(country music playing) - [Participant] Yee-haw.

(rafters whooping) - [Cailley] Would you want to be stuck on a raft, all day, talking politics with strangers who disagree with you?

- Don't you see this as like, potentially, the breakdown of democracy?

- [Cailley] These people volunteered to do just that.

Can they bridge the political divide?

I'm Cailley Chella and this is "Utah Insight".

The water on the Colorado River is flowing, and so are the political conversations in this social experiment called R.A.F.T., or R.A.F.T.

for America.

- You know, R.A.F.T.

for America isn't so much about rafting, as it is about talking to each other.

- [Cailley] The movement's name is an acronym, Reuniting America by Fostering Trust.

Studies show that perception of the divide is actually worse than the political divide itself.

That's something R.A.F.T.

for America is hoping to capitalize on.

- [Kenneth] We asked them to spend a day together, on the river, working as a team.

- [Participant] Oh my gosh, is that a heron?

Just right there?

- And what we're discovering is that after just a few hours of enjoying each other's company, and working together, they find a kinship and a sense of humanity with each other that overrides the differences that they have.

- [Cailley] Dr. Samantha Moore-Berg is a political psychologist who researches polarization.

She recognizes that it can feel demoralizing, or even dangerous, to engage with those who disagree with us.

- And that fear can really inhibit us from engaging and talking to the other side.

But not having those conversations, and not engaging with them can be really harmful, especially for the successful functioning of society.

- [Cailley] So could something as simple as talking be the solution (wheels scuffing) for America's polarization problem?

And could that solution get an assist from whitewater rafting?

(pensive music playing) Back in October, 14 volunteers ventured down to Moab to find out.

Raise your hand if you consider yourself conservative.

Raise your hand if you consider yourself liberal.

- My name is Laura Levitt.

I lean left politically.

- My name is Sylvia Newman.

I've typically voted Republican throughout most of my life, but since 2016, that's completely shifted for me, and I'm voting very differently than I have before, and thinking very differently.

- My name is Luis Ruiz.

I wanted R.F.K.

to win.

He was kind of my candidate, and he's now supporting Trump.

(gravel crunching) - [Kenneth] Most dangerous part of the trip is getting on off the boats.

- [Cailley] Once on board, conversations started slow, as participants got to know each other.

- [Participant] Are we supposed to be having like spicy conversation?

(participants laughing) - [Participant] We gotta get the rolling down first.

- [Participant] Can we disagree?

- [Cailley] But by the time we stopped for lunch, the political conversation was in full swing.

(knife clattering) - Would he hand over the presidency, when his term's up, if he wins this time?

- Based off what happened last time.

- I also think that fear, it's being fed to us.

- [Cailley] And conversation continued.

(water splashing) - We don't have clean running water (water splashing) and we don't have.

- [Participant] Well technically if you look at it, it's already poisoned anyways.

- Well, I don't agree with that.

- [Participant] With heavy.

- [Cailley] Once back on dry land, everyone circled up for a debrief.

- It was just a real pleasure to talk to everyone that I got to talk to, but it just made me think, how many times there are people that we don't engage with because we think what we've been told about them.

So I'm hoping it's made me a little braver, to maybe approach people as individuals.

(hopeful music playing) - [Cailley] And experts agree.

(water splashing) - [Dr. Moore-Berg] Having these conversations can be a really powerful tool to overcoming those barriers.

- Mostly I feel like government.

- [Dr. Moore-Berg] To learning exactly what the other side thinks.

- [Cailley] And science backs that idea up.

Moore-Berg was part of a recent study that tested different solutions for reducing political polarization.

Among other things, the most effective treatment highlighted, relatable, sympathetic people with different political beliefs.

It helped reduce political polarization by more than 10 percentage points.

- [Dr. Moore-Berg] Having these conversations can really drive home (participants chatting) that we might not be as different as we think we are.

- [Cailley] While no one on the raft trip felt they were walking away with a new best friend, they still felt good about the experiment overall.

- What if the way that news and politics is presented to us is just always in the most divisive of tones?

And that if like we, as a people, were able to discuss these things together, in person, and not feel like we're being rude, or like talking about taboo subjects, like what if it changed everything politically?

- That's exactly my belief too.

I think we're being put into eco-chambers online, and we're being told that the world's gonna end, and the other political parties are the devil.

And it's not like that.

(fast music playing) - [Callie] Moore-Berg says media definitely plays a part in our perception of the other side.

- Well, we might turn to the media, we might turn to social media, to understand what the other side thinks and feels.

And what's portrayed on these platforms is oftentimes the most extreme voices.

- Victims of rape and violent crime by Harris-Biden illegals.

- So remembering that the person that we're seeing does not reflect the entire group of people can be really helpful with engaging in conversations, or entering in conversations.

- What are you taking away from today?

- That we need to talk to people more, and really, really fight the impulse to label.

- [Cailley] Moore-Berg says this is an important part of having conversations, realizing that people are nuanced.

And if someone voted against your views, it doesn't necessarily mean they voted against you.

And Levitt agrees.

- They're not casting a vote and they're like, "Ha ha, I'm gonna take away your mom's rights."

They are voting for it for some other reason.

And I'm not trying to say that there are not issues that are deeply important to me, because there are, but it is useful, I think, to figure out why the other person is voting the way they're voting, instead of just casting those kinds of vicious labels.

- [Cailley] Of course not everyone feels that way.

And Moore-Berg says she recognizes that cutting people off can be a protective mechanism.

Still she says no one is a lost cause.

And that if you're able to continuing conversation, even with people who have extreme views, can eventually help.

- In the moment, it might feel great to block somebody, or to cut somebody out of our lives, but in the long run that can be really harmful.

Every day we're interacting with people who don't necessarily (people chatting indistinctly) politically align with us.

And we need to learn how to work together in order to be successful at work, in order to live peacefully next door to our neighbors.

If you're entering a conversation to persuade somebody that their position is wrong, then you could be talking till you're blue in the face, and it might never get anywhere.

If you're having a conversation to learn and to listen, (uplifting music playing) that approach takes people's guard down, and can actually have the other side listen a little bit more too, where the goal isn't necessarily to change somebody's opinion, but the goal can be to find some sort of common ground.

- [Cailley] And she adds, if you've been having these conversations, don't give up.

- Attitudes do change.

They do change slowly.

And even in times where we feel like we're going backwards as a society, even in times where we feel like the world is on fire, we can still move forward, and we can still come together as a people to create, honestly, a more peaceful place.