going. No, you're exactly right. And I think
Nate and I probably felt almost the same feeling.
And we've talked about this over the years since.
It's easier to talk about now, but it was harder
back then to hear people call you names who wore
your T -shirt when you're running for state house
a year prior to that. Pictures of people holding
your two week old first born son who are now
calling you that I was called a racist by association.
Wow. Wow. Homophobic by something. Basically,
just you're friends with the Republican and all
Republicans are racist and all Republicans are
homophobic. Therefore, you are those things or
complacent in those things, which is even worse
kind of thing. And at first it's hard, but then
you start to realize those are really minority
voices. You mentioned when you were responding
about what a PCO is, the PCOs are really active.
people in the party, and they do a lot of good,
they do a lot of good act, they do a lot of good
activation of voters, they do a lot of activism,
they get a lot of attention to issues that maybe
people aren't paying attention to, etc, etc.
But also just the nature of being in that organization,
you're in a bubble, you're self selecting to
be in this bubble. And so you are associating
yourself with a lot of people who think the exact
same way as you and the, the most extreme version
of that thought process. So I'm a Democrat, which
means the furthest left, and I have to ascribe
to all of the policy platform of the party. But
that cannot be true. Nobody agrees with anybody
100%. I don't agree with my wife 100 % of the
time. You guys don't agree with your spouses
100 % of the time. We're usually the ones that
are wrong. But essentially, you're saying when
you join a party that... I have to say yes to
all of this. And nobody actually feels that way.
And I've knocked on enough doors of voters and
talked to enough voters at this point in my life,
for my career, to know that everybody is different.
I could not agree more. I mean, I can't even
tell you how many times I've run into Republicans
who are pro -choice, right? And Democrats, some
Democrats who are pro -life. But they are afraid
to say it in public most of the time because
of the strict adherence. It feels like I think
a lot of us have to, you know, these party ideologies,
these party platforms. And if you want to be
a member of the club, you know, so to speak,
then you have to play by the club's rules to
the point where you, you know, that free thinking
flexibility that. uh used to be out there at
least in the 19 i think the 1980s and 1990s around
party ideology seems to have gone by the wayside
and been replaced by a more strict adherence
you either are or you're not you're with us or
you're against us right yes and that's one that's
the one piece to it absolutely and but the other
piece is that i think unless we describe what
we mean by bipartisan and nate does a great job
about reminding Me to do it when I forget or
certainly bringing it up when we're speaking
to groups and we haven't talked spoken about
it yet about what like finding common ground
and bipartisanship means, because a lot of people
like to say, especially when you're in the rigid
ideological circles, you're like, well, bipartisan
just means you're giving up on your values or
you're just you're becoming more Republican.
It doesn't have to mean that it can mean that
you see a difference. And you're OK with that
difference being there. And maybe you never agree
with that person and they can't get you to their
side. But you can see the other things that you
can agree on, et cetera. And that's that's what's
frustrating is. But I think it just takes work
on our end. It's it's harder. It's harder work
to try to be bipartisan and open minded and curious
and thoughtful than it is to be like strictly
rigid in a world where you get so much information
thrown at you nowadays with social media and
news media having this incentive to pull your
attention in by telling you exactly what you
want to hear and what makes you really angry.
Right. It takes a lot of work to be open minded
and curious. It's really easy to just say, tell
me what I'm supposed to think. What's the Democratic
Party platform? OK, here's the top 20 issues.
This is how I'm supposed to think about all those
20 issues. If I don't think that way, then I'm
a Republican. You know, it's I think that is
the biggest misnomer, too, is this idea that,
you know, finding common ground or talked about
the word bipartisan, that that means, you know,
you're not allowed to hold on to those core values
you have. If they're a progressive or conservative,
you have to just everybody meet in the middle
and sing Kumbaya and we all have to be centrist.
And that's not at all what it's about. You know,
you can be a super progressive elected official
or a super conservative one. but still have that
commitment toward respect and trying to find
ways to find common ground. And like Jared said,
that doesn't mean that you're gonna agree on
every issue. Probably there's gonna be a lot
of issues that you do disagree on, but you gotta
acknowledge that difference and say, okay, well,
where can we move forward and find agreement
on a different issue? How can we work together
to better our communities in some other way?
I'm so glad you guys brought that up. One of
the things that I've written down in preparing
for this was, a question that i was going to
throw out there that i was you know that i was
thinking about when i knew you were going to
talk about some of the backlash that you got
and and councilmember neary and i'd like you
to talk about um that backlash from your point
of view as well and how you experienced it maybe
either similarly or differently than uh councilmember
mead but what i was wondering was you know do
you think that some of the really hardcore folks
who really have those firmly held beliefs, who
even believe that those beliefs are rooted in
not just talking points that they memorized,
but strong core values, et cetera, do they see
a commitment to civil discourse, a commitment
to respectful political discussion as a commitment
to compromise? And is that one of the driving
forces behind some of that criticism beyond just...
blanket, you know, party loyalty, et cetera.
So, you know, maybe you could comment on that,
but also council member, if you wouldn't mind
just kind of talking a little bit about, you
know, how you experienced that backlash as well
from your side of the aisle. Sure. Yeah. I think
there could be some of that, maybe that hesitation
with compromise and not wanting to, not wanting
to see compromise. And, you know, people are
in different camps on this. I mean, there's a
lot of people who, you know, they want to win.
They want to see their issue. Uh, you know, win
over the opposing side. There's others who are
more interested in sort of that incremental progress,
you know, not letting the good be the enemy of
the great. And so I think the latter are more
open to this idea of finding common ground or
compromising when, you know, when it's beneficial.
Whereas the former, you know, they don't want
to hear about compromise or any sort of work
with the other side, which I think is to their
detriment to moving issues forward and to serving
the community, which is our job as elected officials.
Right. And in terms of the response that we got,
I mean, I remember one of the meetings I attended,
one of the local Republican meetings, and this
was brought up. You know, I was there talking
about something else. And they said, what about
this work that you're doing with Jared Mead?
And so I explained it a little bit. And they
said, well, why are you doing an apology tour?
I remember them asking me, it stands out in my
mind. And I remember thinking, I'm not apologizing
about anything. You know, that's never come up.
characterize it yeah yeah but i thought what
a strange way to view it as as if it's you know
as if it's almost like we're going around talking
about the the democratic platform and i'm just
apologizing for all the all the republican viewpoints
on things and nothing can be further from the
truth right we're both talking about how we have
our own views and we need to be respectful of
each other's views. And I just thought it was
so interesting that it was perceived that way
by somebody who is sort of, you know, a little
bit more entrenched in the in the conservative
political realm. But what's funny about that
is the same exact thing. Just the inverse is
said to me at the local Democrat. organization
meetings. Unless you sit in the audience or participate
in one of these conversations or do the research
like you have where you go online and you look
at some of the work we're trying to do, it's
so easy to just dismiss it as an apology tour
or whatever. Political stuff, maybe? Political
stuff, for sure. That's for sure, but that could
be a separate category, I think, of criticism.
you can't really dispel that. There's no, I,
we could easily be doing this for publicity,
even if it's for the right reasons to, you know,
both. Cause I'm on a podcast now because we have
a nonprofit. So that's, but it's a separate criticism
as. You're basically just a Republican, Jared,
and you're only doing this to because these these
audiences are Republican leaning. And so it's
easy for you to be in that room because you basically
believe that stuff anyways. I'm called a dino
for that. And then the same exact criticism is
happening for the same exact actions that we're
taking together for Nate being, you know, a rhino
and apologizing for basically just being a Democrat.
