How to "Still Be Friends"

“Don’t let politics ruin your relationships. One of the truest signs of maturity is the ability to disagree with someone while still remaining respectful.” - 2024 Instagram post from likely bot-run account @SuccessProfessional

The 2024 Presidential Election has aggravated America’s political polarization to an unprecedented degree as voters rallied behind their preferred candidate. This dramatic devotion seeped into the halls of Lawrenceville as students took their political views to social media, creating a tense environment on campus.  Friend groups and Houses reckoned with differing opinions. Lunch tables turned into debate podiums, and foreign-language classrooms abandoned their lesson plans to devote class time to political discussion in English. Lawrentians tried reconciling their feelings with those of their housemates and friends across our social media feeds, snapshots of Donald Trump’s felony counts shared the spotlight with Fox News announcements littered with supportive emojis, exemplifying duality of views Lawrenceville students hold.

So used to social media that we click subconsciously, we rarely think about the impacts of our reposts before we make them—it’s easy to press the “arrow” button and broadcast a pre-written thought to our networks. To us, reposting partisan content on our story for 24 hours might seem inconsequential. However, if we treat these posts like any other political symbol—easily susceptible to individual interpretation—how can we expect peers to understand the nuanced reasoning behind our political identities? Conditioned by political advertisements, we see every election as a fundamental clash between opposing values in American society. Every four years, the rights of vulnerable groups are on the ballot—and potentially the chopping-block. Because of the undeniable privilege at Lawrenceville, many students may not have experience with the severity of such threats. However, our School’s insulated nature does not excuse ignoring the gravity of which politicians we chose to support and the way we broadcast that support.

As members of such a privileged community, we cannot grow into the thoughtful, worldly students the School tries to cultivate if we do not understand ourselves in context of the wider world. At a time where democracy and human rights face malicious threats from extremist candidates, Lawrentians must take advantage of the resources surrounding us, educate ourselves, and act—in service of both ourselves and, more importantly, those who will be deeply impacted by the changes to our country in the years to come. 

If, hypothetically, your political leaning was rooted in policy and facts, and if you were upfront in these justifications when posting or discussing your politics, people may be less inclined to take your views as personal attacks. However, sound-bites, misinformation, memes, and surface-level moral proclamations drown out thoughtful political discussions. Both major parties engage in these posts, and both are at fault for their messy effects. On the rare occasions when a Lawrentian cites policy to explain why they support a candidate, they often resort to the familiar arguments ricocheting in TikTok echo chambers. This is not to shame Lawrentians who don’t know the intricacies of a president-elect’s campaign policies—after all, what average 16-year-old would? We simply wish  to highlight how our support for these candidates is often purely based in vague understandings of ideology. To claim otherwise would be a lie. 

With this in mind, we must approach our discussions of the election with more care and caution. If we remember that many of our peers have deep personal and ideological connections to candidates, it follows that posts and comments publicly stating our position in this conversation have deeper impacts than we can detect. Our social media presences are grand performances of morals. Others may misinterpret these proclamations as racism, elitism, misogyny or academic superiority rooted in ego and condescension. By ignoring the real consequences of our projected morals around the candidates, policies, and cultural norms at stake in this election, Lawrentians also disregard the diversity of the community we chose to join. 

Aside from how our shallow, internet-based political reactions stifle discourse, by removing the human aspect of conversation, we lose sight of the separate realities we subconsciously construct around ourselves. We sit in common rooms and walk to Starbucks with people diametrically opposed to our views on the internet, and yet refuse to acknowledge this discrepancy in person.  People should not be dragged into political conversations against their will, but sustaining relationships with people who disagree with you without any intention of addressing those differences is immature. How close is a friendship if neither party is willing to examine their values in the other’s presence? 

Thus, it is time to take accountability for both our hasty posting habits and our reluctance to reckon healthily with our political disagreement.  Although intense political discussion may frighten us, reverting to our political silos without taking enough responsibility to stand behind and discuss our reasoning and belief systems degrades our campus norms. Lawrentians, we have a duty to understand that politics is, in fact, “that deep.” Give a second thought before flippantly reposting something which needlessly brings unintended connotations. Furthermore, for those of us already set on a position, let’s put our hours of Harkness practice to good use, parsing through these difficult nuances with the capable people around us. Finally, for those of age who failed to exercise our civic duty to vote and stay engaged, now is the time for listening. The School valiantly attempted to encourage us to vote and make change: through announcements, initiatives such as Civic Awareness Day, and student-run platforms. Now more than ever, we must reach out, learn, and act. Our actions are more powerful than we imagine. Instead of wielding this power in a damaging manner, we must use this power and privilege to do good for our communities, rights, and democracy at large.