What an interesting observation. I do think this is what happened to my former friend. Cathy is a “trust fund baby.” Her rich dad left her a big enough stock portfolio to live in luxury the rest of her life. She’s never had a real job. She was a “professional graduate student” for many years, then took a few volunteer jobs here and there. She never married, had no kids, and never even had a serious romantic relationship. She’s estranged from all her siblings except one. It has occurred to me that leftist politics have given her the “cause,” the “meaning of life” she never had.

It may not be a coincidence that she became obsessed with politics right after her mother—the one person she was really devoted to—died. Perhaps then her “suppressed metaphysical desire” awakened.

Tom Elliot twitter (1:43): Adam Schiff is god (or, We’re all insane)

and

Washington Free Beacon (1:01): No, really! A god! (and yes, we’re all insane)

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/23/fact-check-adam-schiff-lied-about-tim-morrisons-testimony-about-ukraine-call/

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/01/23/book-bombshell-start-up-linked-to-hunter-biden-bagged-3-million-from-government-program-run-by-biden-adviser/

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020/01/23/pollak-house-democrats-accidentally-make-case-for-calling-joe-hunter-biden-as-witnesses-in-senate-trial/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/23/joni-ernst-several-democrat-house-impeachment-managers-voted-against-lethal-aid-for-ukraine/

https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/01/23/adam-schiff-remove-trump-because-he-didnt-follow-talking-points/

The Constitution does not discuss “talking points” prepared by officials who report to the president himself.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/21/house-democrats-use-unlawful-phone-records-to-argue-need-for-more-documents/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/21/fact-check-adam-schiff-lied-to-the-senate-about-trumps-past-concern-with-ukraine-corruption/

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/01/22/adam-schiff-cites-washington-post-editorial-against-trump-in-senate-trial/

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/22/tim-scott-impeachment-trial/

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) and John Barasso (R-WY) told reporters outside the Senate chamber Wednesday evening that the House Democrats had failed to present evidence that would prove their impeachment case against President Donald Trump.

Scott noted that Democrats were free to pursue new evidence in the House, but that the Senate expected them to present what Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and others had said would be an “overwhelming” case.

They had, he said, failed to do so — and were instead simply pursuing the political goal of making vulnerable Republicans in the Senate take votes that could be used against them in the 2020 elections.
…
Scott: Well, I think it’s real important for us, at first, to focus on the fact that what we have seen so far is a reflection on the past, not a foreshadowing of the future. So when we listen to our House managers lay out their case, they continue to talk about what we think is in fact, true — that the corruption in Ukraine is clear. So the focus on 2016’s election is exactly what we’ve heard. We’ve not heard any actual evidence about 2020.

What you say reminds me of a person I knew for very many years. We were quite close at one time. Cathy was a very nice, fun, easygoing sort. She was leftist in a vague way, and thought Democrats were the good “for the people” party, and Republicans just for “the rich,” but she wasn’t political at all. I’m not sure she even watched the news or read the papers.

During George II’s presidency something…happened to her.
* * *
That movie frightened the Froot Loops out of me when I was a kid.
As for your friend, perhaps the thing that happened was that she began watching the news and reading the papers.
Low information, low passion.
Lousy information, high passion.

If you don’t mind an unsolicited opinion: this is a piece of information you have about your friends to go with all the other pieces of information. Pelosi is who they admire. Now, you have to ask what they’re admiring (or what they think they see).
* * *
For the Democrats in general (and her own district), they see that she (1) supports the party line; (2) delivers earmarks; (3) stokes the ego of hard-line feminists; (4) delivers legislative wins even if she doesn’t author them;
(5) bounced back after losing the majority.
That’s not a bad track record IF you happen to support the same policies and ideology she does.
“Nevertheless, she perseveres.”

But you’re ignoring what I’ve said.

First of all, I’m not hiding from them. Did you notice the last sentence in the post? “We’ve had many fruitless such discussions in the past and they are aware of my politics, so I’ve not been keeping it a secret.”

So it is incorrect when you say “You’re hiding who you are from them.” Where do you get that idea? I explicitly said I wasn’t, because in the past, people have sometimes incorrectly assumed that I am. Not having constant conversations about a contentious topic, when you know it’s not going to lead anywhere except conflict and a stalemate, is not “hiding yourself.”

In addition, I can’t get new relatives. These are people I love, some of whom are the closest and most meaningful people to me in the world. I think it’s truly bizarre to tell a person to dump their loved ones because of politics.

Thirdly, the same for friends. Why would you say these are not “real” friends? For starters, they are almost all my friends, some of whom have been friends for essentially all my adult life (or even longer). Many have stood by me, and I them, in difficult emotional times. We mean a great deal to each other. So this idea that they are not “real” friends because we disagree on politics, even profoundly, is very bizarre to me as well. Does one have to march in lockstep on every detail in order to retain a lifelong friend as a friend? That seems a really bad idea, really bad, that leads to sorrow and pain and just about nothing else.

Fourth, one can make new friends and keep the old. It’s not mutually exclusive. But as I think I made clear in my post, when I meet conservatives in real life – for example, at a political meeting – we tend to have little in common except our politics, and even then we don’t agree on every single point. Political agreement and nothing else in not a basis for friendship. I’m not closed to new people; I’m just reporting what happens when I spend much time with them. I don’t “otherwise ignore” them. And I certainly don’t hate them. We just don’t click as friends, that’s all. Not everyone is going to be your friend, and not every type of person is a good fit for friendship.

You also write “A solitary life is better.” Than what? Than avoiding political discussions with good friends, and with your loved ones? Excuse me, but that seems like a very strange thing to assert. For those who are not hermits and don’t want to be, it makes no sense whatsoever.