Can You Love Someone Whose Politics Frighten You?
This story is part of Inside Love, our series exploring what it means to love through science and curious conversation.
Politics isn’t just pulling the country apart — it’s unsettling our most intimate relationships. Nearly half of Americans say they wouldn’t date someone who doesn’t share their political views. But what happens if you’re already in love, and politics becomes a fault line in your relationship? Can love make space for views you find impossible to accept?
“If you have a connection to someone who believes something you think is harmful, you have an opportunity,” said Mónica Guzmán, host of the podcast “A Braver Way.” “Because if it’s not you who talks to that person, and potentially helps them see things a different way, then who’s going to do it?”
We’ll talk to Guzmán about how to stay curious even when you hate your lover’s politics — and how to coexist peacefully without surrendering your own convictions
Guest:
- Mónica Guzmán, host, “A Braver Way” podcast; author, “I Never Thought of It That Way: How to Have Fearlessly Curious Conversations in Dangerously Divided Times”
Lesley McClurg: Polarization is present in your own family. Your parents are enthusiastic Trump supporters. You are a liberal journalist from Seattle who voted for Joe Biden. Do you all avoid politics? Or how do you navigate those conversations?
Mónica Guzmán: Earlier on, it was a bit awkward. We didn’t know how to pick it up, but we’re a really unfiltered family. So as soon as we became citizens, because we’re Mexican immigrants, back in the year 2000, it became clear my parents were going to the right and me and my brother were going to the left. The volume at restaurants, when Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow came up, it just went up. We would just fill the car, front seat versus back seat. But it got really tense after the 2016 election. That’s when we wondered: is the heat from the friction between our perspectives going to burn something, or is it going to cook something? The lessons we learned, trying to keep things to a simmer, going through rupture and repair cycles, trying to be honest with each other even while we let the other person be honest with us, boy, that was hard, but it taught us a lot.
Lesley McClurg: Do you try to avoid certain topics or do you find that you can find common ground?
Mónica Guzmán: These days we talk about it all. There really is not much that we’re not able to discuss. To give you an example, my mother was a pro-life activist who went to the march on Washington, and I am decidedly pro-choice. So, the conversations would often include tears, her not believing that her own daughter could think these things. But we’re also able to have the most constructive conversations on abortion. The common ground we found is lots of people on both sides of this issue want fewer unwanted pregnancies. Okay, what can we do as a culture and as a society? You can get to some pretty constructive, incredible nuances of these issues and understand that both of us care deeply about what’s going on in different ways.
Lesley McClurg: I imagine you’re not living with your parents anymore. You’re not with them 24 hours a day, like you may be with a partner. So, do you think it’s different for those who are navigating this inside a romantic relationship?
Mónica Guzmán: Absolutely, when you are living with them all the time, everything changes. I’ve heard from couples where one of them comes into the room, and they’re watching Fox News, or they’re watching MSNBC, you’re already triggered by something. And then different partners will have different ideas about whether or not to talk about politics. The problem is if politics is deeply meaningful to one or both partners, not talking about politics is not talking about me.
Lesley McClurg: What is the goal of those conversations? Are you trying to sway someone who has a deeply different view? Is that even possible in this moment?
Mónica Guzmán: In a committed romantic relationship, you want to stay connected. You want to love and support your partner. So the goal has to include understanding. The good thing about being in a relationship is you’ve already built up enough trust to be able to be honest about how you feel. A difference in ideas can be an amazing opportunity to strengthen your connection. But it’s also a big challenge because it’s difficult to stay curious when the other person believes something you find obscene, that you find wild. And because of your relationship, your expectations get in the way of that goal of understanding to maintain connection. You’re going to say, “How could my own husband, how could my own wife, how could my own partner believe something like this?” That’s all going to make you want to run away from a conversation that could be really fascinating if you go ahead and have it. It’s through those clashes and diverse opinions within the trust of a relationship that you can learn so much about them and so much about you. One of the most productive questions that you ask across a divide, especially if it’s a values-based difference, is not, “Why don’t you care about this thing that I care about?” But rather, “What do you care about more?”
Lesley McClurg: I know a couple who’s navigating this. The guy is very right, and the woman is quite left. One thing that he says is so challenging is that their social media feeds are giving them very different facts. How does a couple have a responsible, empathetic conversation if they don’t share the same information on the topic?
