[2 SIDES, 1 ISSUE] Are politics a dealbreaker in friendships?
Imagine sitting with a friend in a coffee shop, and the off-hand mention of a political stance instantly causes discomfort and disagreement. The knowledge that you and your friend have completely different takes on an important issue is a valid reason to rethink a relationship.
According to 2014 data from Pew Research Center, there has been an increase in each party’s distrust of the other. Between 2004 and 2014, the share of Democrats who viewed the Republican party as a threat to the nation’s well-being increased by 9%, compared with a 22% jump in Republicans who saw the Democratic party as a threat.
There are core beliefs wrapped up in each party’s politics: abortion, religion, civil rights, education, patriotism, immigration and more. And sometimes, these are things a person is not willing to compromise on.
In a poll sent out to SPA students, 67% of students responded that 95 to 100% of their friends within school share their political beliefs, and 47% of students said 95 to 100% of their friends outside of school share their political beliefs. These numbers are telling. People naturally gravitate towards others who share their beliefs and ideologies. The poll highlighted that many students find themselves struggling when relationships include differing views on identity and moral issues.
Pew Research Center reported in 2023 that 79% of Americans have negative views of politics and respondents most commonly associate it with the word ‘divisive.’ 65% of Americans described feeling ‘exhausted,’ and 55% reported feeling ‘angry’ when thinking about politics
Furthermore, according to the American Psychological Association, friendships are beneficial in lowering stress levels, blood pressure, and generally make life feel less daunting.
Comparing these two concepts provides the answer to whether one can truly have a meaningful friendship with someone with differing beliefs, and the answer is no. If the purpose of a friendship is to make life feel less daunting, having to deal with the exhausting world of political discourse can’t be helpful. If friends are supposed to have beneficial impacts on blood pressure and heart rate, experiencing anger whenever politics come up probably doesn’t help.
The poll sent out to the student body, which asked how students handle having differing political beliefs from their friends, resulted in a resounding ‘just don’t talk about it.’ But in a time when politics are so prevalent in everyday life, that is impossible. A person should not have to deal with arguing with a friend over their political beliefs.
Politics, at the end of the day, are a make or break factor in a friendship. If two people cannot see eye to eye on important issues, their relationship cannot flourish properly. The drawbacks will outweigh the benefits. A person’s morals and beliefs should not be compromised in the name of a friendship.
PARTY PARITY. In a survey sent to 405 students grades 9-12 with 40% responding, students reflected on how their political beliefs align with that of their friends in and out of school. 67% of respondents said that 95-100% of their friends in school share their political beliefs.
It is true that politics can be highly personal. While views on issues like reproductive rights, education and immigration are often intertwined with personal morals, opposing political parties themselves may not have fundamentally opposed morals.
The assumption that an individual with an opposing political view has inferior or dramatically different morals is generally incorrect. There is significant agreement on the critical issues between both parties; most of the disagreement regards who should get to make changes, or what specific policies should be enacted.
Examining polarization in the U.S., a 2023 review by Rachel Kleinfeld of the Carnegie Endowment for National Peace found that American voters are less polarized than they believe. Kleinfeld explains that ideological polarization refers to the actual rift between the beliefs of opposing political parties, and affective polarization describes Americans’ personal dislike for people of an opposing political party. In most cases, affective polarization is much more prevalent than ideological. Most people hold misconceptions about the opposing party’s beliefs and are not aware of the significant agreement on policy between parties.
Kleinfeld reported a 30% perception gap between what the most politically engaged Americans think the opposing party believes in and what they actually said they believe.
On the surface, politics have become very black and white, but the truth is that the majority of people can identify their own beliefs somewhere in the gray. Many right and left leaning news sources enforce a negative narrative about the opposing party, which can become internalized if it is not accompanied by other perspectives. When people can respectfully discuss their political views, and even disagree, the gray zone becomes more visible to each person.
Associating with a political party should not elicit an immediate judge of character. In a study by Stefano Balietti, Lise Getoor, Daniel G. Goldstein, and Duncan J. Watts, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2021, the authors concluded that people who connected first by nonpolitical similarities offered more open-mindedness to the other’s opposing viewpoints. Participants found that they were able to relate to each other, even if they were associated with different political parties. They were more open to conversation with someone who they had connected with.
It’s increasingly important for these discussions to happen and to be surrounded by people with different opinions, not only in the face of intensifying polarization but for personal benefit. The goal is not to convert someone else to share an opinion, but to expand personal understanding. Disagreement can be good if it is respectful and acknowledging of all perspectives.
Embrace discomfort in these conversations, try to understand a different perspective, and perhaps find that people who identify with opposing political parties have less to argue about than they think.
