In many American civics and history classes, Madison’s Federalist 10 is frequently taught. The thesis of the paper is that factions, which could be any kind of group, are inevitable in America. He argues that we can’t make these interest groups go away, so we need to find some way to control them. Madison’s primary fear is the tyrannical rule of the majority. One of his solutions to this fear is that a larger country with a “greater variety of parties and interests… make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the right of other citizens” [1]. In short, Madison was a fan of pluralism.
Pluralism, which allows the peaceful existence of various groups, interests, religions, and ideologies, is a classic American ideal. Today, pluralism is under attack. Charlie Kirk’s recent assassination is one example of attempting to silence an opposing group, and is one of many recent acts of political violence. Other movements like Christian nationalism and threats to free speech jeopardize our pluralistic society.
Democracy relies on the ability for competing ideas to exist. This country needs a revival in its commitment to pluralism. While it is tempting to seek the domination and elevation of our own groups, we must advocate for the rights of speech and existence for the various factions within America.
Affective polarization, which is the dislike and distrust of those from another party, is increasing in our country. While ideological polarization creates a healthy democracy in which different ideas can compete, affective polarization can be extremely destructive. One cause of this affective polarization is the moralization of political parties, which infuses partisan affiliation with deeper significance.
In 2022, 72% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats reported feeling that the members of the opposing party were more immoral than other Americans. Think about this. The majority of Republicans and Democrats are willing to make a negative moral judgment about a person just based on their political party. In 2016, these numbers were just 47% of Republicans and 35% of Democrats, which shows how quickly toxic polarization has spiked in the last few years [2].
This affective polarization threatens pluralism. When we think our party is morally superior, this ideological seed can begin to justify silencing the other party or stripping away their constitutional rights.
Limiting speech for other groups is one symptom of a weak commitment to pluralism. There hasn’t been adequate research done on whether conservative ideas are punished in class, but there is a large sentiment among conservatives that they are. Many conservative students feel pressured to self-censor in class or on assignments, and one study found that “68 percent of conservative students are “at least slightly concerned” about the social consequences that may come from their peers as a result of voicing one’s true opinions in class” [3].
One college student articulated this fear by saying, “Some professors paint conservative ideas and students as radical extremists. Anyone who stands up to challenge them puts their social reputation on the line” [3]. Allowing competing ideas to exist across the ideological spectrum is essential to the pursuit of higher education. College cultures should be pluralistic and encourage the existence of diverse ideas.
Conservatives have been the driving force of advocating for free speech on college campuses. However, in the past two years, this advocacy has started to recede. Pro-Palestine liberals have been censored, or even deported, for their free expression of ideas. Mahmoud Khalil, a U.S permanent resident, faces deportation for his Palestinian activism. His detainment was related to Trump’s vow to “crack down on un-American activity” [4]. Further, the FCC’s recent involvement in pausing Jimmy Kimmel’s show and Pam Bondi’s promise to crack down on “hate speech” demonstrate a frightening infringement on political speech [5].
We should be especially outraged when presidential power is used to intimidate groups, prevent them from organizing, and stifle their First Amendment rights to speech. Collective commitment to free speech, independent of whether our own party is affected, is fundamental to preserving pluralism.
Pluralism is threatened by groups that want to dominate, rather than share space with those who believe differently from them. Another movement that threatens pluralism is Christian Nationalism. While pluralism requires that we allow this group to exist, I think it is frightening that Christian Nationalist ideas have found a more prominent podium in conservative politics. I offer this example as another symptom of our decaying commitment to pluralism.
Subscribers to the Christian Nationalism movement believe that America should be a Christian nation, its laws should be based on the Bible, and that being a Christian is core to the identity of being an American. White Evangelicals have become a powerful force in Trump’s base, and a large percentage of this group believes in Christian Nationalist ideas. 31% of White Evangelicals believe that the government should stop enforcing the separation of church and state, while 35% agree with keeping the separation, and 32% answered neither [6].
Tangible effects of this have been seen, most notably in Texas’s new bill that requires the display of the 10 commandments in public schools [7]. Further, Christian Nationalist leaders and symbols were present at the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol, connecting this ideology with violence [8]. This far-right group of Christian Nationalists wants Christianity to be central to American identity, while legal precedent and core American ideals require religious pluralism.
While pluralism requires accepting the coexistence of diverse groups, we can and should move beyond mere tolerance. A healthy pluralistic society includes advocating for the flourishing of others, not just our own group. Culture war issues often create the disillusioned idea that certain groups threaten each other and cannot coexist. This is simply not true. Compromise and pluralism have worked (althoguh imperfectly) since America’s founding, and now is not the time to give up on them.
There are recent, positive examples of pluralism that give me hope. The Utah Compromise is a well-known 2015 piece of legislation that protects LGBTQ+ folks from housing and employment discrimination and includes protections for religious freedoms. [9] While sometimes a controversial bill to both queer and religious people, it exemplifies the give and take of pluralism. Neither of these groups dominated, but they were able to work together to find a mutually beneficial solution.
Madison feared the rule of the tyrant. He foresaw an un-American future where one group dominated the rest, and the marketplace of ideas that makes democracy function was stifled. The only way to save America is for every individual to strongly commit to pluralism. We must promote free speech and legal protections for everyone, including those with whom we disagree. If we continue to let fear and division govern our politics, I fear that America’s future will be increasingly violent. It is essential now more than ever that we unify against threats to American pluralism.
