Love and Rockets

Can you maintain healthy love and respect while discussing politics?

The national election is less than two weeks away. For those keeping score, the picture graph below—courtesy of Pew Research—illustrates the reality of how few people actually give a shit enough to do the one thing that they’re entitled to do—the one thing within their control—and that is to vote.

I humbly ask you to set aside for a moment your own personal feelings about why that is. Park your feelings for a spell about:

—the legitimacy of the process

—the popular vote vs. the electoral college

—the methods by which votes are collected

—who has the right to vote

—whether or not there’s any cheating or interference going on

I have strong opinions on all of the above. This is not the time nor the place for that.

Those of you who read Of a Sober Mind regularly will recognize that I’m a follower of the Stoic philosophers. The Serenity Prayer is also a go-to. I use it every day, particularly in times when frustration or anger rear their futile ugliness. Ego and judgment are the enemies of serenity—and a daily battle for all of us.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage the change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

In a couple weeks half of you will be ecstatic—and will actually think you’ve won something. Conversely, half of you will be pissed off and sad—and might pitch a fit or worse. The reality is that Life will go on. The well-adjusted among us will continue on with our lives and make whatever internal adjustments we need to carry on.

Acceptance is the key.

Unfortunately, acceptance of reality is a big sticky, hairy, nasty pill to swallow for all of us upright bipeds with opposable thumbs and messy minds.

I know—I know—this one is different. Democracy at stake. Most important election since at least since the last most important election. We can’t possibly survive as a country if their side wins. Aaaaaghhhh!!!!!

I want to share with you a real exchange I had with a friend about the upcoming election. With her permission of course. I have paraphrased much of it rather than using actual quotes for the simplicity of formatting.

She is a friend, a spiritual ally and was the woman that joined Ann and me in the loving bonds of marriage last December 16th. Clearly my relationship with her is important. We asked her to marry us for the very reason that she practices a very open and compassionate ministry. I was first introduced to her by a mutual friend, had her on my radio show, and valued her sane spiritual perspective. We began attending her services to try to better understand a different form of worship than the more restrictive one I grew up with—had been alienated from—for many years.

I offer this exchange as an example of how differing political viewpoints do not have to blow up relationships among family and friends. I agree with my friend on a few things—we push on a few things—and we disagree vehemently on many other issues. That said, neither one of us would ever allow politics—over which we have little control—to become more important than the love we share.

What I’ve discovered in my daily engagement with friends, family, and my universe of app-connected strangers is as follows:

—not all conservatives are MAGA, Trump-loving, abortion-hating, Christian nationalists.

—not all liberals are Socialist, Hamas-loving, green-haired, sign-waving Karens.

—most of us fall somewhere on the spectrum in between those two extremes and don’t appreciate being labeled and lumped in with the kooks on either end.

To give context to my own personal belief system, I tend to fall on the conservative side of things. I’m not an affiliated member of any party, and I’d say I align more with a libertarian view of things. I’ve voted for Republican candidates like the Bushes and Reagan, an independent named Ross Perot, and a Democrat named Bill Clinton. I’ve written about my own feelings about politicians in general—they are human beings and are therefore flawed. They may start their political careers with some form of good intent to effect change but are quickly compromised by a system that requires them to beg for corporate dollars, make deals with lobbyists, chase media sound bytes, all activities that generally—and quickly—erode their original intent. I believe we need terms limits, and an end to dark money pools and corporate lobby. I also believe that none of this will ever happen because those that would need to vote on those issues will never do it.

I’m not particularly interested in which group of said kooks you might be more aligned with in this conversation. If you have comments, I’d be much interested in hearing about how you’ve navigated this divide in your own important personal relationships.

---

While the two of us have frequently dialogued on Facebook about political topics, we recently had a deep text exchange as a private follow-up to one FB exchange in particular. She had pointed out in her FB post how concerned she was about the Project 2025 agenda. I suggested that it was unlikely that any type of sweeping agenda such as this could ever be implemented by either party. Mostly these programs with the catchy names are about raising money and winning elections. She responded that she believed that Trump was distancing himself from P25 for election reasons but was in reality a supporter of it. She cited Heritage Foundation links to Trump’s past, the people involved in P25, and the way his agenda mirrors P25 in many ways. She followed with some passionate thoughts about the current Supreme Court, Christian nationalism, fewer guardrails than ever before if Trump were to win re-election. She is frightened by the possibility of a national abortion ban, the shrinking of civil liberties, the ramification of deporting millions of people, and the impact on black and brown and LGBTQ communities.

I took the time to read through what she sent me about Project 2025. I have read plenty about it before. What she forwarded was from a mediamatters.org website. While on the surface it appeared to present the content as an outline, the site went on to opine about the dangers and outcomes of the P25 agenda.

My response to her—we had moved our discussion to personal texts after the initial FB exchange—was that I agreed that Trump was likely distancing himself from P25 for election reasons. I stated that he does have a habit of cherry-picking things that fit his moods of the moment.

I also said in each subsequent exchange that I loved her and respected her opinion—even when I may firmly disagree. She responded in kind.

I reiterated my belief that it would be nearly impossible to implement any kind of sweeping agenda like this—just like the Green New Deal—or the Build Back Better Plan—all of which end up being either killed in Congressional negotiations—or broken apart and buried inside other deals like the Inflation Reduction Act.

