Politics and the Shedding of Friends
Do You Avoid Certain Subjects With Certain Parties?
Can you be friends with someone with whom you disagree politically? Of course. What a silly question. I disagree with some of my friends on the right about LGBT stuff, Ukraine, Trump, COVID; I disagree with some of my friends on the left about economic issues, foreign policy matters, Biden, “woke” - getting tired of that word, but it gets the point across - nonsense (of which there is so darned much), et cetera. These labels, “left” and “right,” are inadequate, though. It can depend on where you live. A friend of mine who grew up in New York City told me that he was considered a dangerous right-winger among his cohort there. He moved to Utah for work and, lo, there he was considered a dangerous communist. And the extremes of left and right tend to share a lot of craziness: conspiracy theories, antisemitism (though leftists will often call that “anti-Zionism”), contempt for institutions and history, anti-Americanism.
Can you have worthwhile political discussions with someone with whom you disagree? I will answer with a less enthusiastic “of course.” It is possible, but it requires a shared objective - maintaining the relationship and the respect - as well as the skill of listening to hear, not necessarily to play “gotcha” with the other person. Patience is paramount. In other words, it depends on the individuals. Sometimes it isn’t in the cards, and we all can get our backs up, can’t we? So it seems wiser to accept that if you want the friendship/family connection, you avoid, as the saying goes, politics or religion. Alternatively, you can accept that you will be the listener and that nothing you say will be of any interest to the other person. This is how I maintain not a small number of my social and family relationships.
I think those of us who have points of view that lie even a wee frame out of sync with the established/received wisdom are better at navigating these waters, since we see/hear our priors reflected in media or the conversation around us far less frequently than do chattering class folks. (John Stuart Mill’s quote, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that,” comes to mind here.) We are used to being exposed to opposing points of view. I live in a neighbourhood where I - pro-gay marriage, animal rights advocate, a dove on immigration - would be considered a lunatic right-winger by some of the residents. I belong to a community group which is - allegedly - not political. When we meet, it is routine for group members to openly express disdain for conservatives/Conservatives and talk about climate change in reference to literally everything. (Did you know that climate change is transphobic? Seriously, I heard someone say that.) And yes, I believe climate change is an important concern, but I don’t think it is the greatest emergency known to man, nor should it ever be used as justification for idiots throwing paint at art or monuments.
Those of us who don’t agree all the time with the prevailing outlook know we have to self-edit for purposes of peace and sanity. There are times when I will push back, or call someone out, but only if their comment is appalling (bigoted, personal, nasty). If I generally like someone as a person, I can’t have contempt for their views. If someone has seen you through a lot and been a support, you can’t place too much importance on a disagreement, provided it isn’t a complete crackpot idea and/or despicable proposition.
[Ben and William Franklin, years before their massively serious political divide. Credit: Currier and Ives, Franklin’s Experiment, 1876]
My general rule is that I never initiate political conversations unless I have a proven track record with the other person. When I think about friends and family, I realize that the best conversations I have had over the years have had nothing to do with politics. There is so much to discuss, is there not? That said, I won’t lie if you ask me what I think, but if you ask and I tell you, don’t keep coming at me about it. Being passive-aggressive is not helpful. I have a friend who is a lovely guy, what I would call a good Canadian “nice” moderate leftist. And yet, I cannot see him or even interact with him over email, without him bringing up our not-very-dramatic world view divide. It is constant. I don’t suspect there is any ill intent - he is too sweet a person for that - but it makes me feel that I am not seen as a friend, instead as “that weird conservative friend I find utterly puzzling.” I hope I do not do the same to others.
What brought all of this to mind for me was a wonderful conversation between Lawrence Krauss and Douglas Murray on the Origins podcast back in May. Murray talked about the “shedding of friends” after the 9/11 attacks. He said - I am paraphrasing - that he assumed people would recognize that an outrage had been perpetrated, one which deserved a more serious response than foolish platitudes of “we've brought this on ourselves.” He continued, saying that being progressive is fine, but “not so much that your brain cells are leaking.” I know what he means. For me, post-9/11 brought about some informal partings, as have some other headline events - the Charlie Hebdo massacre comes to mind. This is a natural part of adult life. We “shed friends” for many reasons - private, political, logistical, professional - without having to hold a ceremony about it. And it works both ways. I know I have been removed from “acceptable invitees” lists.
Post-9/11 also brought pleasant surprises: one family member defied my (low) expectations by not uttering any “chickens coming home to roost” blather. Rather, they were disgusted with such talk. I learned an important lesson there. For I have had people assume they know what I think about something, when, in fact, I think the contrary, and it is frustrating.
***
A quick note here about 9/11 and the 22nd anniversary of the attacks last week. It was - correct me if I’m wrong - the first time an American president was not present at any of the attack sites (NYC, Shanksville, Pentagon). I found this terrible. Is Biden trying to normalize/trivialize it? I get that people born 20 years after Pearl Harbor did not have the same feelings about that date as those who remembered it. I never want 9/11 to become a “mattress sale” day with tacky television commercials, but surely it is a solemn memory and should be treated as such. Especially by the leader of the country that was the victim of the slaughter. The deeper thing, I fear, is that Biden wants 9/11 to be over, as did Obama. He originally wanted the withdrawal from Afghanistan to take place on September 11th - this would have been unbelievably ghoulish. Further, his administration announced - on September 11th of this year - the release of five American hostages from the horrors of an Iranian prison in exchange for allowing Tehran access to six billion dollars which they swear they will only use for humanitarian purposes! Totally believable! Why wouldn’t we trust them? Of course, bringing citizens home - and freeing them from a hellscape - is a gift, a blessing, not to mention a safe play politically. But trusting the regime in Tehran and using the anniversary of 9/11 to confirm the decision? The term “tone deaf” applies. My oldest brother used to talk about “willful myopia,” which may be a better description. Biden seems distant and even cold about so many things, more than I would have predicted. (I was optimistic about him in 2020.) I have not yet read the Franklin Foer book, but will. I am currently 3,018th on the library wait list.