And it's like, if you look at our policy positions.
Even the votes that we take year over year when
the budget comes along, you can see we clearly
not only disagree on things, but vote opposite
and argue opposite from the dais. And so to say
that it's just you're just basically a Republican
or you're just basically a Democrat, it's just
a really easy way to dismiss it and not have
to really lean in and actually want to understand
what's what's happening, because it is it is
easier human beings just instinctively. And evolutionarily,
we just want to be tribal. We want to be a part
of a group and a louder group. And so I want
to be a Democrat. And if I want to be accepted
into the Democratic circles, then I need to yell
orange man bad. And anyone who even knows a Republican
is basically just a Republican. And if you hold
that line, then you're going to have a little
bit more friends in this small circle that you
choose to attend. So interesting. Thank you for
sharing that. I really. I think our members can
really relate to that. You know, anybody who
serves any real time as an elected official is
going to find that there are solutions out there
that don't necessarily fit a box or an ideological
definition of Republican or Democrat. Right.
Especially when we're dealing with partisan offices.
There's a lot of gray. And the key is, is the
elected official who recognizes that willing
to. take action on that. And that's one of the,
I have these three characteristics that I usually
speak to kids. So they're, they're more, they're
easier words, but I use, I tell them to, in order
to work, to make this community better and to
better this type of effort and be more civil
and less polarized, you need to be humble. curious
and brave. You need to be humble enough to set
aside your ego and to say, maybe I don't know
everything. And maybe somebody can teach me something.
That's one. That's the first. I need to be curious
enough to dig in and try to find the answer.
But then what you just said, the key is once
you find out that the answer isn't politically
convenient, if you're an elected official, for
instance, and you're like, I'm a Democrat, but
that data, I'm not. I don't know if that's really
the policy position I'm supposed to take, but
my party is taking that or if you're in the legislature,
the Speaker of the House is telling me to do
this. Are you brave enough to say, OK, I was
humble enough to admit I didn't know everything,
curious enough to find the answer. Now that I
know the answer, am I brave enough to take the
stand or take the vote or at least say out loud?
And the problem is our political system. currently
is really not set up to incentivize that person
to take that next step and say, actually, I got
to go the other way on this. The political structure
incentivizes that person to shut their mouth
and take the vote they're supposed to take. And
you see a lot of elected officials through political
expedience and strategy doing that and climbing.
You know, they're the ones that benefit. They're
the ones that get the tweet that goes viral.
They're the ones that start to get all the national
attention. They're the ones that get recruited
to run for Congress, etc. Yeah, it takes real
leadership, takes real courage. And real courage
is hard to come by in today's world, at least
in the political world. And you guys are showing
that today. And I just wanted to mention that,
wanted to congratulate you a little bit on that,
because, you know, taking a stand when you're
getting that pressure, even from your own team,
is hard. And sticking together for something
that you know is the right path. that isn't necessarily
politically convenient takes real courage and
that's real leadership. So I think you described
it extremely well, Council Member Mead. So as
we talk about the regression here, you guys were
both moved by kind of what was happening. January
6th sounds like maybe it was a turning point.
You started, you know, you did the op -ed, you
got together, you said, okay, collectively, we've
got a strong voice here. There are some things
that we think we can do, at least in our community,
to make a difference. Then you started having
these series of, were they town halls? Were they
workshops? How would you describe them? Yeah,
I think it was basically a roadshow, right? We
had been getting invitations to speak to different
groups, Rotaries, Chambers of Commerce, you know,
school classrooms. And so we decided, well, why
don't we go out and partner with organizations
that are doing this work, you know, like libraries
and Braver Angels and some of these other groups
and and just host our own events and invite the
public to attend, you know, sort of a town hall
style format. And so did people did people come?
Yeah, we actually got I was shocked by the turnout,
you know, anywhere from like. probably 70 to
100 people at each of the four events. Well,
that is to do one in each corner of Snohomish
County. So we did four events, one per quarter
in a different geographic location. And. Again,
the organizations we partnered with were a huge
help. And yeah, very, very successful events
from my perspective. It was great to have that
community turnout and a lot of really good, really
valuable conversations. What was most fulfilling
for me out of it was getting to hear from people
afterward who I think came in very skeptical
and left feeling like. OK, there's there's an
action. There's a call to action here. Like we
can make a difference if we're if we're willing
to humanize the other side and just get to know
somebody and and find ways where we can, you
know, work together, find common ground outside
of or in spite of political disagreement. So
Braver Angels is somebody that we've heard of.
We haven't talked to them to them on this podcast,
but I know that as an association, we've talked
with Braver Angels in the past. We've had. Some
of our Zoom meetings, I know at least one of
them or two of them. And I think they came to
our conference one year, if I'm not mistaken,
and put together. I remember being at a WASAC
conference and I think it was like the Braver
Angels president who came from out of state to
speak at the conference. And they're a national
organization, right? And they're committed to
exactly the same thing. Right. And they've they've
got local chapters. I know there's a group out
of Spokane that's been working with them in Washington
state. There might be some on the west side as
well. Well, obviously, there were a few were
able to use them in Snohomish County. Did you
basically just draft on their membership, their
infrastructure to kind of get the word out about
this and to decide on a basic format? Is that
how that started? I think they it was it was
less on getting people out and more on like I
had as an elected official. I'd previously gone
to some of their workshops that they had hosted
in Snohomish County, and I found their format
to be really helpful. And like the the different.
for lack of a better word, or the way that they
structured it to be really helpful. And so we
leaned on them for that part of it. Like, okay,
we're doing a town hall. Here's our goal. We're
inviting the community. How do we make it successful
in terms of the format? And they were very helpful
in working with us there. Yeah, we didn't want
it to just be Nate and I stand up on a stage,
talk, and then take questions, and then it's
over. And so we used, because we were new to
that. We could have done a million town halls,
but we haven't done anything that would be this
engaging in community. And so we leaned in with
them to say, how do you guys do your structure,
your events to get more participation and get
actual actionable items and information from
people? And and so they helped us come up with
the ideas of having different table groups and
breakout sessions and whiteboards where we'd
write stuff down and things that weren't just
the standard politician on a. because we really
didn't want it to be that. We didn't want it
to be a political thing. We wanted it to be completely
separate and really be driven by the community
wanting to have a conversation with each other.
Interesting. Well, how did you go from that,
because it sounds like these were pretty successful,
to your own nonprofit? I mean, why not just partner
with a group like Braver Angels and continue
that work locally or even regionally? Why decide
to... Start your own nonprofit. You know, how
was it different? What were you doing there that
that you felt like you needed your own organization
for? I can go with that. So, well, basically,
we we didn't want to, one, have to have. Well,
I don't want to characterize it as baggage, but
we didn't want to have anyone else's any other
organization structure. We didn't want to have
any. We don't want to piggyback on that. We kind
of had started something locally, homegrown.