Mónica Guzmán: The way we do that is we follow each other’s threads without judgment. I know how difficult that can be because if you think that your partner is trusting sources that are bogus, all you want to do is tell them they’re wrong, the source is wrong, and that you just can’t have the conversation unless they agree with you. You love your partner, and your partner trusts this source. Why? Get curious about that and let that curiosity become a nonjudgmental accompaniment, and ask your partner, “Can you walk me through the source you see? Can you show me the newsletter?” And then listen and watch and ask questions that allow them to be open with you. Do not criticize the source until you fully understand what it’s all about. And then afterward say, “Can I walk you through my source and tell you why I trust them?” So much about the sources that we believe is about what they call up in us. Some sources reflect people’s concerns better than others. I think that’s the key. So even if somebody who disagrees is like, “There’s nothing factual there. There’s a lot of sensationalism.” And often that’s true. It’s still worth noting when a source tugs on something that matters to somebody, and it makes them gravitate to those voices. We need to understand that and pick up on that. Once you do that and people feel heard across that divide, then you can start a more persuasive conversation. I have received your source nonjudgmentally. Maybe you’ve received mine. Now can we talk about verification? Can we talk about substance? Can we talk about why I don’t trust your source? That conversation is better had after you understand why they trust theirs.
Lesley McClurg: If I am highly convinced that I know something about this issue and I’m not going to change, is it worth having a conversation about that issue with my partner?
Mónica Guzmán: The best way for me to be heard on my convictions is to demonstrate to the other person that I can hear theirs. The trick is not to treat it as a strategy. I’m going to fake listen to them nonjudgmentally until they give me the time of day, and then I’m going to steamroll them and tell them how wrong they are. No. These conversations can be transformative. You are convicted; that’s great. It’s tough to be curious. It’s tough to be open, but again, how can anybody give you that gift if you can’t give it to anybody else? Also, there is nothing about receiving somebody’s opposing conviction that threatens yours. Nothing. There is no such thing as someone changing your mind with a flip of a switch unless your mind is already fertile ground to be changed on that thing. So if your convictions are really deep, what do you have to worry about? All you’re doing is listening to somebody else. And by the way, in the context of a relationship, you’re listening to someone you love. And we all know how wonderful it feels to be heard by someone we love.
Lesley McClurg: Do you have advice for folks if they want to have a conversation that they know is going to be hard?
Mónica Guzmán: One big thing is to understand that you don’t need to have hard conversations all at once, and that it’s nice when life flows in through your conversation. So there’s been some research that conversations in the car can be really productive. You’re not looking at each other like a showdown. You’re looking straight ahead. You’re next to each other. Also, if you’re sitting down, I like going to coffee shops and looking for seats that are next to each other but angled 45 degrees toward each other. This is amazing because it allows you to look at your partner and also look away to take a break. This helps calm your nervous system to get enough fuel for some of those hard moments. And then finally, you don’t have to have it out all at once. Come back to it later. Let what they said sit in your mind and let yourself process that. It’s incredible what that does. Sometimes if we try to do it all in one shot, we’ve got so many emotions that they run away with us. Let the pressure valve do its work.
Lesley McClurg: Is staying curious in any way, shape, or form letting go of protecting, say, another group? I can imagine someone being convicted about a social justice issue or racial equality and that curiosity feels like they’re abandoning that group. Staying curious and being in conversation with someone who they see is against protecting that group could feel like that curiosity is dangerous.
Mónica Guzmán: If you have a connection to someone who believes something you think is harmful, you have an opportunity because if it’s not you who talks to them and potentially helps them see things a different way, then who? Who’s going to do it? You have the relationship, you have the trust, you have opportunity. So I would actually flip that on its head. I think it is more dangerous not to be curious and not to engage someone who holds an idea you find to be harmful. There is so much harm in isolating ourselves into different communities that can’t talk to each other. That’s what’s ultimately the most harmful because if we’re not talking, we’re not persuading, we’re not reframing, we are not seeing things a different way. We’re just going to keep seeing things the way we like. And if we’re not listened to and can’t engage with people who are close to us and disagree with us, then we’re just going to continue to be heard by people who agree with us, which research shows radicalizes our opinions and makes us think that the whole world ought to believe what we believe. We all become more intolerant of different opinions.
