Talking about politics
Commenter “Rufus T. Firefly” writes:
I also find Politics a fairly boring topic most of the time, especially in polite company. When getting together with family why wouldn’t want have sincere conversations about how each other are doing, what is going on their lives, do they need help with anything?, etc… To stand around and rant about Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell seems crass. Upper class people used to always avoid the topic and even in the lower middle class environment I was raised in people would not bring such things up at social events.
I seem to recall that the two topics supposedly banned in polite conversation were politics and religion, because they always caused strife and dissension.
In my family, politics was almost never discussed except for one exception: my father and his brother. I don’t recall who would bring it up, but it was almost inevitable that one of them would, and then they’d have at it. My uncle was a hard leftist and a Sovietphile, and he didn’t miss a beat even when Stalin’s crimes were revealed. My father was a regular liberal Democrat of the era – which makes him almost conservative by today’s standards. Those discussions were extremely unpleasant to listen to, but now I wish I could have recordings of them because I’d love to hear how it went and what the content actually was.
Today it’s different. It seems that many social events involve almost obligatory political talk. I have a theory about this, which is that it occurs mostly in groups in which there is little political diversity or at least little perceived political diversity. Since I “pass” as a Democrat among those who don’t know me well, I am often automatically assumed to be one of the group, and so I’m privy to a lot of these discussions. My strong impression is that they are not really meant to hash out the issues, but are what you might call joining and inclusion exercises for the group, ways to express solidarity and fellowship, almost like a secret greeting or handshake.
I ruin the feeling of oneness if I express myself, which I tend not to do if the group is one in which I’m unlikely to see these people again. With family and friends, I sense that my presence acts as a downer, a way to remind them that my puzzling point of view persists, or a check on what would otherwise be a fun group conversation.
It’s been my experience that very few people bring up politics in order to have an actual conversation between the sides, a sober pro and con back-and-forth in which each side listens to the other. There are groups such as this one which try to foster such discussions, and good luck to them. But it’s not what I think most people are looking for, even though they might say they are. And it’s only gotten more extreme over time – although I must say it’s hard to imagine any mere discussions more extreme than those I witnessed as a child between my father and his brother.
I have five children, all adult. Some nearing retirement age. Three are leftists and two are conservative. Two of the leftists are lawyers and you can imagine what conversations are like if politics comes up. We get along fine except that I have one son who got mad at me several years ago because I supposedly insulted his wife, who is crazy left and probably a friend of Blasey Ford as they both teach Psychology at small colleges in the Bay Area. I think they are getting divorced but I haven’t seen him since last Christmas. I look forward to catching up this Christmas.
Our family is all over the map politically but we never talk politics at family gatherings. There are a few like minded people that I talk with about various things but never in group settings. I don’t see the point it just adds unneccasary tension.
One interesting, but not surprising, thing is the same people I agree with politically also agree with me on all the lockdown garbage and have from day one.
With due deference to individual differences, and due deference to cultures where women are reared differently, the following seems fair.
The generic problem with discussing politics or religion is that it’s an argument. Competitive argument is a masculine hobby and is very seldom appropriate for mixed company unless the woman present is skilled at being a buffer. Men seldom need a buffer in playing competitive games. Women do not argue, they discuss. If they’re arguing, it’s because they’re angry about something you did or did not do.
My brother and I are kept from being at each other’s throats because we generally have buffers who will steer the conversation in another direction.
“My uncle was a hard leftist and a Sovietphile, and he didn’t miss a beat even when Stalin’s crimes were revealed.”
So, what does this say about some folks??
Here we have Stalin – who exterminated at a MINIMUM 20 million souls – and yet Neo’s uncle never wavered in his support for one of the worst mass murderers in the history of the world; an individual who exterminated more folks than did Hitler.
Just shows that political beliefs are deeply ingrained as are religious beliefs. That facts and reality do not matter at all to some folks. And worst of all, they DO NOT CARE what happened to the millions of souls exterminated !!! That the suffering and brutality and murder of mostly innocent folks mean nothing at all to the “true believer.”
If Neo’s uncle was a sent off to a Siberian gulag, maybe he would have different ideas about the benevolence or polices of Stalin. Most likely, he would have blamed criminal elements acting outside the authority of his GOD, Stalin.
It is this mindset that allows “normal folks” to carry out – in person – the worst policies of murderous tyrannical leaders. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et. al., probably never murdered anybody; they had “normal folks” do the dirty work for them, and there were always enough “normal folks ” to accomplish theses tasks.
