Can it work if you have different viewpoints politically?

[Cherriesandstrawberries]

Hello - I’m after some advice. Met a guy and we’ve become friends but are intimate sometimes. We both agreed we’re not a match as we have very different political views. He’s much more versed in his views so I’d find it hard to debate with him as I’m just not as articulate or knowledgeable. I don’t feel bad about it, it’s just the truth.

We’ve decided just to not talk about politics and since then we’ve relaxed and still get on really well. We have many other things to talk about and we like each others company. Anyone else with anyone in this situation and it works still? I’m thinking it probably can’t long term but just interested…

You don't like the sound of something you made up?

For me, it would depend on what those views are.

She no longer feels able to express her views. For whatever reason. Does that not sound off to you? She feels she’s not clever or articulate or well informed enough to have an opinion. That feels off to me. Really not a healthy dynamic. But if you are comfortable with that, crack on.

My religious views are completely different. I'm a complete atheist, my OH isn't. We just don't discuss religion, as there is no point.

As far as politics go, have never discussed it, but based on years of being together, I know mine are very different. Not an issue.

To be honest my political and religious views are my own and I don't discuss them with anyone. They are private views and no one else need know.

Well, this discussion is about compatability, not a purely political discussion.

My partner's social views are based on quite a Thatcherite concept of self-sufficiency and financial frugality. My view is that as a society, we're only as strong as our weakest link and not all people have the financial security to be 'self sufficient'. Decent Social Housing, good jobs and strong public services make people feel more secure and settled and benefit everyone.

She grew up around London where some family member had stocks and shares, property etc etc. I grew up on a Council Estate where my Dad worked as a gravedigger and my Mum was a Lollipop Lady. You ate the product of your environment, I suppose.

We do agree on lots of other things. The environment and animal protection are something we're both very close on.

Yes, its this for me too.

When someone says ' I don't know much about politics ' and changes the subject we should respect that. It probably means they are a Shy Tory. I might be able to live with that? But I don't know how eg John Bercow and his missus made it work. She was quite left wing . Perhaps they enjoyed the arguments.
' Maybe I like the misery ...' Mrs Doyle.

I mean if you want to just keep making stuff up to suit your narrative then that's fine, you crack on too.

Doesn't that attitude prevent you from growing though? As you will never learn the perspectives and reasons that lead others to come to a different view than you.

Eg on social housing: owning housing gives a family much greater security than being dependent on state provision. And social provision gives the power to allocate housing to political processes, where the most marginalised are likely to have the least say. So, someone might think the government should libéralise house building so that all housing becomes much more affordable, giving the poor more stability and security, and more dignity too. With the bonus that no one is threatened with prison to maintain the system (which is what taxes are ultimately backstopped with).

On low-income benefits. One problem with low-income benefits is that they are very hard to combine with a permissive immigration system. Permissive immigration benefits the very poor much more (because it benefits the globally poor, who are much poorer than the UK poor). Someone might think that a policy that helps the poorest people in the world is better than one that helps only the locally poor, and disagree with a generous welfare state on those grounds.

You'd have a really interesting debate with that person and you both might end up changing your views. But not if you won't even be in the same room.

There is a difference between being lectured to and a meaningful debate where both sides are willing to change their minds.

I can get on with anyone who has different viewpoints if they are prepared to be flexible but people who regurgitate ideas they have decided are right and will not listen to alternative views or arguments are just tedious.

@GeneralPeter - I would find it very challenging to have an "interesting" discussion with someone who doesn't BELIEVE in helping others

I've reached a stage in my life where I choose who I'm in a room with 🤪

Everyone believes in helping others, it’s just that people have different opinions about what that help looks like. I think it’s good to debate a bunch of different strategies because there’s no one size fits all.

I think GeneralPeter's example was a situation where it turns out the person against social housing and low income benefits actually does share the value of humans supporting one another, but saw social housing and low income benefits as an impediment to that.

That's an interesting example, and we could debate it for ages!

In my experience, though, people who are against social housing (in my opinion the ethical form of housing and both far more dignified (as it's ethical) and secure than home owning!) and low income benefits tend to be very vocal about not caring about people worse off than themselves and very divisively driven by the attribution bias (i.e. thinking that they're better off because they deserve to be, and that poorer people deserve to be poorer).

I do know people on both sides of Brexit who believe fervently that their way is best for the poorer inhabitants of the UK: at heart, they share values and aims, but are very opposite in how they think Brexit influences these.