Lesley McClurg: Research does show that we tend to exaggerate how extreme people on the other side actually are. Why do you think we have that tendency? Why do we do that?
Mónica Guzmán: I like to say that whoever is underrepresented in your life will be overrepresented in your imagination. There is fear that has to do with this and stories that we hear in a very polarized media environment. A lot of the loudest voices and the most extreme stories are the ones that get told. So of course they take up a lot of space in our heads. Meanwhile, a lot of the conversations across divides that we witness on the news and in other places are high-octane showdowns meant to score points. You’ve probably seen the research too about how one side thinks the other is immoral and more vicious and crazy, stupid and evil. It’s completely unsurprising to me, given how we are trapped in this vicious cycle, that we are judging each other more while we’re engaging each other less. The research into the misperceptions, the perception gaps, the exaggerations is profound. Where are we getting our information? If we’re getting our information about people who disagree with us, only secondhand, there’s a good chance it’s a funhouse mirror over there. You have to make some space in your life to ask, “What am I missing?” It’s pretty tough to live so scared of everybody. It’s not fun. It’s not helping us. And it’s certainly not changing the world for the better.
Lesley McClurg: You’ve interviewed a married couple, one is a committed liberal, one is committed conservative. What did you learn from them?
Mónica Guzmán: This is Rick and Barbara. Rick is Republican, and Barbara is Democrat. In 2020, they went through a period where they could not talk to each other at all. Rick was going to vote for Trump. Barbara was just beside herself. It was too activating; it was too hard to be in the same room and have these conversations about these things that mattered so much to them. But they found another way. They wrote long letters to each other about how they felt and what was concerning them. That got them through that period, which I think was so cool. So they agreed that they would ask each other questions about what they believed. After a while, Barbara noticed that she was asking Rick a lot of questions, but Rick was not asking her a lot of questions. So, she confronted him and said, “Rick, what’s going on?” And Rick said, “Well, I already know why you believe what you believe.” She said, “Oh really? Prove it.” So they named an issue, and Rick goes, “Well, you believe that probably because of this and this and this.” And Barbara goes, “That’s right.” And then they went to the next issue. “Well, you believe it because of this.” And Barbara says, “That’s right!” They did this over and over again. The common reason turned out to mostly apply to Barbara, but Barbara said, “Rick, we’re married. I need you to hear those reasons from me. I need you to hear my personal reasons. Not the general trend or statistic. Can you please still ask me?” You still have to get it from each other. It’s these conversations that are the necessary piece. You need to be fully participating in those conversations.
Lesley McClurg: If folks are not in a marriage, but they’re just dating, do you think people should filter for politics in this moment because things are so divided?
Mónica Guzmán: I consider myself a curious person. I like the world to get bigger and not smaller, at least in some areas of my life. So the question is, do you want that too? Because it can make you grow. The contrast is a beautiful thing at a time when so many people are running away and avoiding friction.
Lesley McClurg: And you might be compatible in many other ways, even if you’re not politically compatible. Running up to the midterms, it’s going to get hot. Do you have any advice for folks on how to navigate relationships with their friends, lover, or family that are on the other side of the aisle?
Mónica Guzmán: If you are surprised by something they say, then take that as an invitation. You already have the relationship. And then instead of, “Whoa, really? That’s terrible, that sucks.” Say, “Whoa, really? Tell me more about that. How’d you come to that?” How did you come to believe what you believe is the most powerful question you can ask? Not, why do you believe what you believe? Why do you believe what you believe puts people on trial. How did you come to believe what you believe — asks people to take you on a tour. Create and generate the kind of understanding that could be a countercultural thing against the partisan messaging, sloganeering, exaggerating, manipulating that happens every campaign season in this country.
Lesley McClurg: May we all get a little more curious in the next month or so. Thank you so much, Mónica.
Mónica Guzmán: Thank you.
Lesley McClurg: Mónica Guzmán is a journalist and host of the podcast, “A Braver Way.” Inside Love is a new production of KQED, and we’d love to hear what you think. Our email is [email protected]. Our engineer is Katherine Monahan. Our producers are Susie Britton and Emiko Oda. I’m Lesley McClurg. Thanks so much for listening.
This transcript was lightly edited for clarity.