A while back, I had lunch with a friend, during which we lamented how the meaning of – and appreciation for – pluralism seems to be slipping away from the United States today. While we both agreed that pluralism is critical to the endurance of American democracy, however, we found that we disagreed about its meaning.
My friend described the concept this way. “I tell people to think of pluralism as going to the movies with a group when you can’t agree on what to see. You end up picking something that may not be everyone’s first choice, but you all get to see it together.”
While that view represents an essential component of pluralism, I see things slightly differently. In a big, multiethnic democracy that protects inherent liberties for individuals, things need to be more complex. Tweaking his analogy, I said that “Pluralism is also when you go to the movies with your buddies, can’t agree on anything, and decide to separately see the movies you prefer and then meet up afterward.”
In our hyperpolarized political climate, there’s an understandable temptation to view pluralism today exclusively as bridge-building efforts, or as the kind of inclusivity that makes us all feel good.
Feel-good pluralism might best be conceptualized as what happens when America’s reds (Republicans) and blues (Democrats) unite to make purple. It’s a simple way of visualizing opposing camps collaborating for the common good. And to be crystal clear, that conception of pluralism is a worthy, desirable, and crucial piece of our national fabric.
It is not, however, the only component necessary for the health of a free, democratic society. To really thrive, the United States needs a pluralism like the separate movie example I proposed to my friend – one that goes beyond the narrow, feel-good approach and maintains separate spaces for opposing groups.
Sometimes, we must accept that people or groups with whom we disagree may not want to build bridges immediately or ever. They may believe their actions are morally or politically correct, and working with opponents could undermine their cause. Although this may seem divisive, remember the U.S. Constitution guarantees Americans’ right to disagree. The Bill of Rights prevents us from imposing our beliefs on others. True pluralism should accept this tension.
The George W. Bush Institute’s Pluralism Challenge series defines pluralism as tolerance for individuals or groups who have different backgrounds, views, or beliefs. With this understanding, Americans can express their views and practice their beliefs without fear of reprisal even when those views and practices conflict with others’ – just as long as they don’t violate the Constitution or other legal protections. That approach leaves ample space for discordant views to regularly rub against one another.
The Catholic Church faces criticism on LGBTQ+ rights, female clergy, and abortion. In a free society, people can criticize it openly, but as a private entity, the church isn’t obligated to change. While it can promote its views, it can’t unilaterally impose them on individuals or the country.
While it’s unlikely that the church and its critics will ever manage to build bridges on these issues, the vast majority of Americans – miraculously – are content to live with that friction without ever resorting to violence. That’s a testament to the power of American-style, separate-movie pluralism.
That said, the idea of people going to a theater together only to split up and watch different films might strike you as odd, inconvenient, and awkward. I don’t disagree; why didn’t they discuss their choice beforehand?
I suppose it’s because human nature can be strange and unpredictable. We do things that don’t always make logical sense. Oddness, inconvenience, and awkwardness are all part of the daily social reality in a country where 330 million very different people have the freedom to largely live as they please. Things aren’t exactly harmonious, but all things considered, we still manage to coexist pretty well.
The American experiment has lasted nearly 250 years. To ensure its future, we need a shared commitment to democratic principles, founding documents, and civic virtue. In doing so, we’ll sometimes bridge divides, but we’ll also need separate spaces for opposing beliefs. This is how pluralism helps achieve “E Pluribus Unum” in a free society.