In-Group Backlash: Amy Coney Barrett and Gavin Newsom

In recent weeks, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and California Governor Gavin Newsom have faced harsh criticism — not from their usual adversaries, but from people who would have normally considered themselves allies.

This backlash highlights how our toxic divides can lead to team-based expectations and disappointments. Many of us see our divides in warlike, good-versus-bad terms, across a wide range of issues. This can make an ally disagreeing on even a single issue feel like a major betrayal — no matter that it’s easy for rational, compassionate people to disagree on many of the contentious issues around us. 

Barrett’s Surprising Vote

Justice Barrett, often seen as a reliable politically conservative voice on the Supreme Court, recently sided with the perceived-liberal justices and with perceived-conservative Justice Roberts to require the Trump administration to pay foreign aid organizations for work already completed. This decision was surprising to some who expected Barrett to unilaterally support Trump, and it led to a wave of criticism from Trump supporters.

NBC News ran a headline reading, “MAGA world turns against Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.” A USA Today article quoted a Republican who called Barrett “the biggest disappointment” on the court, adding, “As a woman, I’m ashamed I ever supported her.” Some critics accused her of being a “DEI hire.” One Republican said she had betrayed Trump, “who gave her the robe.”

Newsom’s Surprising Podcast

California Governor Gavin Newsom also drew heat recently from fellow Democrats. Newsom recently began hosting a podcast titled “Politickin'”, in which he interviews conservative figures to better understand Republicans’ success in recent elections. He described his effort as a way to help Democrats connect with more voters and address recent setbacks.

This outreach hasn’t gone over well with some progressives. One headline read, “Amid 2028 speculation, California governor’s podcasts with Trump loyalists anger Democrats.” Some criticized Newsom for his views on transgender athletes, which he expressed in a conversation with Charlie Kirk. One headline read, “Gavin Newsom shocks LGBTQ allies with criticism of transgender athletes.” A YouTube video referred to Newsom’s “big betrayal on trans rights.”

When Allies Turn on Each Other

We’ve written about how toxic polarization can lead to more discord, even among people with much in common politically. When we see politics as a battle between “us” and “them,” we expect our allies to stay loyal to the cause, as we see it. Any deviation from the set of stances we associate with “the good side” — no matter how defensible those disagreements — can feel like a highly disappointing betrayal. 

Our Movement Partner Arthur Brooks, in his book Love Your Enemies, writes, “If you have contempt for ‘them,’ more and more people will become ‘them.’” When we define “our side” or the “other side” too narrowly, it becomes more likely that even small disagreements can turn into grounds for exclusion and resentment. Barrett and Newsom both violated some group-related expectations, and the reaction was swift and harsh.

Conflict Makes Us Lose Perspective

We don’t want to imply it’s bad to disagree with or criticize others — whether they’re allies or not. The problem is not disagreement or criticism. We’re just examining how conflict can distort how we see disagreements. Warlike framings of our divides lead to more intolerance of disagreement within our “in-group.” 

Philosopher Kevin Dorst writes about what he calls “rational polarization” — the idea that smart, well-intentioned people can come to very different conclusions about complex issues. Conflict can lead to us forgetting this basic truth.

Conflict leads us to see political differences among perceived allies as signs of weakness or betrayal. We assume that “good people” would naturally align with the grouping of stances associated with “our side”: the side we see as good and right. Conflict clouds our judgment, making us think that anyone who isn’t fully aligned with us must be siding with “the enemy.”

The Problem with Picking Sides

The truth is, most political issues aren’t neatly divided into “right vs. wrong” or “good vs. bad.” There’s no single, unified “side” — just a complex mix of policies, values, and priorities. Even the commonly repeated concept of a left-right political spectrum can be criticized as largely illusory — and as an idea that has fostered a warlike, us-versus-them mentality. 

Barrett and Newsom would probably say they aren’t thinking in terms of “sides” or trying to “switch sides” — they’re just saying and doing what they think is right on various issues. People can disagree with them — even criticize them harshly — without treating them as traitors or enemies. 

When we reduce politics to a binary choice of “with us or against us,” we can ironically help create the very dynamics that bother many of us. By making people feel forced into choosing between binary channels, we create more support for polarized stances, and more anger and contempt. 

By highlighting complexity, and striving to treat others in good faith, we’ll make it easier to arrive at multi-partisan solutions that most people can get behind. 

What We Can Do

Instead of treating differences of opinion as betrayals, we can try to understand why someone might see things differently. Contrary to what our instincts may tell us, approaching disagreement that way does not mean giving up our principles. 

Barrett and Newsom’s experiences show how easy it is for our toxic political environment to break up coalitions — to make us see former allies as enemies. But if we can resist the temptation to think in terms of sides and loyalty tests, we’ll all help contribute to breaking the cycle of toxic division.

Join the Builders Movement! buildersmovement.org/invite