The Argument, a new center-left media outlet, recently published this poll:

Some commenters online noted that the question here is a little vaguely worded: what qualifies as a “political” view? Could it be that conservatives are equally likely to cut off family members, but don’t view their reasons as “political”? Maybe, though that doesn’t explain the gap between Harris voters and nonvoters. This result is fairly consistent with prior polling. Data from the Survey Center on American Life a few years ago showed that people who identify as “very liberal” were considerably more likely to say they had stopped talking to a family member over politics, even when compared to people who identify as “somewhat liberal.”

The Argument’s Lakshya Jain has this to say about it:

❝

I think liberals have got to understand that we, as a constituency, are very much unlike the rest of America. It’s not just that we’re different from Trump voters — it’s that we’re very different from people who don’t vote as well. The findings about who was more likely to cut off friends and family over politics really underscored this for me, because Harris voters were the only group that was even close to evenly split on that. That’s not a statement that we’re wrong, but it is a statement that the rest of Americans view and interact with the world very differently than we do. Knowing this, I wonder if some of us should start thinking about the implications, because it also underscores the “shrinking tent” critique we’ve heard about Democrats lately.

Jain seems to be making the argument that this is an indicator of liberal insularity: people on the left are less willing to engage with their political opponents, to the point that they’d rather cut off family members than bear spending time with people they disagree with. This tendency, he implies, could be harming Democrats’ political chances.

I think that’s a questionable analysis for a couple of reasons. First, there’s a very salient variable this poll leaves out: age. It’s clear that young people are more likely to identify as Democrats and liberals than older people. It’s also clear that younger people are more willing to curtail relationships due to politics. It’s possible that at least some of the discrepancy in The Argument’s poll is the result of younger people being more willing to cut off older family members than the other way around. In fact, some polling has found this exact trend. In a survey conducted last year, it was found that while liberals were more willing to cut ties than conservatives, there were large differences between age groups, to the point where Gen Z conservatives were more likely to cut ties than older liberals.

But there’s another problem with Jain’s conclusion, one so obvious that only a pundit could miss it: maybe conservatives are simply less tolerable than liberals. Jain and other commentators keep thinking about this issue as reflecting on liberals, who they conclude based on the data are more willing to cut off family members due to political disputes. But the results can be read the other way. Perhaps conservatives are so viscerally unpleasant that they cause more people to cut them out of their lives?

logo

Upgrade to premium!

Become a paying subscriber of String in a Maze to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.

Upgrade

A subscription gets you:

  • Complete access to all premium posts
  • Peter's actual, real life friendship

Reply

Avatar

or to participate

Avatar

Jerrod Jaeger 10 months ago

I think you're on to something about the fault of family breakups. However, I think commentators like Litt have a point that's being missed due to their lack of precision. On the micro level it is the appropriate and sometimes the healthier option to cut out family and friends whose attitude is so toxic as to cause trauma. On the other hand, the left has a community problem. One of its manifestations is in the overemphasis in top down politics. Liberals don't participate in as many grassroots interactions and it results in lower representation at the lower levels of political office. The way I (an atheist) have phrased this to my friends is "liberals need to go to church." I'm not saying JUST church, or that anyone needs to find god. I'm using it as a shorthand for recommending that libs need to get out there and actually have relationships with normies of broad political viewpoints. The ultimate goal is to change the tribal consensus when it matters. This happens through engagement.

Avatar

Scotty McCormick1 year ago

”that the fervor of their reactionary beliefs is a natural response to the excesses of the left, and could therefore be mitigated by our acquiescence.”

I hear this often from some liberal friends explaining why someone they know is a republican (because of their time at Berkeley). It feels frustrating, almost patronizing, to not give someone the credit for believing in an ideology because they just agree with it more. Each time this “excuse” comes up, I want to scream that they probably weren’t going to be liberal if they attended a different school!

Avatar

Tim Byrne1 year ago

It's definitely the latter: "conservatives are so viscerally unpleasant that they cause more people to cut them out of their lives"

Avatar

Meghan Hartman1 year ago

This nails a huge part of the problem: "...one of conservatism’s foundational lies: that the fervor of their reactionary beliefs is a natural response to the excesses of the left, and could therefore be mitigated by our acquiescence."

And then the fact that the Democratic party acquiesces over and over again, shifting everything to the right.

Avatar

C. Carpenter1 year ago

It’s so frustrating! Like they’re chasing this mystical undecided voter by going right while abandoning more and more of the left, who actually exist and vote.

Avatar

Nicole S1 year ago

Peter, I would love to see a full piece exploring that statement about conservatism's foundational lie! I've been listening/reading your work for a while now but feel like I still would benefit from Reactionary Conservatism 101.

