Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Do you have any friends?

Do you have any friends?
Getty Images

Luke Nathan Phillips is Publius Fellow for Public Discourse at Braver Angels. Thoughts expressed here are entirely his own, and should not be read as a formal statement of Braver Angels.

Do you have friends with whom you disagree on politics? Not just friends from different backgrounds, but friends whose opinions are substantively different from yours?


If yes, excellent. You’re part of the solution to one of our most pervasive problems—political polarization reaching into our personal lives and breaking apart our friendships.

Now among your friends with whom you disagree with on politics—this could include people who are close to you on issues, but separated by the artificial yet socially-real boundary lines of political, cultural, and personal identity—you might both be moderates; you might both despise your respective sides’ harshest voices for similar reasons. Or you might both oppose your respective sides’ out-of-touch elites and establishments. This is friendship across a political line, but it is based on a certain sort of common ground.

Go a little further. Do you have any friends with whom you have less political common ground? Friends whose backgrounds are not just different from, but counterposed against, yours? People who you might have good reason to be resentful or suspicious or contemptuous towards, on political or social grounds? People whose politics, malicious or stupid, are actively harmful? Are you friends with them?

I would bet you are. If you’re like most people who work in or adjacent to political and policy activism, you probably have some token handful of friends, or maybe family or neighbors or coworkers, who are completely politically “other” from you. You probably also have larger groups of friendly acquaintances like this, too, and for all you despise their politics, you probably basically like and respect them as people.

This, too, is good. It can be harder to maintain these; these are the sorts of friendships where you might find it prudent never to talk about politics, and that can be all for the best. (There’s more interesting things in life, anyhow.) But by staying friends, even just casually, even with no reference to politics, you are maintaining civic friendship in its most basic, common, and fundamentally democratic mode, and the mode which the vast majority of our fellow Americans, when they too choose to hold America together in their personal lives and friendships, practice too.

But go one step further. We all have our “red lines”—personal convictions on moral, ethical, and political issues, which are dear and core to us as standards, which we hold ourselves to as a matter of belief and conviction. We stand by them not because they are universally recognized, but because they are so often contested, so often threatened by our political opponents. Politics is real, and sometimes other people cross our red lines, and if our convictions mean anything to us, we then must make a choice.

And so—among your friends with whom you disagree on politics, are there any who you know hold opinions or convictions which cross your red lines?

These are the hardest friendships to maintain, and the most commonly terminated. Many of us have cut people off over this, myself regrettably included. Discovering that someone you love and admire is, for example, unrepentantly racist, or spits on your faith, can be a shock.

Yet even here, I suspect that many of you are still friends of sorts with people whose opinions and beliefs cross your red lines. You might not have a coherent justification for it; you might merely have various loyalties and affections for them, on whatever basis, and to boot them out of your life would do less good than harm. You might feel weird about it; you might just not talk politics with them; you might just avoid their darker views, while keeping them as friends.

This, too, is good. It is scary and strange, and you might suffer socially and professionally for it. But if you do have friendships with such people, and value them as people, and keep those friendships despite the tension within and the pressure without, you are doing something very good.

You’re committing the radical act of keeping the personal and the political—so intricately intertwined, so fundamentally the same, yet so fundamentally distinct—in their right relations to each other, denying neither. You’re staying true to your politics, and true to your personhood. It doesn’t make straightforward sense, but it’s the right way to live. Friendship, first because of, then alongside, finally in spite of our duties to public life, is the noblest thing to which free people might aspire, the only real foundation of nationhood and of democracy itself.

Now, we’re in the National Week of Conversation. Keep those friendships front and center, don’t shed them; but if you in some way avoid talking about politics, we invite you to consider that productive, good-faith conversation about literally anything is possible, provided everyone comes in the right spirit, and agrees to the right rules. We at Braver Angels spend this week doing what we always do—convening Americans to sit around in circles and talk about their feelings, nothing more and nothing less, in our various formats of workshop and debate. We do this to remind each other, to remind ourselves, that there is another way to live.

For every friendship is an extended conversation, a drawn-out get-to-know-you session that drags on over months and years and lifetimes, which breaks down every barrier and humbles all the mighty, which literally changes lives. Marriages are rooted in it; mentorships grow into it; any human relationship, no matter how fleeting or transactional, is made beautiful when it becomes, as all can be, a friendship. And what is the American experience but the greatest conversation, and when we live up to it, the most beautiful of friendships?


Read More

DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less
Living Underground: Tel Aviv in the Shadow of a Widening War

Steps leading to a private underground bunker in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Hugo Balta
A billboard that reads, "We've got your six," and "Confidential abortion support for service members, veterans, and their families. You make the appointment, we handle the rest."

Female service members face higher rates of sexual assault, limited reproductive healthcare, and policy barriers shaped by the Hyde Amendment and the Dobbs decision. This piece examines how military and VA policies are failing women in uniform and after service, widening inequality and restricting access to critical care.

All Women Left Behind

Our sisters in arms are facing a life cycle of abandonment. Female service members have a separation rate 28% higher than men, largely attributed to sexual assault, family planning, and childcare—inherently sexist issues that threaten to weaken our force. When women are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by the enemy, with decades of unsuccessful efforts to reduce rape in the ranks, the military is lucky women volunteer to serve at all. But for those who do take the oath, the betrayal only deepens. In states with abortion bans, the uniform offers no protection against healthcare deserts created by Dobbs. Instead of expanding care, the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs have retreated, leaving these women with less access to care than they would have in a federal prison. Their president might be a blue falcon, but We the People are going to have their backs.

Just as the military sees more rapes than the civilian population, it also sees more unplanned pregnancies. Maternal death rates are higher in America than in other developed nations, but they are higher still in states with abortion restrictions. In fact, for women of reproductive age who live there, death rates are higher, independent of pregnancy. Following Dobbs, 40% of female service members saw increased risks to their health and careers, simply by being stationed at one of the 100 military installations housed in one of those states, while Pentagon officials admitted: “there is not much they can do [for them].”

Keep ReadingShow less