When the Ex-Gang Leader Met the Chiefs of Staff

Last month, I had dinner with a former gang leader named Curtis Toler and a small group of Republican and Democratic chiefs of staff from the U.S. Senate. We gathered at a Capitol Hill bar to talk about violence — and how to stop it, once it gets going. Toler, who now oversees a team of 25 gang-violence interrupters in Chicago, was there to tell the group what works — and what that same methodology might look like, if it were applied to partisan violence in America.

The staffers in attendance that night immediately understood the analogy, to my surprise. Maybe because politics is starting to feel a lot more like mindless thuggery. As of last year, the number of recorded threats against members of Congress had jumped more than 10 fold compared to 2016, according to the New York Times. Threats are coming in at the rate of about 26 per day.

The conversation, organized by CARE Lab, which provides professional development to political leaders, was off the record to allow the staffers to speak freely. But it lingered in my mind. A few weeks later, in light of the assault on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Toler agreed to talk again, this time for public consumption.

Toler spent over a decade in the Black P. Stone gang on the South Side of Chicago, enduring and inflicting a lot of harm, by his own telling. He was shot six times and spent time in prison. Then one day, he did something extraordinary: He decided he’d had enough. He managed to exit the conflict he was in and construct a new life (a journey I wrote about in my 2021 book High Conflict). With Arne Duncan, the Education Secretary under President Obama, he has spent the past six years building Chicago CRED, a 125-person nonprofit working to reduce gun violence in Chicago by 20 percent each year. (The acronym stands for Create Real Economic Destiny.)

Chicago still has a very long way to go to be as safe as other large American cities. But in the two neighborhoods directly served by Chicago CRED and other organizations, the homicide rate is down this year 32 and 45 percent (respectively) compared to the same time last year. It’s always tricky to say what causes such changes, but over the years, Toler has learned a lot about how to get people to dial down hostilities — lessons that can easily apply to political conflict, too: First, the most powerful people must adopt new rules of engagement about what they say, because words matter; secondly, most people (even really violent people) will agree to new rules, if only someone would ask; and third, you have to ask a whole lot of times.

(Note: This conversation occurred over multiple days and has been edited for space and clarity.)

Amanda Ripley: I wonder what it would look like to take the anti-violence model you’ve developed in Chicago with street conflict and come apply it to partisan conflict on Capitol Hill. Can you help people understand your methodology? What is the first thing you do?

Curtis Toler: Once we decide to go into a community, then we have to decide, who are the most violent groups within that community? And then we try to find what we call the credible messengers within those communities.

Ripley: Who are credible messengers?

Toler: Credible messengers are usually men and women who were a part of the group or who are still part of the group, but are not actively engaged in violent activities.

Ripley: So a credible messenger could be anyone who's respected?

Toler: Grandma can be a credible messenger because everyone on the block respects her. You know what I mean?

Ripley: OK. Then some of these credible messengers become full-fledged what you call “outreach workers,” who really get hands on in getting people to the table?

Toler: Right. Then we decide, who do we have with the best relationships — on both sides of the conflict? We really start gathering information. We have to identify the folks within those groups that can work toward a non-aggression pact. We go to [one] party and say, “Just hypothetically speaking, who would need to be at the table on the other side for us to talk?”

And so they’ll tell you. Sometimes people feel that you need the guy who’s actually the leader. But sometimes that’s not the case. If I have a guy in leadership, I have to know that he can actually stop the shooter from shooting.

Ripley: Now, I’m guessing those are hard people to get to come to the table.

Toler: They are, they are [laughing]. Because usually those are the ones who have the most to lose or who have lost the most.

Ripley: Could you give me an example, just hypothetically speaking, of what this might look like in politics? What’s your gut reaction to who you would ideally want to invite to the table?

Toler: Who I would want to invite? How about Trump? Let’s start there. [laughing] I mean it would be great to get Mitch [McConnell] and Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi to the table. But again, those people are usually the most difficult to get at first. They have the most to lose. And when I say the most to lose, it doesn't always have to be something tangible. It can be something like respect of their followers.

