In an age of polarization that goes beyond the public square, an increasing number of Americans have decided that it’s OK to cut a friend or family member out of their life because of political differences.
But, according to a new survey, most of the people who think that identify as liberal.
The survey, conducted by The Argument, an online magazine that promotes liberalism, found a significant partisan divide in answers to the question “Do you think having opposing political views is ever an acceptable reason to cut off contact with a family member?”
While the majority of respondents, regardless of political affiliation, said no, people who voted for Kamala Harris were the most likely to say yes — 40%. Conversely, 11% of Donald Trump voters said it’s OK to cut off contact with a family member over politics, compared to 18% of nonvoters and 25% of all respondents.
Harris voters were even more receptive to cutting off friends over politics, The Argument’s report said. Nearly 50% said that’s OK. And the divide is most stark when looking at young adults: nearly three-quarters of liberals under 45 find it acceptable to end a friendship over politics.
Given that the publication’s point of view — it aims to “make a positive, combative case for liberalism through rigorous, persuasive journalism” — The Argument could have found a way to sugarcoat these findings.
But Lakshya Jain, director of political data and founder of the election analysis firm Split Ticket, sees it as a troubling trend.
“Ideological segregation is a real problem for liberalism, and every indication is that it’s getting worse,” Jain wrote in an analysis of the findings.
The online survey of 1,562 registered voters, fielded Aug. 8-17, reflects a moment in time and is not necessarily predictive of where we will be in four years or 10. But it’s instructive to know what factors might be contributing to these findings — and also why one expert in conflict says that cutting ties over politics could be a “strategic mistake.”
Which is the party of free speech?
The question about cutting off family and friends was part of the survey’s larger theme of free speech. Other questions included whether it would be OK for certain people (such as a white supremacist or a transgender rights activists) to give a speech on a college campus and whether it’s OK for people in various professions (including teachers, athletes, news anchors and federal judges) to express support for presidential candidates.
“Neither (political) party is a consistent free-speech defender,” Jain said in his analysis, while observing that large shares of respondents objected to certain speakers at colleges. (Nearly 50% of Trump voters wouldn’t want a transgender rights activist giving a speech on a campus, and 55% of Harris voters said they wouldn’t want Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak there.)
But the “free speech for me and not for thee” dynamic wasn’t as troubling to Jain as was the finding about severed relationships, about which he wrote, “Nobody in America takes politics more personally than young liberals.”
Matthew Levendusky, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the Stephen & Mary Baran Chair in the Institutions of Democracy at the Annenberg Public Policy Center, said as much.
“It’s a bit hard without having the actual data myself to dig into this a bit more, but honestly, I’m not surprised that Harris voters are more likely to say that than Trump voters are,” Levendusky said in an email. “I suspect that part of this is an age/education effect, in that younger voters and better educated ones are more likely to hold a totalizing view of politics — your politics tells me who you are at a very deep level, so if you have the wrong politics, I don’t want you in my life."
He added, “There’s likely a Trump specific factor as well — many on the left are uniquely angry at Trump given his brand of politics and his administration’s actions during the second term. But the point is a more general one — had, say, Nikki Haley been the nominee, I suspect we still would have seen an asymmetry, it just would not have been as stark."
Jain also believes the findings are influenced by the Trump presidency, writing on X that in decades past, “Liberals used to have more diverse friend groups than conservatives.” He cited a 2014 report from Pew Research Center that found 63% of “consistently conservative” respondents agreed with the statement “Most of my close friends share my political views” compared to 49% of “consistently liberal” respondents.
In 2014, “People on the right and left also are more likely to say it is important to them to live in a place where most people share their political views, though again, that desire is more widespread on the right (50%) than on the left (35%),” the Pew report said.
In an interview, Jain said that while older liberals generally have no problem with being friends with conservatives, many liberals in Gen Z have said they wouldn’t even go to a restaurant if it was owned by a Trump voter.
“Us Democrats are more likely to view politics as an expression of our value system. It makes sense from an individual level that if you view someone as racist or homophobic, there’s no reason to spend your precious time with them,” he said.
But, he added, “What’s good for the individual isn’t necessarily good for the group. The entire basis of liberalism is to make the world more accepting for people, and a lot of that relies on persuasion. And if you’re not willing to talk to them, how are you going to persuade them? And that’s what worries me.
