“Would any […] doctrine, however convincingly proved, be worth the sacrifice of so much as a single friendship between two men?”
—Hannah Arendt, Men in Dark Times
In the past decade, Americans’ willingness to reach across the political aisle has reached icy depths. A 2024 poll found that 33% of 18 to 34-year-old Americans shun cross-aisle friendships. During the 2020 election between former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, social media posts such as, “unfollow me if you voted for X candidate,” were a common sight. A 2016 poll found that 7% of voters ended or lost a friendship over the 2016 election between Trump and the Democratic candidate for president, Hillary Clinton. The vehemence of these deep interpersonal divides has potentially dire consequences: both sides of the political aisle increasingly see coercion and violence as their only options to secure acceptable governance.
Our country faces deep divides not only on how to govern, but on what is rational and true. A major reason for these divides is that we decide what to believe largely based on whose intentions we trust. As even the most dedicated fact-checker cannot hope to verify anywhere near all the information they need to live their life, the large majority of what we believe is necessarily based on which sources we trust. Since we trust most those with whom we have successful relationships, who we form and maintain relationships with significantly shapes our views on politics, ethics, and truth.
Like many others, I struggle with how deep disagreement should affect my relationships. When I first meet people with radically different views on politics, ethics, or truth, my instinct is often to avoid forming relationships with them. Yet my instinct is to maintain and invest in my existing relationships with people who hold radically different views. Which instinct should I follow? Should I embrace my political opponents or shun them?
For me, the deciding factor is what it takes to build the kind of political community I want to live in and leave for future generations: a pluralist democracy in which people who hold deeply conflicting views work together for shared political ends. While Americans have long held this ideal of cooperative politics, political polarization has increased dramatically over the past decade. Fewer and fewer politicians work across the aisle, and our democratic system itself may be nearing collapse. Large swaths of Americans no longer trust institutions governed by those across the aisle and consider those on the other side so morally and/or intellectually inferior that they cannot or will not work with them. In any sustainable pluralist democracy, people must show some support for those with whom they disagree in order to keep the system functioning. ‘Support’ might range from not interfering with others’ legal rights to actively helping them. But how much support is necessary?
I frame my answer with an analogy: Philosopher Isaiah Berlin popularized a distinction between negative and positive liberty. In the context of governing, negative liberty is freedom from government-sanctioned interference of others, and positive liberty is the freedom to actively participate in governing one’s political community. On the model of that distinction, I call the basic tolerance of those with whom we deeply disagree “negative pluralism” and active support “positive pluralism.” So, for example, not acting on a desire to shut down a (legal) public protest demonstrates negative pluralism. In contrast, a pro-life woman giving her pro-choice friend a ride to an abortion clinic, or a Black man actively befriending KKK members demonstrate positive pluralism.
Most Americans support negative pluralism — that we should respect the rights of people with whom we disagree, but need not go out of our way to befriend them. I argue, however, that negative pluralism is not enough in these dark times of democratic decline. Negative pluralism fails when democratic institutions are under threat because it relies on those same institutions to ensure the rights of those with whom we deeply disagree. If the government stops enforcing those protections or does little to stop violations of our political opponents’ rights, then those with whom we deeply disagree effectively have little or no support from across the aisle — and therefore little reason to trust or care about political collaboration.
In contrast, positive pluralism encourages us to cultivate support for those with whom we disagree beyond bare respect of their legal rights. Moreover, positive pluralism helps forge, and may even be required to forge, the kind of relationships that constitute the basis of political cooperation. Positive pluralism encourages a willingness to understand and value how other people think even when we disagree, whereas negative pluralism makes it too easy to cultivate contempt, distrust, and hatred.
More concretely, an emphasis on positive pluralism may help pull us back from the brink of democratic collapse. Cross-aisle relationships that are built on demonstrated good will and foster trust are the cornerstone of a healthy pluralist democracy. In contrast, it is hard to trust or care about someone who merely refrains from interfering with your life. To be motivated to work towards a common good, people have to first care about the wellbeing of those on the other side and trust them enough to engage in good-faith compromise. This necessitates that people actively reach out to form relationships despite deep differences.
There are, however, a few necessary qualifications to my advocacy of positive pluralism. One might protest, “What if I hate spending time with this person even when we do not talk about politics? Why should I have to be their friend?” Or, “Talking to this family member about anything gives me so much anxiety that it is hard for me to focus on anything else for hours afterward — why should I subject myself to that?” These are good reasons not to befriend someone. I do not advocate going out of our way to befriend people with whom we have no basis for connection. But, I would advise anyone who finds a common interest with someone across the aisle to actively pursue that connection — or, at least, not avoid a relationship on the basis of deep disagreement.
There is a very real danger in promoting positive pluralism that I unfairly burden those who are already disadvantaged. It is wrong to expect a Black woman to befriend a racist sexist man or an impoverished fundamentalist Christian to befriend a rich atheist, but not because forming such relationships is unethical or politically pointless. It is wrong because such an expectation ignores the emotional labor it takes to provide support across deep political divides. Rather than imposing expectations, I aim to promote positive pluralism as a worthy endeavor for those of us who can do so without compromising our well-being.
One might object that the sort of fraternization with the enemy I’m proposing might be just as likely to make me less ethical as it is to help me forge a more ethical political future. I don’t deny this possibility. In fact, a necessary precondition to making connections across the aisle is that people remain genuinely open-minded and take the time to charitably understand others’ points of view. There is even psychological evidence that shows roleplaying advocacy for another point of view makes a person more likely to agree with that point of view. This is a risk worth taking, however, given the likely benefits to our country. And if our deeply-held convictions do not survive our befriending those who disagree, we should consider that our views may be wrong or incomplete.
One might further object that fostering a culture of political tolerance will legitimize morally abhorrent views. This is another real danger. Ostracizing those whom we consider irrational, unethical, or otherwise a danger to our community is a natural and ancient instinct. Ostracism, however, only increases safety when we can expel those who pose a threat from our community. So, if our commitment to pluralist democracy precludes us, as I believe it should, from incarcerating, deporting, disenfranchising or killing those with whom we deeply disagree, then we must find a way to work with them. Moreover, it is possible, though admittedly difficult, to clearly express deep disagreement while remaining friends, as former US Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia masterfully modeled.
A pluralist democracy thrives only if its various factions are willing to compromise. Compromise requires care and trust on both sides — care and trust that are best fostered by personal relationships. Without compromise, we face increasing political dysfunction, discrimination, and violence. While it is possible that violence may become the only option to secure acceptable governance, as it was for President Abraham Lincoln in 1861, I hope that we are not there yet.
To avoid that outcome, we need a cultural shift; not towards criticizing those who shun relationships based on politics, but towards praising and encouraging those who make a concerted effort to forge and maintain cross-aisle friendships. On social media, we should celebrate not the relationships we end, but instead our successful relationships across difference. If we find ourselves pulling away from a friend because of who they vote for, we should look for the strength to maintain the friendship regardless, but not chastise ourselves if we do not find it. While we should not impose a moral obligation to connect across difference, we should promote positive pluralism as a much-needed virtue.
Molly Wilder completed a joint JD/PhD in philosophy at Georgetown University in December 2023 and is now an Assistant Teaching Professor in philosophy at Georgetown.
