The Princess met a nice young man through a computer dating service. All seemed well, until she met his parents and discovered that they were staunch conservatives. Her parents were aghast.
Does political orientation really matter in a relationship?
There are several examples in my own experience. The Poster Queen and her husband cancel out each other’s votes at every election, since she is a Yellow Dog Democrat and he an equally straight-party Republican, and they have been married for 34 years. They just don’t ever discuss politics. The Empress and That Man are in complete political agreement. They discuss it a lot. I am in agreement with them, too, so we all discuss it a lot — unless there are other people listening, in which case we try to be diplomatic.
My husband is a royalist who believes that most political conflicts are best handled through magic (you can read about a typical political situation in his country here). This is not relevant for U.S. politics. Here, he tends to go with generalized compassion. Clinton, he felt, could not be faulted for being unfaithful to his wife when he had so many opportunities — any man might have done the same. Bush, he felt, was cowardly to run and hide after the Trade Center attack, but anyone might be frightened and do the same. We do talk about politics a lot at our house, but there are so few points of connection in our views that we cannot be said to agree or disagree. I think he feels that we in the U.S. are unfortunate to have mere humans in our government, with no superhuman powers or connections with the gods or anything, but since that’s what we’ve got it’s no wonder that they behave the way they do.
The Princess claims that she and her beau don’t really have strong feelings about politics at all. They are able to overlook it. Indeed, she didn’t even know it might be an issue until she met his parents. So how serious a problem could it be?
But some of the things that we call “politics” are not about whom you choose at the polls. Some are about moral values. For example, a fellow named Phelan was talking on NPR’s “Fresh Air” the other day. The subject was cars and fuel efficiency. In discussing the despoliation of the Alaskan wilderness for oil, he said that the oil “has to come from somewhere,” so that for us in the U.S. to refuse to despoil our own wilderness only meant that someone else’s wilderness would be despoiled. It would simply, he said, be a matter of “outsourcing” the destruction. He said sadly that he wished people would understand that.
Now our government’s energy policy has nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with increased profits for the oil companies. Exxon has surpassed Wal-Mart in sales and profits now, car companies can side-step all requirements for fuel efficiency by making their vehicles heavier, and the only change is that prices keep rising. Our government is even making a bit of hay with that — since we are all forced to spend more on fuel and the price rises being caused by increased fuel costs, our spending has risen, and the government has identified this as “increased consumer confidence.”
But Mr. Phelan is assuming that the continued use of fossil fuels at the current rate is inevitable. Conservation, use of alternative energy sources — these things are not even on his radar.
Is this a political decision on his part, given that approaches to environmental issues often follow party lines? A moral one, supposing that one might feel responsibility to future generations? A religious one, given that stewardship of the earth is part of several of the world’s major religions?
And could he be happy with a wife who did not share his views? Insofar as politics is about individuals and governments, it might be as non-threatening to family harmony as differing tastes in music. But shared values are a basic of happy relationships.
Something to ponder. The real news, of course, is that The Princess actually found her beau through a computer dating service. Consider it anecdotal evidence that this method can work.
Ah, it is the right front of Brooklyn. Astute observers will note that it looks just like the left front. And not much different from the back of Brooklyn. Can we stretch this to a metaphor and suggest that sameness is dull, and differing values can be good for a relationship? Nah, widely divergent ribbing on a track jacket would look silly.
These, O knitters, are my antique needles with the steel cables. You may never have the opportunity to knit with any yourself, and it isn’t worth seeking out such an opportunity. Modern nylon cables (and whatever has supplanted nylon, since I have not been paying attention) are much smoother.
I tink dat a leetle magick might come een handy.
When we’d like the government to do something we don’t think is remotely conceivable for them. Or when the government is casting about for something to call a solution. Or when I become president and want to hit people with rocks.
“increased consumer confidence” Bwhahahahahahaaaa! Don’t ya juat love how they look at things through their rose tinted glasses?