And we saw it as more of a Snohomish County specific
effort because of the connections that we had
with elected officials and community groups,
him all over North County, me all over South
County. So it seemed like it made a lot of sense
to kind of start it small in this bubble rather
than hop on to a larger organization that's already
doing something that might not be exactly aligned
with what we're trying to do. I also think we
had something unique in the sense that we are
both. were and are currently both elected, currently
elected officials from different parties on the
same legislative body. And so even though that
wasn't the focus of and isn't the focus of the
Building Bridges Project, we kind of symbolized
it. We personified it in what we actually were
and still are today, a Republican on a county
body and a Democrat on a county body. And so
being able to speak the two of us together and
kind of show it was, the F the initial effort,
at least that's what people were attracted to
at the beginning and why we think that they were,
it had been successful early on. So we want to,
I wanted to keep it in that scope. And then Nate,
you can jump in and correct me if I'm wrong,
but we also started to have conversations kind
of in parallel with that after that, after that
year that we did the, cause that for. that County
tour or whatever we want to call it was over
the course of basically the year. It was, we
had one town hall per quarter. And at the end
of that year, we said, how do we take this to
the next level and make it a little bit more
palpable and a little bit more in a little bit
more, I don't know, direct and also youth oriented
because we had had young people come in and talk
and we had a lot of. successful conversations
with young people and saw the response. And so
it was kind of in that where we're like, we're
starting to throw out a lot of different ideas.
We have this idea to have, and we still have
this pledge on our website where elected officials
and community members could sign a pledge, a
civility pledge. So we kind of had all these
ideas we were thinking through, and we thought
it made sense to put it under this umbrella and
get an organization put together that we could
then start housing them. And that's... That's
where the idea of the nonprofit came. But then
very quickly after that, it started to get oriented
more towards youth because that's where the best
engagement was happening. And that was the Future
Leaders Academy. And that's kind of now what's
taken full front and center with the nonprofit.
Yeah, I definitely want to get into that a little
bit. But before we get there, I still want to
kind of maybe talk about this idea of how you
actually decided on the nonprofit itself. I mean,
you went through the series of town halls you
worked with. braver angels at some point you
decided we're not just going to continue with
them we're going to do our own thing it sounds
to me like from your description council member
me that it's slowly kind of developed and and
and that seems to be kind of the theme here right
i think i used the term organically earlier that
it was just a series of events but was there
and maybe that maybe there wasn't but was there
a memorable you know event or happening or moment
where you just where it just clicked and said
hey here's the next step this is what we should
do I don't know that there was an event. I think
it was gradual. But I do I do remember a conversation
we had that really, you know, sparked my my desire
to kind of go in this direction, forming a nonprofit.
And that was, you know, we're we're currently
elected officials and we both really enjoy the
work of public service, you know, in county government.
But we're not always going to be elected officials.
Right. At some point, we'll either, you know,
we'll be we'll be doing something different.
But this work of. civic health and engaging the
community on finding common ground and stability
and mutual respect is something that we're both
really passionate about. And we don't want it
to just go away once we're not in elected office
anymore. And so I remember we had probably a
few conversations about this idea of how do we
keep this train going so that even when we're
no longer on the county council or no longer
in elected office, we can continue to do this
work and to advocate. And so one of the ways
was by taking it kind of out of the role of county
council members and forming this nonprofit so
that, you know, regardless of whatever comes
next or what happens down the road, we have the
ability to continue this work. And that was important
for me to know that, you know, it's not just
going to end as soon as we're no longer in office.
Yeah. Thank you for that part, Nate. I failed
to mention that, but at everything we had done
prior to starting the nonprofit was done essentially
with our County council member hats on. So we're
even with the town halls, we were council members
doing the town halls. Sure. We're working with
angels or the YMCA, the boys and girls up in
the library. We were the council members doing
that. And as nonprofit. As a nonprofit, we're
not doing it as our elected official hats. We
don't use our county emails and our county resources.
Our county staff can't help us with any of it.
So we're trying to take it out of county government
and create something that can be bigger than
that. So it's interesting that you say that.
I mean, it's obvious that as Snohomish County
Council members opposing parties. The way you
guys did the op -ed and you organized this, you
would be kind of seen as council members orchestrating
this movement or these conversations. Were other
members of your council involved? I think you
guys have seven up there in Snow, which is that
right? Five. Oh, five. Okay. Five is probably
a little easier to manage than seven. But were
the other council members, were they part of
the discussion or the movement or was there ever...
you know, a thought to, you know, make this an
official Snohomish County Council project? Or
was it really just the, you know, Councilmember
Meade, Councilmember Nehring kind of going off
on their own doing this? Yeah, you're Councilmembers,
but not necessarily endorsed or supported by
the County Council itself. So we have we started
an event called Civic Education Day where we
invite students from all over Snohomish County
to come in. And part of it was learning about
county government, like different roles and responsibilities.
But part of it was also like when Jared and I
would talk to the students about that civility
piece and how we you know, how we treat each
other, essentially. So that did get sort of adopted
by the full council. And so that's now like an
annual event that we. That is hosted by by county
government or by the county council. So that's
kind of an endorsement of the concept. Sure.
But in terms of like the direct work, yeah, we
it really has, I think, gone away from our council
roles and more toward this nonprofit role. I
mean, for example, a lot of what we do is is
reactive, right? Like somebody will reach out
and ask us to speak at a chamber meeting. And
so, you know, the two of us will go and do that.
obviously our council role, you know, is significant
in that. Like we share examples of county policies
that we've been able to co -sponsor and work
together on. But part of it, you know, it's kind
of like what we've described on the podcast here
so far is, you know, our origin story and some
of the experiences that we've had with, you know,
with our own political parties and what we hope
to see for our kids' futures. And so, yeah, I
would say for the most part, it's gone outside
of county government. So how did you actually
get started? I think people would be interested.
Did you basically just say, look, I'm going to
fill out the paperwork. We're going to get the
designation. And it just kind of grew from there.
How did you fund it? Or are you funding it? Is
it all volunteer? How does the actual structure
of the nonprofit work? And I noticed when you
get on your website, you're not the only two
people listed as the founder of the nonprofit.
There's another gentleman by the name of John
Estes. I hope I'm saying that right. Is that
Josh Estes? Oh, Josh. Yes, Josh Estes. And it
looks like he plays a pretty prominent role in
the nonprofit as well. Maybe you can just describe
that process and how he came on and kind of what
your roles are. And then we'll get into maybe
a little bit more about the work that the nonprofit's
been doing. Yeah, well, so once we decided, I
think I do think I think it's fair to say and
Josh wouldn't disagree with this that. After
we had done the kind of four corner scenario
and decided, hey, we should be more intentional
about this. This should be a nonprofit. We should
really take this organization outside of the
county so it can live outside of us, et cetera.
That was a conversation Nate and I had originally.
And we decided we wanted to do that, but we were
like. How do you do that? Since you just asked,
you just file like, how do you do it mechanically?
