Courage And conviction

What makes this ironic is that Justice Scalia himself was known for respecting people regardless of their views. “I attack ideas, I don’t attack people,” Scalia said. “Some very good people have some very bad ideas.” Scalia’s love and respect for those with differing views manifest itself in the most famous friendship in modern jurisprudence, with liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “You can disagree without being disagreeable,” Ginsburg said. And so, though the two justices often did not vote together, they did nearly everything else together: vacation, dine, and celebrate holidays, like the New Year’s Eve dinner their families shared each year.  

When Scalia and Ginsburg disagreed, it strengthened their friendship, not diminished it. “How blessed I was to have a dear friend of such captivating brilliance, high spirits, and quick wit,” Ginsburg said in her eulogy of Scalia, whom she would call her “best buddy.” Their relationship was a model of humanity in an ever-polarizing world. As Scalia’s son Eugene wrote after Ginsburg died:  

What we can learn from the justices — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. Not for a moment did one think the other should be condemned or ostracized.

For Scalia and Ginsburg to know that one of their names had become a tool for polarization would leave the justices rolling over in their graves.

Breaking the Spiral of Silence

A consequence of the toxic tribalism of our time is the growing spiral of silence. Coined by Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, the term refers to the phenomenon of avoiding expression of political views for fear of public response. Some go along to get along, and then others do, too. As scholars like Jonathan Haidt have observed, modern technologies have accelerated the spiral by enabling partisans to police tribal nonconformance through threats of widespread shaming. This has all but silenced the political center, who have concluded that the benefits of speaking their minds are not worth approbation. Thus, the public square is left vacant for only the most strident voices to occupy. 

In the school board race, policing was rampant. Bipartisan supporters of Bryce had their bios scoured for any basis to attack them, no matter how desperate. Those who placed Bryce signs in their yards had them stolen, destroyed, or photographed for public shaming. “Haven’t had a chance to introduce myself to new neighbors that moved in this weekend, but it looks like we don’t have anything in common,” one neighbor wrote on Nextdoor, with a photo of a Bryce sign. When quotes supporting Bryce from former Democratic Congressional candidate Claire Russo appeared in articles, other Democrats were so outraged they told Russo they must be fake.

And then there were the attacks on Bryce herself. In a more rational time, Bryce’s story would be an inspiration. A mother of four and product of public schools herself, Bryce and her husband chose the location of their home for its schools. But, as she watched those schools decline, and the administration refuse to fix them, Bryce reluctantly moved her children to private school. Realizing that not everyone has that luxury, instead of turning her back on the children left behind, Bryce ran for school board to try to help them. She had no agenda but to restore their learning.  

For her altruism, Bryce’s reward was a coordinated effort to destroy her reputation. Unbeknownst to Bryce, just weeks after she announced her candidacy, her opposition secretly purchased the web domain www.megscaliabryce.com, which they would eventually use to defame her with personal attacks. Campaign ads echoed the lies, calling Bryce a “conservative political activist” bent on “banning books” and “whitewashing history.” And men piled on. Seaman called her a “right-wing culture warrior.” Charlottesville Democratic Committee's chair called her a “disaster,” “horrible,” and “extreme activist.” A doctor called her a “garbage racist bigot.” And, public signs stated: “Meg Bryce is a Fascist” and “F### Meg Bryce!”

All for trying to fix children’s schools.

While the lies have been debunked, their truth was never the point. Rather, they served their purposes of punishing Bryce, tricking voters, and warning off supporters and future candidates. The targets’ families and loved ones are just collateral damage. In a podcast addressing the smears, you can hear the pain in the voice of Bryce’s husband, John, as he watches people tear down his spouse. “Unanswered lies become the truth,” said John.

The threats and intimidation silenced many. Parents who considered running for school board opted against it “to avoid the hate.” Bryce supporters kept their support to themselves. Democrats hosted Bryce events at undisclosed locations. Those who wrote in support of Bryce did so anonymously, to avoid ad hominem attacks.

And Bryce? It would have been easier for her never to have run for office. Few in the county would have known her name. Even after entering the race, the exit ramp back to a normal life was always available, as she could have dropped out at any time. Remaining in the race would just invite more men to attack her.

Nevertheless she persisted.