Pluralism isn’t purple

Two women walk in front of a display showing the text of the U.S. Constitution at the National Constitution Center, Philadelphia, PA. (William Thomas Cain / Getty Images)

Pluralism isn’t always purple.

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.”

Even though he didn’t say so, I sensed that my friend didn’t love that take. 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 make us all feel good. Such feel-good pluralism can take the form of diverse groups working together, perhaps even compromising, to solve shared challenges; increasing the representation of marginalized groups in public and private life; and encouraging new ideas by welcoming people with different life experiences into decision-making processes.

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.

Attendees at the 34th Annual Houston Interfaith Thanksgiving Service at a chapel in Houston, TX on Nov. 15, 2018. (Mark Mulligan / Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Agreeing to disagree

Sometimes we must accept that people or groups with whom we disagree may not want to build bridges immediately – or ever. They may believe that what they’re doing is morally or politically correct and that working with opponents would undermine their cause or beliefs. While such thinking might sound like a recipe for divisiveness, remember that the U.S. Constitution enshrines Americans’ right to disagree. The Bill of Rights also prevents us from imposing our will or beliefs on others. A full-bodied commitment to pluralism – one that goes beyond the narrow feel-good version – should allow that tension to exist.

The George W. Bush Institute’s Pluralism Challenge series defines pluralism as social tolerance for individuals or groups who have different backgrounds, views, or beliefs. This version of pluralism provides space for Americans to express their views and practice their beliefs without fear of violent reprisal even when those views and practices conflict with others’ – just as long as they don’t violate the Constitution or other legal protections. Such an approach leaves ample space for discordant views to regularly rub against one another.

As a practicing Catholic, the example I often think of is how various faith communities in the United States disagree on contentious social issues. The Catholic Church, for example, is often criticized by different interest groups for its positions on LGBTQ+ rights, female clergy, and abortion. In a free society, people should be free to publicly criticize the church’s positions and call for it to evolve. But because religious freedom is another fundamental American right, the church (as a private entity) is under no obligation to change. By the same token, while the church can forcefully promote its own views on these issues, it cannot unilaterally impose them on individuals or on the country as a whole.

We make such accommodations all the time in the United States; they’re part of what makes this country so special. 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.

Friction between opposing groups is inevitable in free societies. In Federalist No. 10, the founding father James Madison argued that free people – by virtue of having the liberty to form their own opinions – will naturally disagree and create factions based on countless issues. Some of these issues will be important. Some will be ridiculous (just think of the recent internet debates over who would win a fight between a single gorilla and 100 humans).

Madison offered two alternatives for managing such differences. You can either try to extinguish all traces of liberty or impose conformity of thought. As Madison showed, those are both terrible ideas. Far better, he argued, to allow diverse factions to flourish in the belief that most of them would rather support a system that protects their fundamental, existential rights. That same self-interest, when acted on by a broad multitude of opposing interest groups, would also make it much harder for authoritarian factions to secure enduring, nationwide majorities and use them to impose their will on others. While not a silver bullet guaranteed to prevent tyranny, this commitment to pluralism would provide another bulwark – like the separation of powers – that would help keep society free.

Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear and Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders in conversation at the 2025 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Jan. 23, 2025. (Flickr / World Economic Forum / Thibaut Bouvier)

Separately together

Let’s return to my earlier example comparing pluralism to a group visiting the movies. 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.

One could even argue that pluralism in the United States has become a victim of its own success. It has worked so effectively that we fail to recognize its extraordinary ordinariness. Speaking at a George W. Bush Center event in 2024, the New York Times columnist David French described the “Miracle of Franklin Road.” Describing his experience living outside of Nashville, Tennessee, French spoke about driving down that road near his home where he sees “megachurch after megachurch” standing alongside synagogues and mosques. Contrary to what would have been the case for much of human history, no animosity or threat of violence looms between these different houses of worship. Instead, French said, “the main conflict is position in the buffet line after church.” That reality of Franklin Road – and other streets like it around the United States – reminds us that one way pluralism fosters social cohesion is by normalizing the coexistence of different faiths and their right to worship freely.

The same is true of the commerce that we engage in daily. How often do we buy goods or services from individuals or companies with whom we have at least one major difference? Our business relationships likely supersede a single identity or issue area. The need, convenience, or efficiency of a service usually outweighs the politics, religion, or ethnicity of the staff or owners of the business providing it.

Americans are lucky that we still have some political leaders who model a full commitment separate-movie pluralism. Take the example of Kentucky’s Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear and Arkansas’ Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. During the 2025 World Economic Forum, the two politicians appeared together onstage, where they treated each other with civility and expressed their mutual respect for tackling the challenges of state government. That didn’t prevent them from voicing opposing views on substantive issues like labor policy or diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in their states. But neither governor shouted at the other nor walked off the stage. They simply acknowledged that they saw things differently and explained why.

Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute argues that American democracy is an ongoing argument among “We the People.” We should not see our fellow citizens as enemies, he says. “Our options are not war or truce. We are meant to argue with each other precisely because we do share a future in common.” Taking a fuller view of pluralism – one that includes bridge building, inclusivity, and fostering separate spaces for disparate groups to live and believe as they please – allows us to navigate that argument while keeping the peace.

To achieve such pluralism in practical terms, Levin offers the brilliant but simple formula of acting together while thinking differently. Acting together can take the form of feel-good pluralism, but it can also describe how we argue opposing positions in town hall meetings, civic organizations, editorial pages, on social media, or in Congress. It includes accepting policy defeats with grace because our democracy provides a multitude of opportunities to reenter the arena and make your case on another day.  And it means resolving grievances or disputes without violence through political, judicial, and community institutions.

The American experiment has endured for nearly 250 years despite existential wars, flawed leaders, disruptive technological advances, demographic shifts, and the darkest impulses of human nature. If it is to continue weathering future storms, it will require a shared commitment to America’s democratic principles, its founding documents, and a sense of civic virtue. And to make it all work, it’s imperative that we understand that pluralism isn’t always politically purple. Sometimes we need to bridge divides in order to tackle common challenges; but we also need separates spaces for Americans to maintain and practice their opposing beliefs. That is the path for achieving “e pluribus unum” in a free society.