Navigating Political Differences in a Relationship: Finding Common Ground

Years ago, while working at Patagonia, I became deeply involved in politics. My political beliefs influenced not just my views but also my relationships; I often categorized people as "good" or "bad" based on their political stances. Unfortunately, this mindset cost me some long-standing friendships, as I struggled to see the nuances in people's opinions.

Over time, I realized that many people operate on misinformation or fail to see the bigger picture. With this understanding, I began to engage others in conversations about political issues, attempting to provide a balanced view of pros and cons. However, my well-intentioned efforts often came off as preachy or argumentative, rather than acknowledging that everyone has the right to their own opinion. This was my internal conflict: I wanted to educate others, yet I often felt compelled to correct what I saw as misinformation.

Now, I find myself in a long-term relationship with someone whose political beliefs seem, at first glance, to differ significantly from mine. However, when we delve deeper into the reasons behind his voting preferences, I often find that these decisions are based on misconceptions or narrow views that don’t consider the broader implications.

For instance, he has shared concerns about illegal immigration affecting his job when he was sanding floors years ago. He recalled experiences with companies run by undocumented immigrants that undercut bids, making it difficult for him to compete. While I understand his frustration, I also know that the narrative around immigrants not paying taxes is misleading. In reality, undocumented workers contributed over $91 billion to Social Security and Medicare in 2022 without receiving any benefits. This brought us to a critical conversation: does his concern about immigration outweigh the importance of other issues that directly impact his family? 

As we discussed various political topics, it became clear that he needed to examine the trade-offs associated with each issue:

Special Education Programs: His son is enrolled in special IEP programs that provide essential support for his autism. This past semester, his son made the honor roll, a significant achievement that both of us celebrated. If funding for these programs were cut—something that will happen with certain candidates in power—it would directly affect his son’s progress and well-being. When I asked him which issue mattered more—immigration or special education funding—he acknowledged that education was paramount for his family. That is the tradeoff he would be making if he voted for Trump.

Healthcare Access: Both he and his son have chronic health conditions that require ongoing treatment. We talked about how certain candidates threaten protections for pre-existing conditions, which could jeopardize their access to necessary medications. For example, without these protections, they could lose coverage for vital medications that cost their benefit company up to $16,000 a month each. When weighing the importance of immigration reform versus healthcare, he agreed that maintaining access to medical care was critical. That is the tradeoff he would be making if he voted for Trump.

Economic Policies and Offshoring: Initially, he favored tougher policies on offshoring, believing they would protect American jobs. However, I explained how tariffs on imported goods leads to higher prices for consumers. Instead of punishing companies, we should be focusing on providing incentives for them to stay in the U.S. He realized that while some policies may appear beneficial at first glance, they could have unintended consequences on his wallet. When I asked him to consider which mattered more—protecting jobs or ensuring economic stability for his family—he chose the latter.

Gun control. This issues doesn't drive us to one candidate or another and we both agree it makes sense to common sense laws around who can buy guns.  However, we also agree that guns aren't the root cause - that the lack of mental health care in the US is the root cause.  Both of us recognizing there are tradeoffs to voting based on this issue that we are not willing to make.

Abortion and the right to choose.  On the surface, not really an issue he thinks too much about. However, he has two daughters. I asked him to consider the implications of a potential ban on abortions if one of his daughters faced a life-threatening medical emergency someday when she was pregnant. She may not have the right to choose lifesaving medical abortion options if Trump was elected. This prompted him to reflect on the importance of reproductive rights, and he recognized that this was a significant issue for his family. Is this a tradeoff you're willing to make because you want stronger controls around immigration, the border, DACA, etc.?  No.

LGBTQ+ Rights: We both believe in equality for all, but we also discussed how some political narratives regarding LGBTQ+ rights fail to consider broader implications for gender equality and civil rights. Many Trump supporters cite religious beliefs as justification for opposing same-sex marriage, quoting passages from the Bible like Leviticus 20:13. Many other biblical verses that would seem outdated or problematic today, including those that restrict women's rights and promote inequality, they conveniently ignore those. He recognized that voting for candidates who might roll back these rights could create a ripple effect affecting his daughters’ futures.

When it comes to the Bible and its various teachings, some folks might zero in on passages about same-sex relationships, but let's take a stroll through some other verses that might raise a few eyebrows—because if you’re going to be selective, you might as well enjoy the whole menu!