The lesson in all of this is that when you hear of liberal progressive POS folks like that stunted midget, Robert Reich (former Secretary of the US Dept of Labor under Ocommie) talk about “truth commissions,” he damn well means it. When you here of other prominent demokrats speak of identifying Trump supporters for “further scrutiny,” do not think they are joking.
These people want us dead, killed off, shot in the back of the head. And they mean it. They are not joking.
They will always find enough people to do the actual deed.
neo,
Regarding your theory, I think many family groups and most non-family gatherings would typically involve people of similar backgrounds in the past, just as they do today. Yet, as you wrote, politics was not discussed in the past, but now it is.
My guess is it has to do with the general debasement of life in all areas. When I was a boy a woman would never curse in public. It’s common place today. A man would not go out in public in a baseball cap, or bluejeans. And on and on. Far too many people today do not strive to act civilized, or concern themselves with much beyond their own, base needs and wants.
Amazing how many entertainers, especially women, believe that making curse laden public statements on politics improves their image.
probably a friend of Blasey Ford as they both teach Psychology at small colleges in the Bay Area.
I have two psychologists in my circle who live within biking distance of Blasey Fraud’s two-door house. They haven’t admitted to being acquainted with her. Blasey Fraud, IIRC, works at a stand-alone professional school, not an ordinary college. Her name’s appeared on a great many papers, but she hasn’t directed research projects of her own in twenty years or so. She has a graduate degree in statistics and her skill set is in data analysis of other’s research projects. (My psychologists are (1) a clinical practitioner and (2) a neuroscientist who is primarily in research but does have some clinical patients – not Blasey Fraud’s side of the street, so it’s not surprising they don’t know her).
My mother was a hard-core leftist, and we fought over politics like cats and dogs. Neither of us ever went away mad; we enjoyed the sparring. Other family members were severely agitated by our bouts, so we usually reserved those conversations for when it was just the two of us.
I’ll never forget one night, sitting on my back-yard patio arguing over some political topic, and my mom took off her shoe and started beating the table and ranting like Nikita Khrushchev. I looked over and a young couple was pushing their baby stroller down the sidewalk… they were gawking at us like we were two space aliens.
Good times, God I miss my mom.
As a teenager I can’t remember my parents or family ever talking politics. I do remember my parents going to vote though. They always made sure they voted.
Today I’m usually the only republican in the group. If politics come up generally I’ll just listen unless they say something I can refute with certainty. But a typical convo would go like this.
Ted Cruise says such crazy shit!
Oh what did he say so crazy?
Everything ……….
That doesn’t tell me anything. Give me one example?
Just everything he says is crazy!
So you can’t give me one example but you KNOW everything he says is CRAZY!
Then in unison all chime in… JACK stop picking on Kerry!
You see when you try to debate or set something straight …. YOU are the bad guy.
“Women do not argue, they discuss.”
Not the left/liberal women I’ve come across in the last few years. The words “angry, spittle spewing, harpies” comes to mind.
“Ted Cruise,” says Tom Cruz, “. . . such crazy shit!”
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
My bad. Spelling has never been my forte 🙂
Nah, you’re good jack, as spelling (just as some gags) can be highly overrated. The play’s the thing in depressing times like these.
I think Rufus has an excellent point. The erosion of the culture has added to the discord.
Flash back to 1992, when things were much more civilized than they are in this brave new 2020 world . . .
We as a nuclear family were very split politically:
M J R favored H Ross Perot (I)
Ms. R favored George H W Bush (R)
8 yr old favored Andre Marrou (L)
6 yr old favored William Clinton (D)
While I was generally right-leaning then as now, I felt that it was a three-way race [I did not take Marrou (L) seriously] between a dissembler, a liar, and a fraud. Your choice as to which was which.
Actually, I didn’t take Perot (I) all that seriously, but I voted for him as a primal scream. Lotta good that did me.
(Little-known and useless factoid: Marrou (L) was briefly ahead once Dixville Notch, NH voted, and it was all downhill from there.)
Anyway, no harsh conversations, no hurt feelings, no nothing, just an example of a politically split family in (much) more easy-going times.
Carry on . . .
And this is another reason the left cannot have such discussions – they live in a self perpetuating bubble of group think.
My family is mostly conservative, well, everyone of my generation is conservative. Some of our children have drifted left. They know not to defend the left lest they receive the scrutiny of the many. As it turns out, leftism is difficult to defend unless one resorts to feelings.