So when I'm thinking about Congress, it may be helpful to think about those who have juice, who were revered, but now are kinda outside [of the conflict].

Ripley: There are a ton of people like that in politics. Former members, former senators, former chiefs of staff.

Toler: What also works sometimes is getting someone that they respect that’s outside of the normal network. There were people that I respected highly that weren’t gang involved. Never been shot, never been in jail. But I just respected them.

Ripley: OK, so we might reach out to former combatants, so to speak, or other respected people, unrelated to the conflict.

Do you need to find a trusted, third-party organization like Chicago CRED to start this whole process, to work through credible messengers to bring both sides to the table?

Toler: Yeah, or you could create one.

Ripley: So you were joking before about, “Let’s start with Trump.” Can you think of a time where you’ve dealt with an equivalent to Trump — a really loud, rogue voice who is unlikely to come to the table?

Toler: There’s always someone who, for whatever reason, doesn’t want peace. Usually it’s for their personal gain or their identity. But it’s not something that’s out of the ordinary. You have to prepare for that.

There have been times when folks have said, “Well, this shooter, he’s not coming to the table. He don’t want to hear nothing about peace. His brother just got killed. His uncle was killed.” And I’m like, “OK, well, at least we gotta try.”

At least 80 percent of the folks that are highly involved in conflicts, they wanna get out. But no one has asked them: Do they wanna get out? Are they willing to discuss how to get out? And then what happens when they get out?

Getting everyone on board is gonna be really difficult. But sometimes, you can get the majority of the people on board.

Ripley: What are some of the things you might say to someone who is the most influential, to get them on board?

Toler: The sales pitch is really asking the question: Do you want to continue this cycle? And sometimes they will say Yes. Then the next question is, Do you want your family members to have to go through what you’re going through? Sometimes it helps to remind them of the effect of the conflict on others, beyond themselves.

Ripley: Is that what happened in your case? I mean, you were once the person that no one thought would come to the table.

Toler: Yeah. I had to have something better to identify with. Being a father and being a husband, you know, superseded me being a gang leader.

I think that would be the same thing that I would work on with the parties in Congress. “Do you both agree that you all wanna be safe? And you want your family to be safe? Let’s start there.”

Ripley: You remember when we met with the Senate chiefs of staff, one reaction was, “Well, you’re talking to the wrong chiefs.” And they were right. The people who work for the biggest flamethrowers in Congress, the ones jacking up the threat level every day on Twitter and in fundraising emails, they weren’t there. What do you say to that?

Toler: Most times you [start with] the person who feels like they don’t have any control. They feel powerless. But it has to start somewhere. You know, usually, once they start getting folks on their side, they get the one or two people we need to have at the table.

Ripley: So that doesn’t sound like a good excuse, is what I’m hearing.

Toler: No, no. It’s not a good excuse at all.

Ripley: OK, so you have both groups at the table. Now we start to work on the non-aggression agreement?

Toler: Yeah, and we use that term. Because it’s something both parties have agreed upon.

So we try to get back to some rules of engagement. When I’m dealing with a conflict that’s been going on for decades, the first thing I want to accomplish is to see if we can stop the disrespect and humiliation, first and foremost. As long as the disrespect and humiliation go on, it just keeps adding fuel to the fire.

Ripley: Why?

Toler: One of the hardest things to get people to understand is that violence usually emerges when there’s a threat — or a perception of a threat. And the threat doesn’t always have to be physical. The threat can be the threat of something being lost, whatever that is — my manhood, my territory, whatever.

Ripley: My country, my way of life, my vote. I see what you mean. So any language that leads to that heightened perception of a threat, that’s creating the conditions for violence.

Toler: Yes.

Ripley: You’ve told me that something like 70 percent of the gang violence in Chicago today gets incited on social media. That’s where the disrespect and humiliation happens, triggering the violence. So is social media involved in that first round agreement?

Toler: You know, it’s unfortunate, but that’s the hardest thing for them to agree upon.

Ripley: What does that look like, once you get them to agree?

