How do we foster friendships that transcend polarization?
“He is something of a pagan, and like many other pagans, he is a very fine man.”
This was the reflection the G.K. Chesterton of his friend George Bernard Shaw. As was characteristic of his biting wit, Chesterton simultaneously poked fun at Shaw and those who devalued his friendship with an atheist.
Just as in Chesterton’s day, these friendships continue to befuddle us. How would that even work? Like a rotary phone, they appear to be a relic of a bygone age that is no longer available.
Yet with the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, her relationship with the late Justice Anton Scalia provides us with a fresh example of a friendship that transcended our polarization. Revered by liberals, Ginsburg was the ideological opposite of Scalia in nearly every respect. Despite these differences, the two were “the best of friends,” dating back to their time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
In recent weeks, the Ginsburg/Scalia friendship has become a central narrative in the celebration of their lives and legacies. In articles, on social media, and in person, people across the political spectrum will praise the friendship as a role model for civic engagement in a liberal democracy. When asked how they were able to maintain a friendship despite profound differences, Ginsburg answered:
“We know that even though we have sharp disagreements on what the Constitution means, we have a trust. We revere the Constitution and the Court, and we want to make sure that when we leave it, it will be in as good a shape as it was when we joined the Court.”
This is part of why the friendship of Ginsburg and Scalia rings so powerfully in our ears today. The questions that fill interviews and articles …