Right. And what are the pros and cons to it,
especially as elected officials starting a nonprofit,
et cetera. And so we both had a mutual acquaintance
friend. I mean, he Josh is somebody who's been
in Snohomish County for a long time. I've known
him for years, more on like a campaign side of
politics. And so he's someone who is on a bunch
of boards for different elected, not elected,
if it was different nonprofits within Snohomish
County. He's very involved with an organization
called Leadership Snohomish County in Snohomish,
which is one that Nate and I have been involved
with and given speeches to, et cetera. And so
we just reached out to him as a friend and said,
hey, how would we go about doing something like
this? He ended up giving us a ton of advice.
He loved the idea, leaned in a lot. And so then
we just asked him, would you want to found this
with us? And so then we. created it and he helped
us with much of the technical stuff and all the
mechanical all of that and then as as it evolved
into like well what do we actually want this
to be um are we just doing like speaking speeches
everywhere is that what the not is the non -profit
just a an umbrella name that we could just use
to go give speeches to chambers and just like
more professional looking or is it is there a
mission is there something we really want to
accomplish so we started to create what our mission
wants to be and our focus and that's the stuff
that you'll see on the website now but that really
did evolve over you know the first months of
the origin of this and we started to get a little
bit more focused and that's when you start to
see the actual The Future Leaders Academy program
actually pop up on our website and us to lean
in and get really involved. At first, it didn't
have anything to do with being able to fundraise
because there was no we didn't think anything
was going to cost money. All we're doing is just
Nate and I sweat equity, just showing up and
talking and trying to be trying to be trying
to grow the movement. But then as we started
to think about these ideas, specifically the
Future Leaders Academy is like, well. If we really
want this to be a big, sustainable project, we'll
probably need some money invested into it to
give, whether it's student scholarships or the
charter buses to Olympia or various things that
we're going to be spending money on. okay well
then we do need to raise some money and now that
means you got to file as something different
and you got to have these designations as a 501c3
and all these other things somebody's got to
file taxes for that stuff exactly so it kind
of slowly formulated into that that was not the
original intent the original intent was just
to make it a stable kind of like more of an organization
take it outside of county and make it its own
separate entity but now it's evolved into something
where we are We do fundraise, not a ton, but
we do fundraise in order to run the program that
we are doing with the Future Religious Academy
specifically. Well, and you probably have to
think about things like insurance, right, and
other liability concerns, especially if you're
renting buses and taking kids around to Olympia
and things like that. So it sounds like it's
getting more sophisticated. Is someone assigned
to actually running that kind of day -to -day
stuff? Is that the role of... of one of you or
is josh taking that on or do you have other staff
that's taking that on well we have a uh we have
somebody helping us with the treasury and the
reporting just basically giving us pro bono help
because they believe in our mission um but it's
basically us just kind of bootstrapping it and
with with josh obviously yeah the three of us
well let's talk about some of the projects because
you've mentioned um you've mentioned the future
leaders program a couple of times that seems
to be The maybe flagship project so far of of
the nonprofit, it's certainly very prominent
on your website. You've got a couple of videos.
So shout out to the website. Folks want to learn
more about this. There's some really nice videos
on your website. There's lots of great information
to read as well. But if you're not into reading
and you just want to watch a video, there's a
couple of I think there are three to five minutes,
maybe one to seven minutes. The talk about the
building bridges project itself, and then talk
about the future leaders program. And then there's
a great one about the actual field trip that
the students who are part of the future leaders
program got to take in Olympia. I think, well,
I don't remember which year it was, 2023 or 2024.
So it was 2025. It was this session. We're going
to be going next year too. Great. So let's talk
about that. How did that get started? Whose idea
was that? And why are you targeting kids with
this project? So when after we did the kind of
the roadshow or the town halls around the different
areas of the county and we're talking about,
you know, what what do we know? Then we form
the nonprofit. We're thinking, what do we want
our mission to be like? What's what's the end
game? What would success look like? What direction
do we want to head? And both Jared and I felt
really passionate about working with young people.
And there's several reasons for that. I mean,
we both have young kids. And so we're very interested
in the future success of the community. I'm a
former school teacher. And so I have some, and
Jared's wife is a school teacher. And so we have
some interaction with students in school districts.
And so we both just felt really passionate about
engaging young people. We also found that in
our various interactions, like when we had been
invited to speak with schools, young people and
high schoolers in particular are much more open
-minded to this sort of a thing. That's not to
say that people of all ages aren't receptive
and we had great experiences with the different
groups that we were invited to speak to, but
it was really cool in particular to get to talk
with high school students who aren't already
entrenched in a political party or have these
views that have solidified. They're much more
open and curious. We just felt that that was
a really great population to try to interact
with and work with more on this sort of a thing.
And so Then the question was, well, how do we
do that? I mean, we get lots of invitations to
go speak at high schools, but can we make it
something more formal? So I think Jared was the
one who had what turned out to be a great idea
of the Future Leaders Academy and making a flagship
program where we actually worked with some different
groups to develop a curriculum that then we brought
into the high school. And maybe, Jared, I'll
let you talk about how it started at Jackson
and kind of what we did over the school year
last year. Yeah, so we kind of all put our heads
together and decided, well, we want to be youth
oriented. Do we create a program that we do outside
of school where we're recruiting high school
and college age kids to join us? And then then
you mentioned liability insurance and all this.
Well, OK, so that all kind of that. Do we have
to do the transportation for them? Do we have
to rent out a space? Right. If they're under
18, do they all have to be over 18? Can you do
16 and 17 year olds? But can you orient 16 and
17 year olds with 21 year olds? That's complicated.
So we're just like, okay, that maybe is a little
too much for us to take on. And maybe years down
the road, maybe this turns into something like
that. And I think that's still kind of the North
Star is to be able to own the project. But in
the first year, which was starting last school
year, the 2024 -2025 school year, we decided.
Well, we have, you know, both Nate and I went
to high school in Snohomish County. I went to
Jackson High School. We went to Marysville. And
the teachers that taught me are still at Jackson.
So I reached out and their AP government teacher,
Ms. Shafty, she's amazing. And she's in that
video that you referenced. I reached out to her
in like February or March and said, hey, here's
what we're thinking. We don't. have a lot of
meat on the bone yet, but we have this idea.
And she had been a teacher who'd invited Nate
and I over the last four years to come to Jackson
and speak to her students with one off, you know,
50 minute period interaction once a year. And
so we already had a good relationship with her.
She really trusted us. She understood the kind
of stuff we talk about and our missions. And
so she was to her credit, not only her credit,
but the principal of Jackson, Sachin Tower and
the superintendent, Ian Saltzman of the Everett
School District. They were all almost immediately
on board. And so they said, yeah, let's do this.
So we partnered with her and she gave us every
third Thursday of the month through the entire
school year. So nine visits over the nine months
where Nate and I. and Josh got to go in and basically
give a curriculum. We wrote out like this whole
schedule, the kind of almost a syllabus of the
nine visits, what we were going to teach. We
gave it to the school district. They approved
it. They were good with it. So we got like permanent
volunteer passes basically. And we were showing
up every third Thursday for the entire school
year. And we put them through essentially a curriculum
that was. initially just getting to know us,
meet us, et cetera, in our first meeting. And
then the second meeting, a little bit about political
polarization and some civics. So you get some
foundational stuff, history over the 250 years
of our country, some polarizing events, et cetera.
