Families with deep ideological divides have a common coping strategy that becomes especially critical during an election season: Avoid political discussions at all costs.
Advertisement
But years of hyper-partisanship, vitriol, misinformation and strained relationships have led some to a more nuanced approach.
If the past few elections have taught Kimberly Kabak Epperson of Ferguson, Missouri, anything, it’s how to navigate potential minefields, she said. She and her husband hold different political beliefs than their parents. Her mother-in-law will post things on Facebook that Kabak Epperson finds offensive.
Still, “That’s our family -- our kids’ grandma,” she said. She created a boundary for herself: She will call out these posts, but refuses to engage in an online back-and-forth.
“I want to be clear where I stand,” she said.
If she sees something offensive posted by her mother-in-law, she might respond by saying, “That’s not acceptable.” She won’t try to change her parents' or in-laws' minds, but she will leave if their conversation denigrates others or goes against her morals and beliefs.
“I can only control myself,” she said.
Kabak Epperson said that once she communicates to a family member that she’s not trying to change their beliefs -- and tells them what it means to respect hers -- she’s better able to manage the relationships that she doesn’t want to lose. (She says there are some that have become unsalvageable.) The bottom line in these situations: Be respectful of me, or I’ll have to remove myself.
The dynamic is different when close friendships diverge on politics.
Kabak Epperson described a recent visit from her best friend from college, whom she has considered a close friend for 15 years. They have stayed in touch through texts, but had not spent time together in person for five years.
During the course of the weekend visit, her friend asked Kabak Epperson why she was going to homeschool her child. When she shared her reasoning, the friend dismissed her concerns, saying the issue was "not that big of a deal."
Kabak Epperson felt stunned. When she tried to explain further, her friend shut the conversation down, saying she didn’t want to talk about anything “controversial” that they might disagree on.
“It was hurtful for me,” Kabak Epperson said. “It broke a lot of trust. It’s been really weird to see these invisible fences arise.”
The rest of the visit felt awkward and uncomfortable, she said. It changed her perspective on the relationship because she realized she could not be her whole, real self around her friend.
She said she wants to try to continue the relationship from a distance, and to humanize the issues her friend described as “political” by sharing the ways they impact her family. Maybe something she says will influence the way her friend thinks about issues that have only been theoretical to her until now.
“I won’t try to confront her or change her mind,” she said. “But I will continue to live my truth.”
Kabak Epperson has also taken other steps to try to bridge the chasms that hyper-partisanship has created. A key aspect has been educating herself.
“I’ve been reading like crazy the past few years,” she said. She read “Jesus and John Wayne” to better understand the Christian evangelical movement. She’s more informed on the history of race in America. But she understands that not everyone is interested in having nuanced discussions.
“It feels like a minefield trying to talk to anyone these days,” she said.
So, she limits her energy to those who are in a true position of influence, such as members of her local school board. She volunteers for voter registrations efforts rather than engaging with trolls. When she encounters negativity online, she counters it with a donation or time spent toward a cause important to her.
“Budget your energy,” she advises. “And push positivity.”