Pre-Election Thoughts on Politics and Friendship

by Richard Upchruch

Richard Upchurch

We say we're frustrated by gridlock in Washington but do we do what we can to avoid a similar gridlock in our conversations about public issues with friends, relatives and fellow-citizens? And what to we mean, anyway, by "gridlock"?

Some have said that gridlock is often entirely appropriate, in Washington and similarly in our personal connections----sometimes very close personal connections---- accurately reflecting a reality of deep and unresolved differences. In other words, moving on sometimes is not possible or appropriate, something more needs to happen before we're ready to move on.

" Deep differences" can refer to various adversarial situations., but it seems that sometimes people who are able to communicate verbally but come from different cultures are in fact able not only to remain friends but to continue to have friendly conversations about issues; whereas sometimes people in organizations of various kinds, from the same or very similar backgrounds, become preoccupied with disputes---and sometimes to the extent that unity cannot be preserved and a split occurs. This reality is, obviously a part of peoples' lives----religious, political and personal. I've thought some about this, and what I've come up with, so far, is this:

There may in some times and places be a justification for prophetic or heroic defiance, and for rejection of further dialogue or debate, but American National Politics at the beginnings of the 21st Century, in my estimation, is not one of them. Even when we think that, among the indeterminate layers of rhetoric, conviction, commitment, strategy and tactics that constitute politics there may be some predisposition or some agenda not fully or not at all articulated, I'd have to say, if only as a reply to the fanatic, again: There may be some times and places where there is justification for unyielding or prophetic or heroic defiance and rejection of debate and of compromise in both public and the private spheres-----but in my estimation the Unites States, at the beginnings of the 21st Century, is not any such time or place.

My thoughts: 

by Rod Williams



I think of Richard Upchurch as a very wise man.  Richard can disagree with a person without becoming a disagreeable person. He can articulate a position and argue a point of view yet never seems to get angry or make others angry. I wish I was more like that. 

Unfortunately, there have been strained relationships in my family over politics. We are not estranged and we can share holiday meals and events without conflict, but if together for any length of time it becomes stressful. It is stressful monitoring your conversation and stressful to be on guard all of the time to not take offense or give offense. When one feels as passionately as I feel about what is at stake and those on the left feel equally as passionate, it is difficult to maintain feeling of affection and a close bond.   

When I feel that if you vote Democratic you are destroying what made America an exceptional nation and you are weakening essential American leadership in the world and you are dooming us to insolvency, I can’t feel good about you.  When you feel that by my voting Republican I am denying you healthcare and you may die if Obama is not reelected, you cannot feel good about me. What is at stake is important; it is not “just politics.”  I don't know how married couples who feel strongly about politics and hold differing views, maintain their marriage.  

While I can enjoy short visits or activity with family, I would not want to go on vacation with them.  If we are engaged in activity I can enjoy their company. I can enjoy hiking or I can enjoy going to a concert or going out partying, but to sit around together with nothing to do is not fun. I am not a sports fan, so I can't talk about the safe topic of sports and one can only talk about the weather for so long. Any serious conversations can lead to controversy.  Add a little libation to the mix and one  may fail to monitor one’s comments as closely and the likelihood of conflict escalates. 

There is not much that is of interest that does not in some way touch on politics.  Even parlor games reveal opinions which can be dangerous. I don't want to hear something clever that Bill Mahers said and they don't want to hear the clever thing Rush Limbaugh recently said.  Our points of view are so different that there are few safe topics. We think differently. Our observations are different.

Part of the problem, I think, is that at most of my family get-to-gathers, I am the lone conservative in a room full of liberals. One on one with family members or in smaller groups they are not nearly as likely to voice liberal opinions as when there is a big extended family and me. When in a large family group I feel like what an atheist in church must feel like.

I really don't know that close relationship are possible with those who do not share your essential values and when you feel that so much is at stake. Unfortunately, I think the best I can hope for is short pleasant get-to-gathers where I am on guard and we avoid talking about anything remotely political.  I will do my best to avoid arguments. I think that is as about as good as it can get.
 

Top Stories