Then for the rest of it was really focused on
training that muscle. of working together through
differences we had some debate classes where
we put out political topics and we tried to assign
like if we knew one of the kids was a little
bit more of a democrat versus republican assign
them the opposite positions that we assumed that
they had and then had them create debate and
even in front of the class defend a position
that they don't actually hold with abortion and
gun rights all these things you could tell they're
uncomfortable at first but the reason we really
liked the idea of doing like an elongated nine
-month program versus the one -off you know,
two hour meetings that we were doing in town
halls is because we've noticed and what has been
successful for Nate and I in our careers together,
our professional partnerships, is that there's
the ability for us to humanize each other because
we know each other well enough now. He's held
my kids in the first month of all of their births
and then vice versa. Like we know each other.
And so it's really hard to demonize each other,
nor would I ever want to. So when we disagree
on something, we can have really passionate disagreements.
I remember when Roe v. Wade was over with the
Dobbs. This decision happened. Nate and I have
a different view on abortion policy. We had like
a three hour phone conversation the day that
that decision came down. And we did this long
back and forth. And I would never repeat the
things he said. He never repeat the things that
I said and nothing that I asked him. Stupid questions,
questions he'd think were terrible, et cetera,
and vice versa. None of it ended up on Twitter,
et cetera. We had good intent with that conversation.
I learned a ton and I felt safe doing that. And
that only was the case because we had years of
learning who each other were and becoming personal
friends. So the reason we like the idea of an
elongated conversation with these students is
if you spend a month or two getting to know each
other and before you then introduce, now let's
debate abortion or now let's debate guns or debate
death penalty, etc. You can now humanize each
other easier and have the more robust, curious
conversations. And you can set aside some of
the stuff that maybe you initially, that initial
bias that you bring to a conversation with someone
you don't know or that you haven't really intentionally
leaned in to try to understand as a human before
talking about policy differences. And we noticed
a ton of success, a ton of change in these students.
We've grown a lot and learned from them. By the
end of it, you know, we did the Olympia trip.
We did a... community service project. We did
an essay competition. So we had some other things
other than just this curriculum. And then by
the end of it in June of this last year, so a
few months ago, we had a summit where we invited
two of the students back to sit in front of 300
people from Snohomish County and their principal
and a Republican and a Democrat legislator was
John Lovick and Ron Mazzal, I think, who were
then willing to have these like big conversations
on a stage in front of people. And these kids
gave the most emotional. answers and got everybody
like teared up. I got choked up on stage hearing
some of these responses from some of the things
that the kids were saying about how much they
had grown because of that experience. And so
we're like extremely excited about how that went.
We were super nervous going into the first year.
Like, I wonder how this is going to play out
where Nate had a teaching background. I didn't.
So I was like, okay, we've gone and done like
a 45 minute presentation to kids before, but
we've never like owned a classroom curriculum
for nine months. And 150 kids. And it was amazing.
And it was something that gave me like a lot
of confidence in what we're doing and that we're
actually having an impact. And so we're doubling
down this year and we're going to be bringing
it to Marysville now. In two weeks, we have our
first class with the Marysville cohort. You mentioned
and I had no idea. You mentioned there were 150
kids that were part of this program. I was going
to ask, so did these so was this like a particular
class or did these kids? self -select that wanted
to be part of this program. But it sounds like
this was an entire, maybe an entire grade or
maybe an entire class from a particular high
school teacher. And you got, I mean, 150 kids
is a lot. How did that selection process actually
work? Was it just by happenstance that this particular
teacher had kind of these different students
cycling through her classroom and it was that
number? Yeah, we just had every one of Ms. Shafty's
five AP government classes. She's the AP government
teacher. She happens to have all five of her
classes, class periods, were AP government students,
seniors. So she had 130 kids per class, 150 students.
So we were there from 7 a .m. to 2 .30 p .m.
doing all five periods once a month. So you know
what it feels like to be a high school teacher
at least once a month. Council Member Neering,
one of the quotes that I picked up from you in
your interview on TVW was, and this is something
that you said, making sure our differences don't
divide us, but allow us to learn from each other.
And it sounds like by Council Member Mead's description
that the high school students really took that
pretty seriously, that they took that to heart
and were willing to be open -minded in that regard.
Did you feel like that was the case as well?
Absolutely. Yeah. And I think it can be easy
when you're used to the news or social media,
just putting caricatures up of whatever the opposing
view is, and sort of painting out political opposition
to be either dumb or evil or whatever it may
be. It makes it really easy just to make those
assumptions when you encounter it in day -to
-day life. And so I think it's really important,
particularly with young people, but for people
of all ages to show that somebody who has the
opposite political stance is just as much of
a human and, you know, has a family and interests
and all these different sorts of things. And
so being able to. Probably a lot of the same
goals, right? A lot of shared goals about what
they want their future to be like, et cetera.
Absolutely. Yep. And so I think being able to,
you know, to demonstrate that and to have the
students get to practice that was really critical.
So. I'm really interested in, and I just want
to ask a little bit about the history of polarization,
because that's something that you talked about,
Councilmember Mead, and it's something that's
on your website as well as part of this program.
You educated the students on kind of the history
of polarization. And the reason that that is
interesting to me is it seems like no matter
where we go today. You listen to the pundits,
you listen to the media, you're on social media.
A lot of people talk about how we're as polarized
as we've ever been. There's statistics out there
that show polarization growing in the United
States. And I think we all feel that compared
to maybe our reality as younger people, as children
growing up at different times. And the way that
we communicate today is different. But when you
look back. Right. Well, and the other thing,
of course, is, you know, the one that I always
love is this is the most important election of
our lifetimes. Right. Yeah, I've heard that every
election. I was just in New York. My current
election, 2025 Council District 4 is the most
important election of all time. Without a doubt,
Council Member Mead. And I felt the same about
mine several years ago. Right. We all feel that
way. And we all want to say that. And it's that
kind of line. I was just in New York City two
weeks ago. And you may have heard, unless you're
living in a cave somewhere, that there's a mayoral
race going on in New York City. Right. Biggest
city in the country. Huge issue. Three candidates.
And of course, the lead into every single political
ad was this is the most important election of
our lifetime. You must vote in this election.
Right. And and and there's there's there's a
reason. People say that. There's a reason the
media says that, right? There's a reason pundits
say that. There's a reason candidates say that.
But when you look back at the history of polarization,
are we really as polarized today as we've ever
been? I mean, are things as bad today as they
were during the Civil War? You know, are they
as bad today as they were during the Civil Rights
Movement? What about the Gilded Age, you know,
between the fights of, you know, the haves and
the have -nots, the labor? agriculture right
the new money versus the old money the robber
barons etc i mean when you look back at what
there used to be fights with weapons on the floors
of congress where one member of a party would
end up you know beaten and bloodied that was
normal that doesn't happen today so uh it's interesting
when you when i'm curious what you talked about
uh when you talked about the history of polarization
and i'm not trying to minimize polarization today
at all, because I think it's a big problem. And
the way we communicate has made it so different,
right? It's created so much anonymity that in
many ways it goes over the top and over the edge
and people, you know, some folks on, you know,
the most extreme parts of both of them really
thrive on that. But I'm curious as to what you
taught, what you talked about and what the reaction
of the students were when you kind of discussed
the history of polarization. In the United States,
you just did half of our talk, basically. I mean,
it's literally that I start with I have a whole
timeline and I turn it into a game at the end.
