Talking With the Enemy

Clashing Comedians

Source: ChatGPT Generated

I'm a passionate advocate for bridge-building. As a professor specializing in peace and conflict, I have consistently urged the importance of maintaining dialogue between the polarized tribes dividing our nation. Holding two contradictory truths simultaneously—standing firm for what is morally right while also engaging respectfully with ideological adversaries—is essential to prevent escalating hostility and potential civil strife.

The profound value of this approach became evident to me through my colleague, Andrea Bartoli, internationally-renowned peacemaker and president of the Sant'Egidio Foundation for Peace and Dialogue. Sant'Egidio routinely reaches out to some of the world's most reviled warlords and extremist groups—such as Sudan's Janjaweed militias and ISIL—seeking communication channels in pursuit of peace. Their discreet, faith-driven efforts have quietly opened doors once thought permanently closed, notably aiding the successful Mozambique peace process in the 1990s.

Likewise, in 2001, six courageous women activists—representing both pro-life and pro-choice positions—published an inspiring account in the Boston Globe titled "Talking with the Enemy." Spurred on by atrocious acts of antiabortion violence in their city, they engaged in a clandestine, heartfelt dialogue for six challenging years, aimed at preventing further violence and building understanding within their deeply divided communities. Their bravery and perseverance transformed profound animosity into genuine human connection and more humane activism.

Against this backdrop, Bill Maher’s recent dinner with President Trump, ostensibly intended as a bridge-building exercise, stands in stark contrast with these admirable efforts. Maher, a highly influential comedian with a significant cultural footprint—reaching over 1 million television viewers weekly and commanding an online audience numbering in the millions—seized the opportunity of dining at the White House both as an attempt at dialogue and as a high-profile media spectacle.

Yet, the critical misstep occurred afterward. Live on his HBO nighttime platform, Maher publicly praised Trump's personal charm and apparent openness, neglecting the substantial possibility that Trump, a seasoned manipulator of media optics, deliberately courted Maher to soften his public image and blunt criticism. Unlike the deliberate, painstaking dialogues of genuine peacebuilders, this was primarily performative—a celebrity encounter repurposed for public relations.

When challenged on his show about potentially being manipulated, Maher repeatedly emphasized his courage and sincerity. I don’t doubt Maher’s intentions, but sincerity alone doesn't shield one from manipulation. Effective dialogue with opponents demands humility, rigorous self-reflection, and a sober awareness of the broader implications—qualities notably absent in Maher's response.

Then came Larry David’s satirical response to Maher, “My Dinner With Adolf.” Published in the Opinion section of the New York Times on April 21, 2025—without explicit mention of the Maher-Trump event—it seems to draw implicit parallels between the Trump dinner and accepting an invitation to meet with Hitler in 1939. Although biting and clever, I was left wondering how publishing the response moved us forward. Too often today, our most brilliant comedic minds seem to snatch the bait that only furthers the gaps between us.

Dialogue across our deep, dangerous divisions remains crucial today. Yet, we must distinguish carefully between authentic peacebuilding, grounded in patience, vulnerability, and private commitment, and public displays that inadvertently empower divisive figures. If Maher genuinely wants to build bridges rather than just ratings, he would do well to learn from true peacemakers—those who humbly acknowledge when good intentions alone simply aren’t enough.