Avatar

sran stan1 year ago

Jain is kind of a fucking idiot in an insular pundit class if he thinks liberals are unlike conservatives. I live in Arizona and have to deal with conservative freaks all the fucking time.

I love in a nice neighborhood, and I don't think seeing a don't tread on me bumper sticker on a fucking late model Escalade makes sense. you're clearly not being tread on.

my uncle bought my stepdad a t shirt that read "my ar-15 identifies as a three hole punch" you think that's something I want to beat around.

my mom, stepdad and uncle during the summer went to a regular Tuesday pizza night at some bar and apparently same uncle went on rants about the Dems every time. like my cousin has spent hundreds on trump merch and did a bar crawl with his stuff. it's cringe this is in addition to my maga uncle who told me to fuck myself when I asked him to stop being transphobic on Facebook

Avatar

James Lewis1 year ago

I realize this is peripheral to the point you’re making, but if I never again see another reference to Bill Maher, that would be awesome. There’s no way he’s relevant to any discussion, since he’s been utterly irrelevant to any sort of discourse for years now. Who watches his show, not to mention agreeing to appear on it?

Avatar

sran stan1 year ago

bill gets pushed out there as more of a meta critique of the left. his audience is still pundits and their besties. and he is seen as critiquing the left while being liberal

Avatar

Mike Upchurch1 year ago

Political choices are moral choices. Such a fundamental thing is so hard for so many to grasp.

Avatar

C. Carpenter1 year ago

Refreshing take (as I have come to expect).

While not politically conservative, my father believes he is effectively immortal due to his supplement regimen, which he wants to share with the world via cringy tic ticks. We stoped talking when I let slip my opinion of quest for fame.

There is no world where I can be kind enough or gentle enough to let some light in on his beliefs. I expect it’s the same for many lefty’s and their increasingly aggrieved parents. It’s only hurting us to leave if we can change their opinion. My dad, for one, isn’t reaching out. He’d rather have no child than a “disrespectful” one.

Avatar

Erik Graham1 year ago

Vitamin supplements are one of the few times when someone can literally piss money down the drain

Avatar

C. Carpenter1 year ago

Oh man, I wish it was just vitamins, he’s on some weird hormone precursors that were hot for a minute in the 90’s.

Avatar

Tired Ofitall1 year ago

I'm a 68yowf. An MD. Everything Trump/Heritage Foundation/MAGA/MAHA is doing is designed, ON PURPOSE, to be harmful to people they don't consider to be worthy somehow, ie women, LGBTQ, POC, non-pseudochristians, other species, immigrants, people with illnesses. Most uneducated, steeped in RW media Maga's just don't realize yet that they will be harmed too. Why would any liberal like me wish to hang out with such idiotic or evil (or both) people?

Avatar

Evan Derkacz1 year ago

You nailed it. We all know that if these results were from 60s Brazil or 70s Chile very few would argue that the "problem" was with anti-authoritarians willing to set family ties aside. This isn't disgust over trickle down economics, it's about violence & hatred. The ideas on both sides are simply not morally equivalent.

I do want to push back on the notion of "non-pseudochristians," aka "fake Christians." The entire notion that some Christians (or Jews or Buddhists or Muslims) aren't "real" because their ideas contain hatred is totally understandable, but it's inaccurate... and ultimately harmful. A person who identifies as a religion IS a part of that religion, period. That's how scholars view it. The implication with the "fake" label is that Christianity = goodness. But until we acknowledge that every religion has the capacity for both good and evil (regardless of "correct" practice, which doesn't exist) ideas like this only serve to insulate religion from necessary critiques.

Avatar

sran stan1 year ago

what's a good term for calling someone who claims to be Christian but goes against the teachings of Jesus then? there should be some shorthand

Avatar

C. Carpenter1 year ago

I wish there was, but even Christians can’t agree on what constitutes a “real” Christian. The only shorthand I can think of is “hypocrite”

Avatar

Evan Derkacz4 months ago

Apologies, for some reason I only got notification of your response now, 10 months later. But it's an evergreen issue, so I thought I'd still respond. Unfortunately it was only when I finished writing that I learned it's too long for the comments section which won't allow more than 150 words or so (still, it's just 600 words).

So I just put it in the google doc below in case you're interested. No worries if not, I certainly understand the concern about clicking on random links. But if it helps I'm the executive editor of Religion Dispatches, a nearly 20-year-old secular magazine on religion and politics, which you can check out here (https://religiondispatches.org/).

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mNiGRbb_4zbbmJOaFiusyFOZlOjdhg3ImlE8snAVE4E/edit?usp=sharing