But it's a timeline of the United States history.
And I start with the Continental Congress. I
say I because that's my that's our second visit
of the curriculum. And that's my presentation
I have to do. And the Continental Congress, the
beginning of the country. So I talk about I kind
of try to set the stage of. Yes, exactly what
you said. People say we're the most polarized
we've ever been. And to some extent, as far as
like how quickly social media helps exacerbate
that. And with some new media, which is fine.
Yes, yes. So in some ways it can feel like that.
And in some ways it is depending on how you what
you mean by the worst. But we have always we
were created. The country was literally founded
in deep political. polarization. If you look
at the First Continental Congress, the Second
Continental Congress, and the half of the people,
half the founders were viciously opposed to the
perspective of the other half of the founders
and what kind of country we're going to have,
even to the idea of, are we going to split from
England? Or are we going to figure out a way
to work with them? And we're okay with some taxes?
And oh, no, we're not at all. And so you go into
like the actual debate that was happening. In
the Continental Congress, first and second. And
then all the way through, you said civil rights
or the Civil War, sorry, civil rights movement,
women's suffrage. And then we end on the D .C.
riots just because that's kind of our little
bit of our origin story and what happened on
January 6th. So we talk about all that stuff
to make the point that polar, like disagreement
is not bad. In fact, like deep emotional disagreement
is not. bad inherently. It's how we respond to
each other, how we interact with each other during
those disagreements. And sometimes they can turn
into the Civil War. And sometimes they can turn
into good policy that was really hashed out and
molded through this rumble tube and polished
because of that fight because of the back and
forth. And you mentioned the just because you
mentioned this, the the bloodiness on the Senate
floor 100 years ago, and Nate and I were In D
.C. was the last year, a couple of years ago,
I think, for NACO, for the county's conference.
And we went and we stood in the spot where the
guy's name is Charles Sumner, who got caned.
He's a senator who got caned almost to death.
There's like blood spots on the carpet there
in the old Senate floor. And so. That's not happening
right now. I mean, we're not shooting and killing
each other in the United States Senate floor.
So are we as polarized as we've ever been or
are we seeing it in a different way? And is it
getting is it because it's spread a little faster
because of social media and other things like
that corporate media influence? Maybe so. So
it's really about. It's not that humans have
never disagreed vehemently. They have. It's more
so we need to train ourselves to use the tools
that we have and live in this new world of social
media and media and kind of start training that
muscle in a different way to engage with each
other differently because there's just different
inputs now. And that's what we try to talk to
young people about. That's why we're focused
on young people because they're the future. They're
the ones that have had a smartphone and social
media since they were born. I mean, even Nate
and I. Facebook, it's younger than me, but Facebook,
you know, came of, we came of age in high school
when Facebook was just starting versus these
kids now have had TikTok since they were eight
and they've got a smartphone and all of that.
So they're just dealing with. polarization and
political polarization differently than any generation
previous. So it's just about making sure that
they understand that when they're young, and
that it does not have to be this way. And that
if you train this muscle and you're intentional
about being humble and curious and brave, then
you can grow out into the adult world and be
a good functioning civil member of society rather
than joining a team. And now I'm a Democrat,
I'm blue, team blue, period, or I'm red, etc.
One thing that gives me hope is when I look at,
you know, we talked at the beginning of the podcast
about some of the backlash that we received from
the political parties. But, you know, when I
see polling nationally or even anecdotally through
our own experiences, when Jared and I have gone
and talked to various audiences, the vast majority
of the public, whether it's young people, adults,
any ages. are yearning for more of this sort
of thing. They're yearning for more civility,
more respectful dialogue about important issues
and wanting to see people work together to better
the communities. It's a very vocal minority on
either side that is like, you know, the enemy
is evil. We don't want to talk to the other side
of the aisle. But we hear it so much, like Jared
said, because of the prevalence of social media
and news media and because that's what gets clicks.
But it is refreshing when you go out and actually
talk with people. And like I said, when you look
at polls, they see just how many, just how big
the proportion is of Americans that want to see
this sort of positive change in our civic dialogue.
There was a New York Times study. I'll just say
this really quickly. on this topic. There's a
New York Times study in the end of 2024 that
said 80, it was like 8 ,000 people were surveyed
as a gigantic study that they did. And it said
86 % of Americans that were surveyed refused
to identify with either party. meaning only 7
% on either side were willing to say I'm a Democrat
or I'm a Republican. 86 % of Americans said both
the parties have gone insane. Neither of the
parties represent my perspective to the degree
that I'd be willing to then identify myself as
one of them. So yeah, we have a two -party system.
And yes, a Democrat or a Republican will be president
for the foreseeable future. But that does not
mean that's reflective of the American mind and
the American populace. It's reflective of the
most extreme voices and then the system. It's
like a symptom of the system that we have set
up, the two party system. So anyways, that's
that's that's something that gives me solace
to know, like, OK, most people, in fact, the
vast majority of Americans are somewhere in between
a little bit left, a little bit right, whatever.
But everybody is sick of the system we have in
both parties. So this is. super interesting.
I certainly have my own theories. I think we
probably all have our own theories about this.
But it's interesting to hear you say, you know,
touting some of those statistics when that's
certainly not what we hear in the mainstream
media, right? And it's not what we see on our
social media feeds. Or if you look at the legislative
makeup, you don't see that represented in your
life. Exactly. Yeah. In fact, you know, you could
make the argument that, you know, it's impossible.
in most cases, to get elected unless you're affiliated
with one of the major parties. It's certainly
not what we see around the Thanksgiving dinner
table when the conversation gets a little spicy,
shall we say, about politics. If you don't have
a rule at your house, no politics at Thanksgiving.
But when we think about other parts of our political
reality, like, for instance, political patronage.
and how not only commonplace it is, but accepted.
It's almost accepted now that that's going to
happen when a new party comes into power, right?
These are things that were unheard of in the
past when you talk about the history of polarization
and the history of politics. The team of rivals
that you had that so famously was in place under
the Lincoln administration, right? that's gone.
That's probably never going to happen again,
right? Anybody who tried to do it would be ostracized
from their own party. I mean, you guys thought
you took a little backlash for an op -ed and
some conversations. Holy cow, right? If you were
elected and then started appointing people who
not only opposed you, but were maybe members
of another party, could you imagine the backlash
that you'd get there? You know, things like that
have become commonplace. They're norm. They're
almost accepted as inevitable. Nobody talks about
them anymore. We see all of this polarization
in the media, on social media, et cetera, about
what you're telling me is you're going out and
talking to people and they don't like that. And
they want to have these conversations and they're
looking for relief. Why? Why do you think that
is? What's driving that desire? Are you saying
that what's driving them to respond positively
to what we're saying? Yes. Absolutely. I think
it's that most like human, it's in human nature.
