By Nicole Fernholz, Executive Director of AAEDC
We are living in some polarizing times where the country feels more divided than ever, and the current level of division in the U.S. exhibits characteristics that set it apart from previous eras. Perhaps more concerning is the rise of what researchers call “affective polarization.” This refers to the emotional dimension of the divide — the tendency for partisans to view members of the opposing party with suspicion, dislike and profound distrust.
To me, this resonates at the federal and state level of governments. However, Carnegie Corporation of New York research shows that the negative effects of polarization are less evident among local public officials and communities. Further, they find that local governments are in a unique position to cooperate and compromise across party lines.
Last week, Minnesota’s township residents came together for one of the most important exercises in grassroots democracy: the annual township meeting. This is the day each year when electors directly shape the direction of their township — setting the levy, authorizing key expenditures, discussing roads and services, and providing guidance to the town board on issues that matter most to their constituents.
I was able to attend a few township meetings, and you can feel the passion in the room. The people attending love their community and want to make it the best it can be. The meetings, and the people attending, remind me of Theodore Roosevelt’s iconic passage from his 1910 speech “Citizenship in a Republic”—often called “The Man in the Arena.” In part, it states “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, but who does actually strive to do the deeds; and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Roosevelt argues that the real credit belongs not to the critic, but to the person “who is actually in the arena,” who chooses effort over ease, risk over safety, and purpose over passivity.
In local community development, entering the arena means engaging directly with the complex realities of neighborhoods — aging infrastructure, inequity or lack of opportunity. These challenges rarely have simple answers and solutions often require sustained collaboration across sectors. Like Roosevelt’s “doer of deeds,” community leaders must be willing to try new approaches, face setbacks and continue forward even when outcomes are imperfect.
Community development, by definition, demands experimentation. Every strategic plan, public meeting, or grassroots initiative represents a choice to move from the sidelines into collective action. The work involves attracting investment, supporting entrepreneurs, building workforce pathways, and strengthening regional competitiveness — all within a constantly shifting economic landscape.
Local leaders in economic development make decisions with incomplete information, advocate for long-term benefits that may not be immediately visible and absorb criticism from stakeholders who see only pieces of the wider system. Just as Roosevelt’s figure in the arena accepts “dust and sweat and blood,” local leaders accept risk as part of catalyzing growth and innovation in their communities.
Ultimately, the connection between “The Man in the Arena” and community development is the belief that courageous participation drives progress. Community leaders and residents who choose to engage are the ones who shape a community’s future. They are the people in the arena: imperfect, persistent and essential.