Then I fired my salvo about the candidates. I stated my humble opinion that Trump was a narcissistic shithead, and Harris a clueless fraud. I said that once again we’re faced with choosing the least bad of two bad choices, and that therefore we need to vote based on direction rather than the two politicians. I said that neither candidate was likely to do much as POTUS in the face of Big Pharma, Big Food, the corporate lobby, the deeply entrenched and unelected bureaucracy, and the all-powerful intelligence communities. The global money and influence that directs our US politics will be extremely difficult—if not outright impossible—to defend against or change. No American President has the power to go up against these daunting modern enemies of the American people. I asked her to think about what they (those powerful unelected influences) have done and attempted to do to Trump since he first came on the scene in 2015. He is a massive threat to them, and they will do everything they can to cripple or kill him if he makes it past the finish line on Nov. 6th.

I said that I believed that the Democratic Party has lost its way. In the interest of keeping power at all costs they had been willing to break constitutional protocols by pushing out an aging President (he still is in case you were wondering) and installing Kamala Harris as their candidate without her ever going through a primary process.

Many of my friends—lifelong Democrats—believe that the far-left fringe has overtaken the party in the cultural view, while these individuals haven’t changed in their core liberal views much over that same time period. Many of my friends—lifelong Republicans—feel that the MAGA movement has also co-opted their party beyond what they’ve always viewed as moderate conservatism.

Her response was but she was elected. She was on the ticket with Biden in the primaries, one breath away from the Presidency, and confirmed at the convention. She said she was OK with how the process was handled.

I said, well I guess a lot of smart people are OK with it—obviously—but I am not. My opinion doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. I try to remember what I can and cannot change—and then live with the reality of that.

She responded that my opinion does matter—and that this election matters more than ever. Our system may need some changes, but a conservative, evangelical Christian nation is not the answer. She went on to say that she wished she could say that if Trump wins—we would only have 4 years of chaos then a return to normalcy. But in all her years of experience she feels that won’t be the case. She then said something that I agree with but perhaps for different reasons: that our nation is in decline and history proves that this fragile thing we call a Republic isn’t guaranteed to last.

She said thanks for not shutting me down and she appreciated the chat. She mentioned to me that her niece had recently blocked her and doesn’t speak to her because of their difference in views, and that her niece had actually said that she’d pray for the hate in her heart.

I told her that I thought that was just sad—and that she wasn’t the only one suffering this fate in this divided time. I reiterated that her opinions would never affect how I felt about her and that her friendship was important to our lives.

Over the next few days we texted lengthy exchanges back and forth about abortion, immigration, the benefits and drawbacks of each candidate as it is framed by those issues. We mostly disagreed. She focused on abortion. I focused on immigration. No surprises there.

At one point she challenged me by saying, well if you’re going to vote for Trump then OK I won’t argue that. And if you simply can’t vote for Harris, then that’s OK too. She wouldn’t continue to try to convince me. I reminded her that I hadn’t in fact ever told her who I was voting for. She must have inferred that based on my support and/or denigration of the two candidates.

We continued our discussion as follows:

She said to me that in her opinion a vote for Kamala is a vote for women and girls, POC, and LGBTQ, a withdrawal from so much hate and fear, and the spectre of P2025.

I responded that I do understand her motivation and I respect her choice. I then said that I was confused how she could see voting for Kamala as a vote for women and girls, while the left was so actively supporting so many things that contradicted the progress of women and girls—such as men competing in women’s sports, support of a Palestine run by terrorists who would murder a woman for not wearing her Hijab in public, and open borders causing an increase of crimes against—and human trafficking of—primarily women.

I also said that I had encountered people like Harris in my business career—both men and women—who rose up to power through no means of visible support. I said that I trust my gut, and my gut tells me there’s not a lot of substance there. I said that my gut also tells me that Trump is a scoundrel in many ways but that I didn’t necessarily mind a scoundrel as President in this chaotic world. I added that most of our Presidents had been scoundrels in one way or another, with the exceptions of a couple like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. They may have had other faults, but scoundrels they were not.

Much more back and forth ensued about Trump’s crimes and Harris’ vague policy stances and word salads and other fun stuff. She mentioned that she believed that my cynical view of politics and the government was the view of someone who has absolutely the least to lose: a straight, white male.

I added old, retired, and financially secure to that assessment which got a giggle out of her.

An absence of laughter is an indicator of pathology.

Wayne Dyer, Your Erroneous Zones

Then I challenged her by saying that I think the reason I don’t have a lot to lose is a result of my spiritual condition—that I simply don’t spend much time worrying about outcomes anymore because I can’t do anything about it. It is firmly outside of my control. I referenced the Serenity Prayer—which she had asked me to speak about to her congregation about two years ago.

She said Godspeed—you’re a good man.

I said thanks for the dialogue and that I do take her commentary seriously and that I live my life always trying to examine my own thinking. I said neither of us is right or wrong—we’re just humans with opinions and belief systems. We will all survive either outcome God-willing and the crick don’t rise.

Thank you for reading. I’m not sure if you enjoyed this, learned anything from it, or couldn’t care less. I’m not sure if you’ll subscribe or unsubscribe after reading this. I’m not concerned with those outcomes.

I am concerned with the state of our nation, but well aware of how little control I have over any of it. I will continue to focus on the things I can control and try to always make peace with the reality.

I am concerned that I maintain and protect my important personal relationships through this trying period.

I am constantly focused on my spiritual condition. It is a daily practice. My judgments surface regularly—whether in politics or other situations.

My recovery from drugs and alcohol—now in its 5451st day—helps me put all of this in perspective. I have survived far worse.

When all else fails and you simply cannot find a respectful way to discuss things—and you’re exhausted by trying to convince or be convinced—you can always walk away. It may not be the best option, but at least no blood was spilled.