We want to be part of a tribe. We want each other
to be successful through evolution, thousands
of years of human evolution. We have evolved
to want to help each other, to want to have the
race succeed, etc. And so I think it's natural
for us to see each other and want to help each
other. What's unnatural is us to only orient
ourselves with each or only interact with each
other. through 3D screens like this or on social
media where we don't even actually see each other
or through video, whatever. When we're in person,
nobody says what we say on social media. Nobody
says the stuff I get an email about that I should
get cancer and die for my vote on some housing
development or that somebody is going to come
harass my pregnant wife and yell with the megaphone
outside of the window because I voted on a tax
or something. That stuff is never said in person
and they don't even follow through with those
threats that they're talking about. That's the
stuff that people are willing to say because
we can, our natural human instinct to be kind
to each other and to help each other and to cringe
when we see each other in pain, et cetera, that's
diluted or completely numb when you're doing
it on a 3D screen. So I think a lot of it is,
it's natural human instinct to want us to get,
to want us to work together, to want us to succeed.
And then we see that it's not working the way
that it's the way that we're operating now. We
see when we're fighting on social media that
we get policy that hurts us all. Most people
now have to have a two income household, a dual
income household in order to pay their mortgage
and feed the kids. Whereas, you know, just a
generation ago and every generation. previous
you were able to with one income you're able
to pay the bills and you could run the family
and all that with less less money so i think
we're dealing with a different station economically
than we have seen in decades in the country where
it's getting people more frustrated and worried
concerned about what how we're getting the policy
that we're getting and the frustration that makes
people feel like the system isn't working right
now the way that it is and so i think people
when they then see this like I think it's refreshing
for them to then see like, oh, it's a Republican
Democrat. You assume they're going to hate each
other. And now not only do they not hate each
other, they're proud that they don't hate each
other. And they're out there trying to show people
that they don't hate each other, which is rare.
So I think people will naturally gravitate to
it because it's what's in most people's hearts.
86 % of people polled said they won't even refer
to themselves as a Democrat or a Republican.
That number is even bigger for people who want
Democrats and Republicans to work together, because
even those 14%, there's a huge chunk of even
those people. that want to see the two parties
work together, you know? I think part of it too
is like people are busy, right? Especially now
in the modern era, you know, everyone's busy
with stuff. People don't have time to get into
like the nitty gritty of partisan politics and,
you know, educate themselves on everything that
both parties are doing. So I think to Jared's
point with the, you know, I think both political
parties nationally, like the brand is a... has
to be like an all time low, both for Democrats
and Republicans, like people are not wanting
to identify with either side. And I think people
are, you know, they want to see more of this
civic engagement, this sort of respectful dialogue
or the, you know, the healthy interaction between
people from differing perspectives, because that's
what works, right? Like, I don't, you know. I
don't think people have time to say, OK, well,
the Republicans say the Democrats are evil and
the Democrats say that Republicans are evil.
But, you know, no matter what, when things change
each election, each side just takes it too far
and isn't really interested in governing or working
across the aisle. They're just sort of playing
to their own jump beat and things don't change.
So I think that's part of it, too, is people
just want to, you know, they're focused on their
own life, on everything that's going on with
kids and sports. anything else they might be
dealing with. And they just want to see, you
know, kind of your meat and potatoes issues being
dealt with. They're not that concerned with just
the more extreme things that I think some of
the parties are more interested in. So I think
those are good points. And I appreciate that
perspective. But let me just ask maybe another
question to follow up on it really quickly. I
think people, I'm glad to hear that people are
saying that that's what they desire. And I'm
glad to hear your guys' perspective, especially
on the local level, that people want, you know,
they want a system that works right. They want
legislators that people represent them, you know,
to work together to achieve the outcomes that
I think are better for everybody. But when you
look at how the parties act and when you look
at how people vote, especially in some of the
statewide elections, the national elections,
et cetera, their votes don't necessarily reflect
that desire. Right. The the outlandish positions
that you hear. The really polarized rhetoric
that you get from each side, you know, the one
liners and the debates and the, you know, the
campaigning. There's a reason that the parties
are doing that. Right. There's a reason the candidates
are doing it because it actually works. It's
what people react to. They're not reacting, at
least on those broader levels to those more,
you know, hey, let's all work together sorts
of, you know, platforms and positions. And I'm
wondering, you know, do you see that changing
in the future? And, you know, I assume movements
like yours are geared to try to do that. But
what's it actually going to take for people's
desires that they're communicating to you, you
know, to follow up with real action at the ballot
box when we're selecting our leaders, you know,
at all levels? So that's another two hour podcast.
Yeah, probably. What we're focused on is what
we're focused on with the Future Leaders Academy
and the Building Bridges Project writ large is
more like the voter sentiment. But I think there's
two pieces to your question. The voter sentiment
piece of like, how do you get people to start?
demanding of their elected officials that they
are willing to work across the aisle, aren't
as bombastic, et cetera, et cetera. That's, I
think, the piece that our project kind of can
work on is to try to help people, especially
young people who are going to be the next voter
block to demand that rhetoric cools down, that
they're more bipartisan, et cetera, et cetera.
That's the one. But then the second piece is
the system, like the structure that we have with
the corrosive influence of. dark money in politics,
how much money can be spent in campaigning. And
Nate and I aren't totally on the same page about
all the what we see as the structural issues.
But I think money being spent in massive boatloads
is a huge problem, because you're talking about
a primary election that really decides everything
in Washington. And in the primary elections,
if a ton of money is spent on one side and that
person's getting all of the endorsements and
those things snowball because they are the most
extreme and they're going to the SEIUs and the
different unions that the Democrats have to go
to or the environmental groups, whatever. And,
you know, those are the endorsements that you
need so that they will send out to their mailing
list, which are their avid voters, because you're
talking about a primary election, an odd year
primary election, which is going to be a 25,
it was 24 % turnout in Snohomish County last
month in August. 24 % of people are deciding
who's coming out of the primary. That's a huge
problem. That 86 % of people who were polled
that said they don't identify, the 14 % are the
only ones that are voting. The 86 % of people
are like Nate said, they're working. Both parents
have the jobs in order to bring in money to pay
the mortgage and the rent. They've got kids and
they got sports. They're worried about their
debt. They're worried about their hobbies. They
got all this other stuff happening and so much
information being thrown at them through social
media and all this. How can I make what's what
of all this? It doesn't change anyway. They're
all assholes. I'm not even going to vote. So
they don't. And then when they vote in the general,
if they vote in the general there, it's a decision
between the most extreme Democrat and the most
extreme Republican, because that's that's who
makes it out of the primaries. So the system
we have also is broken in the sense that I give
voters the choice, but then I totally aren't
voting. So they're not telling people. I totally
agree with you about the primary system, but
it still persists when you have. say a nationwide
presidential election and local turnouts at 82%,
right? It still persists. We still don't see,
at least not today, not yet, a change in behavior
at the ballot box. Well, but how much money is
being spent and which candidates are getting
the snowball endorsements? So yes, okay, yeah,
you say you get a big turnout, but if $250 ,000
was spent in a state legislative race primary,
And $250 ,000 was spent for one candidate because
they were willing to say what SEIU wanted them
to say, what the teacher union wanted them to
say, what the environmental groups wanted them
to say. And then the more centrist candidate
had a more nuanced approach. All those groups
say, F you to the Democrat, you're not far left
enough on our issue. They're not going to get
Republican support or any conservative or the
other side of the issue support because there's
going to be a Republican willing to say. crazier
things than that to get their support. So then
$20 ,000 gets spent for the more centrist Democrat.
