Jason Grumet opens by arguing that American government is unusually transparent yet increasingly unable to solve urgent problems. He describes public frustration with Washington as understandable, citing economic insecurity, weak schools, lost savings, the Wall Street bailout, and widespread fear that future generations will have fewer opportunities.

Grumet rejects the idea that contempt for government is the answer. He argues that some reforms intended to improve government have instead weakened its problem-solving capacity, while also acknowledging that political leaders have helped squander public trust. His proposed response is not to shut democracy down, but to revive it through practical, bipartisan work.

Grumet explains that his confidence comes from two decades of negotiations among divided interests. He recalls running a northeastern air pollution organization in the 1990s, where working with governors from different parties taught him that no party owns the best ideas and that bipartisan solutions can wield real influence.

He then recounts founding the National Commission on Energy Policy in 2001 to break a polarized energy and climate stalemate. By convening former officials, environmentalists, corporate leaders, academics, and experts with conflicting interests, the commission produced consensus recommendations after more than two years of difficult negotiation. Those recommendations helped shape the 2005 comprehensive energy policy overhaul.

Building on that experience, Grumet founded the Bipartisan Policy Center in 2007. He outlines BPC’s principles: include conflicting viewpoints, rely on rigorous data, advocate collectively for agreed recommendations, and push policy debates further than government often can. He emphasizes confidential trust-building, hard research, technical analysis, and the evolution of positions through new information.

Grumet closes by connecting his method to lessons from college debate, where he learned to test ideas from multiple angles and avoid destructive head-on collisions. He argues that public officials once had stronger instincts for compromise without surrendering values, and he presents City of Rivals as a set of unconventional ideas for restoring a more functional American democracy.