If they had caring values behind their views, I'd be interested. Usually I feel the aversion you describe, though!

That's a lovely belief, the idea that everyone believes in helping others, but unfortunately very untrue! If only it were so.

Political views become public when you vote, though, because you're then acting to enforce your views on others through political policies.

DP and I are very different politically. He has two degrees in political disciplines, so he can come across as a know-it-all. Which can cause tension-we learned to manage it now. He once had a debate so heated in a group that one of his friends got up swore at him and ordered himself a taxi.😅
We both agree politics as an academic exercise is wholly different from what is presented on the BBC for instance.

I usually vote differently to my husband, and we always seem to have different political views. Sometimes I come round to his way of thinking, and sometimes he does mine. Together over 25 years.

I agree in extreme cases. There are people who seem to attach no weight to others at all. But I find that's pretty rare (it might actually be psychopathy). More common are people who share concern for others but have very different ideas about how to apply that, and how far.

There's also a large group of people who mean no harm on anyone, but who don't feel a great obligation to help those beyond their own families and networks. I find that a bit sad but it's not rare at all. If you are cutting those people out of your room then I think you've gone too far in my view.

@Cableknitdreams

driven by the attribution bias

Yes, interesting. One of the paradoxes at the centre of my own political beliefs is that I fundamentally reject blank-slateism (ie I believe outside forces shape outcomes hugely, and that individuals also are born with very different endowments, for which they aren't initially morally responsible for). Yet I also believe that believing strongly in agency produces better outcomes.

Put a bit more simply: I think a society that believes that anyone can make it through hard work and their own ingenuity produces much better outcomes than one that wangs on about structural disadvantages the whole time. But I also recognise that people do start with very different odds, and should not be stigmatised nor left to suffer as a result of a bad hand.

That's a good point. It sounds like a society that genuinely provides the utmost possible in opportunities as well as a safety net for those who miss out on them would suit your viewpoint.

I think the problem is that we don't genuinely create enough opportunities, then impose that belief in agency where it really isn't as straightforward. I agree that a belief in agency can be empowering...but it's also disempowering when applied erroneously or even punitively.

Possibly...but those people can be frustrating! Sometimes they feel that way because they can't cope with more than their immediate survival, whether that's financially, practically, or emotionally, so it's good to see where they're coming from and why.

When I was younger I was more impulsively angry with middle-aged people who didn't follow the news or go on protests etc.; now I'm middle-aged and it's as much I can do to manage sleep/work/childcare/shopping/housework/etc.!

I reckon it can but not for everyone. I consider myself quite politically engaged and like to discuss it with dh at home all the time. Loads of friends just don’t give it a second thought tho- some have different views to their partners but it doesn’t cause issues very often

@Cableknitdreams

I guess I'm a sort of free-market patrician. Let as many people as can zoom ahead, creating wealth for themselves and others and new possibilities for all of us (ie tech advances). But also bear in mind 'there but for the grace of God', and help those who can't. Neither end of that spectrum should be stigmatised. Both should be a little humble though: the 'winners' humble because they may have worked very hard but also they were extremely lucky (time, place, genes). And the 'losers' because they are being helped by others (ie ‘there but for the grace of others, or of the state, I’d be screwed’).

Absolutely couldn't work for me. Politics isn't just a preference like having a favourite colour or preferring poached eggs to fried eggs, it's indicative of your world view and your values. Your politics will reflect how you treat other people, what you spend money on, where you live and how you raise your children.

I don't need my partner to agree with me on everything, but broadly left-wing and socially liberal were two of my reddest lines. The latter is personal as well: as a mixed-race woman, I wouldn't be able to trust that my partner fully supported me or even fully understood me if he wasn't vocally anti-racist and anti-sexist. A man who huffed about the "race card" or "misandry" or "woke nonsense" or "legitimate concerns about immigration" would not be someone I felt safe to be vulnerable with (and also, I couldn't respect him in the slightest). As someone with many dear LGBT friends, any hint of homophobia would be a no-no too.

Politics, campaigning and activism is also important enough to me that I couldn't be in a relationship with anyone who thought it was unimportant and minor.

This for me too. I have strong views about supporting people who need it, affordable housing, mental health support, assisted dying, etc and I defo couldn’t be with someone who held very different views to me on these issues. My partner and I share very similar views so it’s all good, lol.