I no longer have political squabbles in my family. I’ve outlived all my family. (I have nieces and nephews scattered about the country, but seldom hear from them, except when they need money.) Now, it’s just my wife and daughter at holiday gatherings. Sad, in a way, but that I’m the one left standing doesn’t bother me. Both my wife and daughter are somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan, so I’m the moderate in the family.
I do have acquaintances who are libs. They live heir lives conservatively as far as I can tell, (Hard working, self sufficient, responsible, etc.) but they “feel” that life isn’t fair and the government should do something about it. They don’t mind trying to shame or guilt others into going along with HOA programs and see nothing wrong with the idea of a federal lockdown for the pandemic. Still, when I have talked politics, which is seldom, I try to get them to see that they actually believe in private property backed by courts and the principle of competition within a meritocracy. In spite of that they keep falling back on the meme of “life isn’t fair” as their motivator for being a lefty.
“Since I “pass” as a Democrat among those who don’t know me well, I am often automatically assumed to be one of the group, and so I’m privy to a lot of these discussions.”
When I was growing up in Worcester, MA in the ’60s, I had a Jewish friend with the surname Burke whose father (also our family dentist) would tell us about the anti-semitic remarks he would hear in “polite” company because he was assumed to be Irish Catholic.
Yawrate:
My guess is that the leftists in your family don’t try to defend it because they are way outnumbered. In my family, I’m the conservative. The only one. Same when I’m among the vast majority of my friends. Mostly or usually entirely alone. It’s quite an interesting position to be in, when the discussions take place.
This very subject (the difficulty of having actual discussions about politics, and reasons) came up when I was talking to my eldest cousin last Christmas. We ended up having a brief discussion about… discussing. It was nice. The funny thing is that we didn’t even really reach actual political details.
neo,
My uncle was a hard leftist and a Sovietphile, and he didn’t miss a beat even when Stalin’s crimes were revealed.”
I’m curious, do you remember how your uncle justified Stalin’s crimes? Did he acknowledge them? If so, did he support them? If not, did he claim Stalin to simply have gone too far but with good intentions? Did he, even in the least recognize and acknowledge communism’s inherent monstrousness?
In normal years, I host July 4th, Thanksgiving, and Christmas Dinner for as many people as want to show up. I’ve had 30 guests for July 4 and between 6 and 18 for Thanksgiving & Christmas (and I cook most everything myself). The last few years, in the FB invite I’ve asked people to leave their politics at home; I’m not the only non-progressive in the community, and they usually show up, so it won’t be just me.
I’ve taken to just shouting “POLITICS!!” at the top of my lungs whenever I overhear anybody — on either side for fairness’ sake — start to get into it. Everyone laughs and goes back to talking about cars or shoes or cats or whatever.
talking about cars or shoes or cats or whatever.
Cats are always a worthwhile topic.
Art+Deco,
“The generic problem with discussing politics or religion is that it’s an argument.”
That’s certainly where it frequently begins and ends. But it can only be so if one or both sides sole interest is in being in the right… instead of seeking truth.
physicsguy,
“angry, spittle spewing, harpies” are not arguing, they are emoting hate. Argument requires the advancement of a rationale. Reason requires logical consistency from premise to conclusion. Those on the Left cannot do so, as their premises are factually disprovable.
J.J.,
“they “feel” that life isn’t fair and the government should do something about it.”
Indeed, “that’s not fair!” is the core psychological difficulty of those on the left who are sincere, rather than just power seekers. They suffer from arrested emotional development and their embrace of that juvenile protest prevents emotional maturation. And makes impossible consideration of the provable conclusion that the universe’s essential “unfairness” is absolutely essential and by far a more positive good than negative.
Wanting the government to address issues it is incapable of solving is the result of a lack of trust i.e. belief in God’s judgement in creating a universe in which man’s inhumanity to man can exist. They seek a God that will give them what they think is just and elect the government as a substitute for a God whose judgement they perceive as unjust. Which is why, when governments fail, they default to… if only the ‘right’ people were in charge… failure could have been averted.
You can lead them to briefly confront the contradictions in what they believe but they always fall back on “life’s not fair” because emotionally they are incapable of accepting that “fairness” and equality are entirely seperate conditions.
Bryan Lovely,
That’s great hosting, all around. More of us ought to follow your example of bringing people together and jovially taking the initiative to stop any ill fated conversation before it can go off the rails.
GB at 8:51 pm: great comment! “incapable of accepting that “fairness” and equality are entirely separate conditions.”
