Rachel Wahl book asks what political dialogue can really change

University of Virginia professor Rachel Wahl argues in a new book that political conversations can matter even when no one changes sides. Her research tracks campus dialogues and police-community forums to show when dialogue builds respect, and when it falls short of producing institutional change.

Why it matters: - Rachel Wahl’s new book, “Keeping Our Enemies Closer: Political Dialogue in Polarized Democracies,” argues that political dialogue can still be worthwhile even when participants do not change their minds. - The book is aimed at universities, civic groups, and organizers trying to decide what political conversations should accomplish in polarized settings. - Wahl’s research shows a key distinction: conversations can increase understanding between people, but that does not always lead to institutional change.

What happened: - University of Virginia professor Rachel Wahl published “Keeping Our Enemies Closer: Political Dialogue in Polarized Democracies” with University of Pennsylvania Press on October 6, 2026. - The book examines structured campus dialogues and police-community forums, with follow-up interviews conducted years later. - Wahl finds that campus conversations across political divides most often changed how participants felt about one another, not what they believed. - Students often continued to disagree, but they came to see political opponents as decent, relatable people. - In one passage from the book, Wahl writes that many interviewees still thought their conversation partners were wrong, but viewed them as decent and relatable in their reasons and aspirations.

The details: - Among college students studied by Wahl, agreement was not required for understanding. - Common ground helped, but learning about the moral convictions behind an opposing position also changed how students viewed one another. - Students came to see political opponents as legitimate fellow citizens without accepting those views. - Conversations were harder for students whose rights were threatened by the other side. - Some students from minoritized groups still said the dialogues made them feel heard and recognized in ways they had not experienced elsewhere in academic life. - Wahl also writes about the limits of dialogue when people feel threatened. - In the preface, Wahl describes being in Charlottesville on August 12, 2017, when neo-Nazis threatened to burn down the synagogue daycare her three-year-old son was about to attend. - Wahl writes that fear can contract curiosity. - In the police-community forums, participants wanted concrete changes. - Wahl reports that the forums produced no direct outcomes. - Wahl follows later relationships and actions tied to the conversations, including one chief who later implemented changes requested in the forums while leading a different police department.

Between the lines: - The book draws a line between dialogue meant to build mutual understanding and dialogue meant to push institutions to act. - That distinction matters because the skills needed for each goal are different. - Listening may be enough when the goal is respect. - Listening alone is not enough when participants want measurable organizational change.

What's next: - Wahl’s conclusion offers guidance for organizers based on the purpose of the conversation. - For mutual understanding, she recommends setting norms with participants, encouraging sincere curiosity, and creating chances to debrief with mentors after difficult exchanges. - For institutional change, she recommends clear goals, an explanation of how those goals will be pursued, and a schedule for updates. - Wahl also recommends accountability measures, including reporting back on progress even when participants have no formal authority over the institution. - With the November 3 U.S. midterm elections approaching, the book offers universities and civic groups a framework for deciding what they want political dialogue to accomplish.

The bottom line: - Wahl argues that political dialogue can succeed by changing relationships, not just opinions, but organizers should not confuse understanding with reform.