Respecting citizens across political divisions is something many take for granted as important for democracy. Respect is central to democratic discussion and democratic equality. If we respect one another, we are more likely to listen to those with whom we disagree, to take the concerns of our fellow citizens seriously as democratic equals, to not look down upon them with scorn or contempt, and to accept their participation in the political process as legitimate. Democratic theorists sing paeans about the importance of respect but they say little about the conditions that make respect possible or the trade-offs between respect and other values. Our book places respect in the context of partisanship, which is clearly one of the major cleavages of our day. We take what many theorists consider a key virtue, respect, and ask if citizens live up to this ideal in a polarized environment.

Drawing on egalitarian theory, focus groups, online surveys, and experiments, we find that the vast majority of people, especially liberals, value respect and say it is important to respect everyone. Yet when asked if they respect opposing partisans simply as fellow human beings (recognition respect) and as people worth listening to and engaging with as fellow citizens (civic respect), people’s willingness to respect drops considerably. The unwillingness to grant respect rests in part on clashing worldviews. Democrats, following many egalitarian political theorists, tend to hold a social justice worldview that focuses on oppressed groups and emphasizes a critical view of US history. Republicans tend to hold a national solidarity worldview that highlights national unity, strength, and love of country. People moralize their worldview and believe that all Americans have a collective responsibility to realize a society that shares their worldview. Since these worldviews are at odds, many have a hard time respecting opposing partisans. For example, if you believe that you are voting for social justice, then it is a short leap to think that those who vote differently are voting for injustice. And how can you respect advocates of injustice?

While contemporary egalitarian theory argues for the importance of respect, it is often taken for granted and rarely explored. We confront the unnoticed tension between respect and justice within egalitarian theory. Egalitarians seemingly take diversity for granted, but many versions of egalitarianism actually are not particularly pluralistic, especially those that argue that everyone has a responsibility to uphold social justice. If everyone must uphold social justice, then alternative views are contemptible and not to be respected. Similarly, the conservative view on national solidarity narrows the conservative terrain for pluralism. We argue for egalitarian pluralism, which acknowledges the trade-offs that respect demands and links respect to support for pluralism.

Giving respect to opposing partisans is difficult, but for democracy to function well, it is essential. Many of our focus group discussions captured this difficulty well, including this comment: “I have a hard time … respecting Trump supporters. I feel like you have to be really disabled mentally not to see that he’s not stable” (NC Liberals 6, Woman 1) To think that half of your fellow citizens are idiots or mentally disabled is astounding and depressing to hear. Democratic respect is very hard to grant, at least in these polarized times; empathy and understanding are in short supply, and belief in a reasonable pluralism is truncated.