But the whole politeness of avoiding discussions of politics or religion often seems false or flawed to me, in that many times those topics are the only ones that seem really worth discussing*. And there is a certain beauty in uncovering or determining “truth” as best we can manage to do so. As David Brin has said: “criticism is the only known antidote to error.” So a certain level of bipartisanship is desired and useful in achieving the better political (or other) solution.
But I also admit that today we have moved so far beyond bipartisan that we are bi-modal. I have no more idea than anyone else as to how this gets reconciled (outside of CW 2.0) but I keep hoping there will be some form of “major truth” that will become apparent so the semi-sane Dems finally become less woke or feelz oriented and can return to a reasonable level of bipartisanship (but probably not “unity”). Maybe when social security collapses and Congress can no longer ignore the national debt and national bankruptcy?
*Cats??!! “… come on, man!”
Rufus T. Firefly —
Thank you. It helps that nobody is blood family and it’s my house so I can set the rules as host.
When my ex- and I would host the same events, we didn’t have that rule, and there were several occasions where people left with ill feelings. I remember particularly one time where a mixed-race friend opined that the problem with the US was that the Civil War didn’t kill off all the Scotch-Irish. I’m Scotch-Irish on my dad’s side. We didn’t invite him back the next time.
Bryan Lovely:
Good decision for that “individual.”
Bryan –
Rufus T. Firefly —
Thank you. It helps that nobody is blood family and it’s my house so I can set the rules as host.
When my ex- and I would host the same events, we didn’t have that rule, and there were several occasions where people left with ill feelings. I remember particularly one time where a mixed-race friend opined that the problem with the US was that the Civil War didn’t kill off all the Scotch-Irish. I’m Scotch-Irish on my dad’s side. We didn’t invite him back the next time.
Took my sister to lunch after the election. She said it’s time to get rid of the white males.
Got a relation who will start right in with the lefty stuff. Couple of iterations later, she’s getting personal. We recently found she’d checked with God and was told that if you vote for Trump, you’re not Christian. Actually, somebody at her church study group told her that. I think.
She is so ignorant of facts that I wonder if she has a cognitive issue. Seriously. Even a fanatic can’t know so much that isn’t so.
She is so self-righteous. I recall some years ago she was giving my DiL a had time because said DiL’s sister wasn’t breast feeding. Kid had an allergy of some kind.
But the lefties I know are just variants. Some more, some less.
Lefties are morally stunted. Except for those who are depraved. Sounds harsh, except that six decades of observation has produced a mountain of evidence that’s pretty conclusive.
Haidt’s research is instructive. In the end it comes down to a lack of humility and an absence of genuine humanity.
Krauthammer nailed it nearly 20 years ago. They think that conservatives are evil. Which tells you all you really need to know about their lack of moral maturity.
neo: I seem to recall that the two topics supposedly banned in polite conversation were politics and religion…
My understanding is that it was politics, religion, and sex.
Well, I have friends, both male and female, I more-or-less routinely discuss religion and sex with. But politics seems to be the holdout for being “unmentionable.” I’m not sure what to make of that, other than that I contradict myself and contain multitudes—my faith places a fairly high value on sexual modesty and my life experiences make me tend to not take sexual matters all that seriously beyond “if you believe X is a sin of the flesh, then maybe don’t do X, but don’t be surprised when other people do,” and talking about it is fine up to the point that it becomes a come-on you’re deceiving someone—possibly yourself—about intending to act on.
…. The art of raping minds….
The topic Neo banned here is Flat Earth Theory. Although what I objected to was the arbitrary thought crime attached to FE theory, which included any other conspiracy like theory that the Gatekeeper Neo classified as even remotely looking like FE theory, even if it was a joke about moon stuff between two individuals here.
This is the kind of Kafka star chamber phenomenon seen on Ytube “demonization” policies now.
The point is not that Neo’s platform is the same as the main sewer or facebook or ytube, but that the principles of mind control and STS control are the same, no matter how big or small you are.
The idea that there is a difference between controlling one mind and a million, is ridiculous and a farce. A person killing one guy is not someone worse or better than someone killing a million, as if the million statistic makes them into a god. They are both killers or murderers in the Divine eye.
Partly for COVID reasons but mostly for the sake of tranquility, my brother-in-law is not coming to Thanksgiving dinner this year. The man is not a fool, but he LITERALLY gets all his news from Stephen Colbert. He was kind of a fun iconoclast when he was backing Ross Perot, but now he’s hysterical and angry on the subject of Trump. And always brings Trump up in conversation. Sigh.