Toler: It’s not saying they will stay off social media totally, because we know that would be almost impossible. But they’re agreeing to not agitate those folks involved in the conflict by putting up a disrespectful post.

Ripley: I see. So in politics, that might mean that a politician agrees not to put up a disrespectful or dehumanizing post — the kind that might mobilize one of their less-stable followers to resort to violence.

Do the non-aggression pacts ever get violated?

Toler: They do. They do. But the good thing about it is that we’ve already formed these committees, if you will, that have agreed to come to the table when something like that happens.

Ripley: When violence does happen, then what?

Toler: If God forbid someone is shot, then we are immediately on it. Because we don't want that to escalate into a whole bunch of people being shot. So then we're saying like, how can we put out this fire quickly, before it starts spreading?

Ripley: So with political violence, like the assault of Paul Pelosi, what might that look like?

Toler: Both parties have to come and openly speak out against it. They have to. Because no response is a response in violent conflict.

You do have these rogue [followers] who the group has no control over. But the group has to say something [even] against rogue language. They can’t just let it be.

We also have to dispel the rumors. We have to factcheck what happened. That’s where it’s helpful to have these nonaggression pacts.

Ripley: I see. So the agreement helps ensure everyone speaks out against the violence — and then it also is way to help everybody on all sides get the facts as soon as possible, so there’s less room for rumors and conspiracy theories?

Toler: Exactly. And hopefully it prevents retaliation.

What has to happen is to get [people] to understand that some of the words they’re saying have people doing things they probably ordinarily wouldn’t be doing.

Ripley: I suspect it would be really hard to get certain politicians to see that — to agree that language matters. Especially Trump.

My instinct is, I wouldn’t want to invite Trump to the table, because he’ll blow it up.

Toler: He could, but I’d still invite him. And then, if he does blow it up, then that’s when you say, who’s the next person, under Trump? Who may not have as much influence?

Again, you’re trying to get as many of the most influential people to the table. And you don’t want to leave it to your perception that this person won’t come to the table; you want to know.

And you don’t want to stop asking. You wanna do what we call “relentless engagement” with this person. Because sometimes pressure brings people to the table.

Ripley: Really?

Toler: Yeah, I’ve had people who were considered the top shooter that folks were like, “Man, they’re never gonna come.” So I show up once, I show up again. The tenth time I’m showing up, he’s like, “Come on, dude! What the hell do you want to talk to me about, man?”

Some of these folks really want to be heard. And so, when you hear them, there’s usually something they want. Something you may be able to agree upon.

Ripley: That’s interesting. So you’re not just trying to sell them on this idea of a non-aggression pact; you’re really trying to listen. To find out what they really want.

Is it ever hard to listen to these guys?

Toler: It’s hard. Because first you got to get past a lot of bravado, right? And that lasts a while. Then you gotta get past all the hurt and harm that’s been done and all the trauma.

A lot of times, it doesn’t happen in the first conversation. You gotta be willing to listen for hours. “Man, you know 15 of my people already been shot, and I could shoot the whole block up now, easily.” And I say, “Listen, I know you could. I hope you don’t, but I know that you are capable of it. What else?” Usually, I find something. But you gotta be willing to listen — without judging. And that’s hard.

Ripley: I’ve interviewed you many times, and one of the most refreshing things about talking to you is that you don’t give up on anyone.

Toler: No, you can’t. I mean, Amanda, you know we are never just our worst behavior, right? There’s something underneath that usually.

Ripley: When you think about politics, do you think there could be progress? What is your sense, given all that you’ve seen?

Toler: You know, given the amount of conflicts that I've dealt with and the amount of people that have lost their lives from these conflicts, if I could get those young men and women to the table to agree some of the time, then I know that Congress and the political parties could come to some kind of resolution.

Because again, most people want to be out of conflict.

Ripley: Most people want to live.

Toler: Yeah, they do. Man, you just have to get to a civil society, right? We have to.

Ripley: What does that mean — a civil society?

Toler: Where everybody can agree to be disagreeable without someone being hurt.