“We’re a minority in this country. Trump won the popular vote. Ideological silos don’t help anyone. … We’re already behind the eight ball as it is,” Jain said.
Why liberals cut conservatives off
The Argument’s findings are in line with similar research in the past.
New York psychologist Chloe Carmichael, writing for Evie magazine, said, “Studies consistently show that liberals are more likely than conservatives to cut ties with people over political disagreements —whether that’s unfriending on social media, ghosting a friend, or cutting off a relative entirely. Conservatives, while far from immune to strong feelings, tend to remain more relational even across political divides."
Carmichael, the author of the forthcoming book “Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly,” says there are “five Ds” that show up: defriending, divorcing, declining to date, disinviting a speaker, decreasing contact, or dropping a relationship altogether. (The website Oprahdaily.com offered another one earlier this year, in an article entitled “How to demote a family member without cutting them off.”)
In an interview, Carmichael said that research shows that people who are liberal tend to identify with a collectivist mindset, while people who are politically conservative more often have an individualist mindset.
“On the liberal side, it makes sense that maybe you would be more aware of what other people around you are believing and feel like it affects you more personally, while people with an individualist mindset may be more able to enjoy those connections without feeling like there’s any boundary issue. ... They want to live and let live in their own way.”
Young liberals may also be driven to cut off relationships because they see the stakes as higher. For example, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe “democracy is under serious threat,” according to an NPR/PBS News/Marist poll released in July.
And Carmichael noted that more Democrats say that Republicans are racist than the other way around, one finding of a YouGov poll in 2024.
“I can understand where if you view someone that way — if you think they are truly racist — you may be more inclined to want to distance. That might be a motivation for some of the five Ds behavior," Carmichael said. She says that there are cases where cutting someone off makes sense — if, for example, if abuse or addiction is involved. But ending a relationship over “ideological discomfort,” can be damaging for both parties.
“We need disagreement to grow, and we need relationships to stay emotionally stable. When you sever ties with someone over who they voted for, you don’t just lose a viewpoint, you lose history, identity, emotional support, and often, a chance for mutual growth,” Carmichael wrote.
Why cutting people off can be a mistake
People end relationships for reasons other than politics, of course. A HarrisX/Deseret News poll in 2022 found that 1 in 4 Americans were estranged from family members. And as Valerie Hudson wrote for the Deseret News last year, the number of adults who have gone “no contact” with a parent has increased in recent years.
Amanda Ripley, author of the book “High Conflict” and founder of Good Conflict, which trains people to resolve conflict, said in an email that she has seen the trend, both in research and her own conversations, but that cutting people off “is a strategic mistake — and probably a spiritual one, too."
“If you care about persuading people to think differently and be more compassionate (as many of these voters probably do), there is only one proven path forward. The most well-studied strategy to reduce prejudice between humans is through meaningful conversation.”
“Contact theory” proposes that interpersonal contact between opposing groups can reduce prejudice and tension. This has been shown to be effective in more than 500 different experiments around the world, Ripley said.
“Relationships change people much faster than facts. So if you want to reduce intolerance in the world, just know that you will not get there through estrangement, mockery or shunning. That’s just not how people work,” she said.
But, she added, it’s work, and it isn’t easy. Outcomes are best, for example, when all the parties involved have equal status and they’re not just talking about their differences, but working together on a shared problem, she said.
“The good news is that you can get much better at this, if you want to. I am living proof of this. I engage in a totally different way now than I did 10 years ago, before I started writing about conflict. I have good days and bad days, but in general, I am now much more focused on trying to understand the other person (and trying to be understood) versus trying to ‘win.’ This is way more effective — and just a healthier way to live, in my experience."
For another example of people who were able to set aside their differences and restore a broken relationship, look to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
As Betsy Sinclair, a professor and chair of political science at Washington University in St. Louis wrote for The Conversation earlier this year, the men’s relationship was strained for 11 years, but then Adams wrote to Jefferson, “You and I, ought not to die before we have explained ourselves to each other.”
With that, they resumed writing to each other and remained friends until they died within hours of each other on July 4, 1826.