$250 ,000 gets spent for the more extreme or
rigid Democrat. And then the voters, even if
it's 80 % turnout, a quarter million dollars
is being sent to those people telling them that
the more centrist person is the devil or they're
basically just Trump or whatever it is. And so
it's the system. together that the low turnout
in primaries, which is typical in local elections,
and then how the endorsement processes and how
much money is being spent or allowed to be spent
in order to bolster the candidates that are willing
to say what they need to say to get the money
rather than what they should say to be palpable
to voters. Because I could have all the best
policy positions in the world. But if I don't
have $250 ,000 to get that message to the voters
and break through all the noise during a presidential
election season with my direct mail of one direct
mailer for that week or whatever, where the president's
all over TV and sending you text messages and
all stuff, no one hears that I'm like the more
sane candidate. Well, the extreme person who
gets a quarter million dollars spent, they get
to at least get their face in front of people.
And so I think it's a, it's a, it's a amalgamation
of all of those issues, the low turnout, the
money that's spent, the way the endorsement processes
go, the primary system, all that. I think I would
add to I agree with all that. I would also add
the perverse incentive on media, especially with
legacy media. I mean, how many times do you turn
on the TV, whether it's Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and
you see them interviewing or showing soundbites
from a centrist or like a moderate Republican
or Democrat? It's always it's Marjorie Taylor
Greene or it's AOC. You're getting, you know,
quick soundbites of the most extreme from either
side. And that's all. Busy people are going to
see they're not they're never going to get exposed
to. But I think you're starting to see a transition
away from that. Right. And that these legacy
media outlets are kind of deteriorating in some
sense. And you're seeing this rise in independent
media, podcasts and all these other things where
people are. digging in a little bit deeper and
being a little bit more nuanced. So that I think
is reason for hope and for optimism is seeing
that shift and kind of how media is working.
But to Jared's point, I think the influence of
money in politics, I mean, you have all sorts
of super PACs for the far left and the far right.
You have very few PACs who are interested in
like boring. centrist candidates who just want
to work together, right? Let's pave the roads
and make sure the bridges are safe. Yeah, right,
right. It's an uphill battle, but my experience,
and again, I think the polling data suggests
that that really is what the vast majority of
Americans want to see. Whether that's going to
result in a huge change in elections in the near
future, I don't know, but at least there's cause
for optimism. Well, speaking of a cause for optimism,
Not continuing the conversation on who and what's
to blame, because I feel like we could go on
forever about that. And you're right, Council
Member Mead, that probably is another two hour
podcast. But I did want to throw that out there
just at least for an initial reaction. You know,
just thinking about optimism, thinking about
the future. What's the future for building bridges?
What's the next step? You guys have got this
this project that you're working on with the
future leaders. You've done this whole series
of discussions. It sounds like you're still talking
to folks. People are still interested. There's
still media kind of coming out about it. Your
intention here was really plant a stake in the
ground so that there was something beyond just
you as council members. So what's the future?
What's the next step? Where do you see this thing
going a year, five years, 10 years, 20 years
down the road? Well, we have other projects besides
the Future Leaders Academy that we're looking
at under the umbrella of the nonprofit. We're
trying to find ways to talk to different different
groups of people, younger, older. And so but
we're not ready to announce one of the ones,
but we're trying to get into a younger audience
and talk to even younger than high school students.
And that will be announcing in the next few months.
So there's other projects besides the Future
Leaders Academy. But the Future Leaders Academy
certainly is our like. big flagship focus. It's
the only thing we're really raising or spending
money on. And it's something that we have mass
have felt the massive impact of being we worked
with 150 students who now are going off into
college and doing other things and cannot wait
to see, you know, we want to be resources for
them in their futures and whatever they do, but
also watching what they're able to accomplish
is going to be wonderful. So we want to figure
out a way to make that sustainable outside of
us. And that could look different. depending
on what Nate and I end up doing with our careers.
But what we'd really like to do, and we've talked
about this, is find a way to get other elected
officials involved, other Democrat and Republicans,
to maybe do what we're doing instead of us, or
that we can package a curriculum together and
do a training course in each school district
and go to the different city councils in those
different school districts and see if you can
get a left -leaning and a right -leaning. city
council member to agree to do this and take it
on at their local school district. And we could
have the prepackaged curriculum for them and
we could sit with them and do a training or whatever
or visit. And we were bouncing around the ideas
actively right now. If I told you I knew what
we wanted to do over the next five years and
what what success looked like and we had it perfectly
identified, I'd be lying. But we have a bunch
of ideas of what we'd like to happen. And the
main goal in North Star is to make it sustainable
outside of us, because. Although I think that
is, we'd be naive to say that it wasn't just
the fact that it was two elected officials, one
Democrat, one Republican that kind of helped
us catch fire and get initial momentum. We don't
want it to die when one of us is unelected. And
so finding a way to make it more sustainable
outside of us is the goal. And I think we're
going to be successful in that. It just doesn't,
we don't know exactly what it's going to look
like five years from now. Yeah, I think that
organic growth that we've seen so far, we'd love
to see that continue. I mean, earlier today,
we had a conversation with the Attorney General's
office who's interested in this sort of work.
We've worked with Lieutenant Governor Denny Heck
before. So I think this is starting to grow larger,
which is great to see. And then I haven't even
shared this with Jared, but earlier today, I
had a conversation with two city council members
in Snohomish County who said, you know, we love
what's happening with building bridges and we
want to be a part of this. We want to kind of
take this to our local community where we serve.
And so that's really inspiring. inspiring to
hear those sorts of things. And it'd be great
to have this, like Jared said, not just be us,
but have others in different communities, whether
they're city council members or school board
members or just citizens in various areas of
the county or the state take on this work and
watch it continue to grow in that sense. So I
think that's my biggest hope is just for this
to organically grow. So if there are folks who
are listening to this podcast, fellow council
members or commissioners across the state who
are interested, in the work that you've done
or maybe have a few ideas for building building
bridges uh or want to partner with you guys can
they reach out to you absolutely yeah yep and
we can uh we can give you the info to share out
or our email is info at the building bridges
project .org um but i think most of them probably
have our our contact info so anybody can well
you guys you're reachable through the website
too right yes yep yep all right Well, Council
Member Neering, Council Member Mead, thanks for
being here today. Great conversation. Really
appreciate you spending the time. And good luck.
Good luck on the work that you're doing. Keep
it up. It takes a lot of courage to do that work.
It's not easy work. And it's certainly, you know,
probably not what you signed up for when you
joined the county council. But I think it's really
critical work. And, you know, folks had a lot.
They should be thanking you. for all the work
that you're putting into it. So from us here
at WASAC, we thank you and hopefully we'll see
you soon. Thank you, Paul. Really appreciate
you having us on. You bet, guys. Thank you. Thanks
for tuning in to County Connection. Stay in the
loop by subscribing to us through your preferred
podcasting app and following us on LinkedIn.
Facebook, and Instagram. And don't forget to
join The Hub, your go -to source for the latest
news and updates from the Washington State Association
of Counties. Until next time, stay connected
and stay informed.