• Deuteronomy 22:20-21: This gem lays out the punishment for a woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night. Talk about pressure! I can just imagine a bride in today’s world thinking, “I hope the caterer doesn’t screw up the chicken, but at least my virginity is safe!” Honestly, in a time when personal choices are celebrated, this verse feels about as relevant as a flip phone.
• 1 Timothy 2:12: Here we have a verse stating that women shouldn’t teach or hold authority over men. Great, just what we need—more room in the pulpit for mediocre male voices! I mean, if only the biblical authors had known that women can lead discussions without needing a permission slip.
• 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: This one tells women to remain silent in churches. Silent? In church? Good luck with that! Can you imagine a church meeting today where women are just sitting there quietly? Someone’s going to have to pass the snacks and ask who’s bringing the next Bible study topic!
• Deuteronomy 22:13-21: This one discusses the punishment for a husband who falsely accuses his wife of not being a virgin—stoning her to death if she’s found guilty. Nothing says “trust in a relationship” quite like a death sentence, am I right? The ethical dilemmas here would make for quite the discussion at couples therapy.
• Matthew 5:30: Jesus suggests that if your right hand causes you to sin, you should cut it off. Imagine a modern-day application: “Well, honey, I can’t hold the remote anymore. It’s just too tempting!” Not exactly the best advice for dealing with everyday temptations, but hey, it’s memorable!
• 1 Peter 2:18: This verse instructs slaves to submit to their masters. Talk about a power imbalance! If you think modern-day workplace dynamics are tricky, imagine trying to navigate that one!
• Deuteronomy 25:11-12: In this passage, if two men are fighting and one man's wife intervenes, she’s supposed to have her hand cut off. Seems like a bit of an extreme reaction, right? I mean, can’t we just agree to a timeout instead?
• Galatians 3:28: While this verse preaches radical equality, the reality is that many religious contexts still struggle with this concept today. It’s like saying, “We’re all equal!” and then making everyone sit on different benches in the cafeteria.

So, before you get too worked up over same-sex relationships, maybe it’s worth a chuckle to consider these other verses. They remind us that interpreting scripture can lead to some interesting—and sometimes absurd—conversations. Maybe some should keep their focus on the bigger picture of love and acceptance, instead of getting bogged down in outdated laws that no longer reflect our values today!

Clean Energy Initiatives: He voiced concerns about the rising energy costs linked to clean energy projects, particularly how wind farms in Connecticut have resulted in higher electricity bills. While I understand the immediate financial burden, we discussed the long-term advantages of sustainability, including benefits for both our planet and the economy.

I recognize that the added costs have been substantial, and they certainly strain our budgets every time we receive an electric bill. Transitioning to renewable energy and moving away from fossil fuels may have short-term negative impacts on communities that rely on oil, gas, and coal—such as those in Virginia and Texas—and it could also result in higher taxes. Trump’s policies would likely roll back regulations on fossil fuel industries and reduce environmental protections. While the effects of these changes can be difficult to measure, they contribute to increasing storms, natural disasters, and challenges like Miami’s sinking and rising wildfires. He understands this; he’s not a science denier.

Another significant concern with a Trump administration is the potential disbanding of FEMA. I've heard his supporters criticize FEMA for the limited initial payments it provides to those affected by recent hurricanes, but that initial support is just the beginning of the assistance they offer. Without FEMA, that crucial support wouldn’t even exist. It’s contradictory to demand more help from FEMA while voting for someone who seeks to dismantle it. If emergency response were to be privatized, how would low- to middle-income families afford those services? This is a considerable cost that many voters might not be taking into account. They worry about higher taxes related to clean energy, but what about the increased costs associated with inadequate emergency response?

The reality is that rising costs of clean energy do affect his paycheck, and when you're middle class, a smaller paycheck alongside rising expenses (partly due to those tariffs he initially supported) makes it tempting to think that Trump’s policies might provide immediate financial relief. In the short term, that might be true. However, when weighing these factors against the other critical issues that would impact him and his children, he ultimately prioritized medical care that ensures protection for pre-existing conditions, special education programs for his son, and the right to choose for his daughters.

Through these conversations, I learned that finding common ground requires patience and understanding. We all need to realize that no candidate would likely align perfectly with our beliefs and values; it’s about weighing the trade-offs. I encouraged him to list the issues that mattered most to him and his family and consider how each candidate's policies aligned with those priorities.

It's essential to think critically about how our political choices affect our loved ones. As we approach the polls, it’s crucial to remember that our decisions have real-world implications that can impact our families and communities. Ask yourself, what is more important?

In this election cycle, I urge everyone to engage in similar conversations. Understand the trade-offs and implications of your choices. It's unlikely that we will agree 100% with either candidate, but the right decision often involves prioritizing the issues that will make the most significant positive impact on your loved ones.

As we navigate this complex political landscape, let’s approach these discussions with empathy, recognizing that each person's perspective is shaped by their experiences. By fostering open dialogue, we can bridge divides and find common ground, ensuring that our votes reflect not just our beliefs but the well-being of our families and communities.