Hope things work out with the on-line dating. There is always the agreeing to disagree, and just move on with the rest of their lives, yes?
Relationships can probably survive opposing political viewpoints as long as there is a shared set of values (my opinion anyway). Partners differ on issues – personal and political all the time – and the partnerships usually survive if the partners have a shared ethical system . My parents had somewhat different political viewpoints but they just didn’t air them with each other. They agreed on important things – how to bring up the kids, pets were good, all people deserve respect – that sort of thing. For most people politics is something that rears its head once every 3 years over here and then we can get it out of system by voting. It is really a non-issue for the rest of the time.
There has been at least 2 exceptions. In the 1950s we had nationwide strikes in some of our key industries that managed to bring the country to an economic fullstop. Things might have got nasty in families than if some supported the strikes and some did not. (I don’t know if this was actually the case of course, it was before my time here started). I did live through the 2nd exception however and I watched a country and my family tear itself up over it. Briefly – South Africa was practicing apartheid. The South African rugby team was due to play the NZ All Blacks in rugby in 1981. The Springboks did not allow black Africans to play on their rugby team. A movement grew in NZ that wished our govt to forbid the Springboks playing rugby over here, as a protest against apartheid. The govt concerned refused to do so. As a result we saw just how violent ordinary NZers could be to other ordinary NZers. Even now, over 20 years later, it is not something that is discussed much among kiwis – it reminds us too much that we are not the kind, friendly, peaceful people we like to portray ourselves as. My father supported the Springbok Tour – he didn’t believe that sports and politics should mix. My mother opposed the Tour – she believed apartheid was morally wrong. I was 20, could see both point of views and ended up hating that year because of the fights it caused between my parents (who very rarely argued under normal circumstances) and because of the air of suppressed violence that occurred at work (I worked in basically an all-male environment among men to whom rugby was a religion. I will leave you to guess what their position on the tour was.)
(Now, try to get back to the point.) I think the ‘political’ issues that are truly divisive are those that directly affect both members of the partnership or those that touch on the underlying life philosophies of both partners. Economic issues usually do not affect partners differently so there is no conflict. A war in a faraway country really does not directly affect partners and even moral outrage against such a war is abstract (unless of course you have someone you care about directly involved in which case different rules apply). Most people will not risk destroying a satisfactory relationship over an abstraction.
Not sure. Politics do find a way to effect us so how we are oriented may cause conflicts…
I guess it depends on the individuals. If neither one cares about politics, then it won’t matter. I think a passionate Democrat and a passionate Republican stand a better chance than a person who’s passionate about politics and one who couldn’t care less.
Personally, my knee-jerk reaction is to say that I can’t picture myself ever dating a Democrat, but now that I’ve thought about that for a few minutes, I’ve changed my mind. I have Democrat friends with whom I’ve discussed politics (more the moral kind than the poll kind) and I wouldn’t turn them down based on their beliefs. I just don’t know how long it would last. I think my bad temper combined with election year-tension could really make a mess of things.
My folks cancel out eachother’s votes too. The BF and I tend to think the same about politics… we have to figure out who is less of a twit and then hope that other people actually bother to think for a while before the poke a hole in a ballot with a stylus. We don’t really have a political party… we just want people (ourselves included) to be educated about the people running and what they stand for before going to the polls. Many of our friends are stauch Republican conservates and carefree Democratic liberals, but they remain our friends because they don’t rant on and on about politics, don’t parrot somebody else’s arguements without thinking for themselves what the arguement means, and don’t try to shove any opinion down other peoples’ throats. That’s the magic combination that gets you banned from our homes and our social function. I think one thing we agree on is a distinct distaste for people who remain ignorant out of choice. One of his old housemates is like that… that guy alone makes BF not miss living in Rolla anymore.
And now I have to selfishly admit I’m dying to figure out what country your husband is from…. don’t tell me though unless you want to. There are a couple of clues I have to work with. I like to know where people are coming from on a cultural basis because it’s easier to reach a middle ground that way.