I don't "talk politics" very often, and certainly not at length in private conversation with people I care about. On the rare occasion I do, I'm usually surprised by how widely we differ on some pretty major stuff.
I didn't really think that applied to my husband, but I've been on this conversation kick lately. See, with the odd (and long) hours he works and the whole kids-keep-ya-hopping thing I've got going on, our only real discussions are usually along the lines of "Do we need diapers?" or "Boy, work sucks" (obviously DH there :-p) or "Which of us is getting up with them in the morning?"
Not a lot of deep thought or really much of a connection at the end of the day...it's been bothering me for a good while now. Since I believe that if you want something to change, it's on you to make it happen or at least get the ball rolling as much as you can, I resolved to work on this dearth of conversation. DH seems perfectly content with the status quo, but I'm not sure that's actually the case. He's hard to know, harder for me to know than he should be, and I know I'm guilty of not making an active enough effort often enough to keep that at bay.
I've been asking him questions, while one of us is mid-diaper change and the other is washing dishes or whatever - and often in the car - about anything I can think of that seems worth a conversation and that might draw him out. Between SC and my other main online haunt, there are quite a bit of political-themed discussions occurring, so I've pulled from those.
Let me tell you, the man I married can utterly shock me with his opinions on some things. I guess I just assumed that we held at least some of the same basic principles/beliefs on the topics that matter most to me, but on the vast majority of them, we don't.
I'm learning a lot about this person, and re-thickening my own skin at the same time. He tends to be a vicious debater (that much I did already know, from long-ago discussions re: religion, faith, etc.) even on the things we basically agree on. He'll find some small point in the way I said something and use it to crucify me even if I meant that I saw his point. I can't win - I don't think I've ever won a debate (argument either) with him on anything. That's not to say he proves me wrong, just that our core sets of morals and beliefs are so different that it's almost impossible to even get him to acknowledge that given my set of beliefs, X might be true/valid, at least for me.
Grrr.
That left me wondering whether most of y'all have like-minded spouses/significant others on major issues (gay marriage, torture, religion, whatever). If you don't agree with them on most things, do you find your debates lively and engaging or challenging/hurtful, or do you avoid them altogether?
the_infernal_optimist posted on Nov 07, 2007
| views: 175
Comments
-
polarheart said on Nov 08, 2007....
Infernal (its me - yr long lost reader) LOLMr Polar and I agree on most issues because we share the same Faith. However, there are things we do disagree on sometimes eg some child-rearing issues. Sometimes we get huffy and other times we are just too tired to make an issue out of it. Of course I am not talking about MAJOR issues here, which of course will mean we will have to get onto the same page. When we do have to get to agree on specific issues we usually talk very civilly and tend to try and both give in and then agree on common ground.What amazes me is that its so easy to fight over the small stuff, but we can usually pull ourselves together when there are crucial things to discuss.Isn't marriage fun?? :-)) -
silverwhisper said on Nov 08, 2007....
the mrs and i share most stances: we're supporters of gay marriage, both pro-choice, both think bush is an utter failure. so usually, when we do talk about such things, we're kinda fine-tuning our positions, or sometimes one of us will play devil's advocate.
however: if you want to sharpen your debate skills--and to me, that's always a worthwhile investment of time--consider watching a few political discussions. even if you don't have a horse in the race, watching people who are good at it is exceedingly educational. it's helped me quite a bit. :>
although i'm surprised you and mr. infernal have views so widely disparate, to be honest.
ed -
uniquely-ironic said on Nov 08, 2007....
My fiancee and I share some political views, but split on the application of laws to business. In that respect he's more liberal than I am. It's totally senseless since I would benefit most from these laws, but I don't support proposed laws because the benefit me, but because they benefit the majority of the people they will affect.We decided long ago to discuss politics, but when it came to voting we could vote our conscience and not tell the other what we had done. I suspect we nullify each other a lot when we both vote. -
Alyss said on Nov 08, 2007....
I don't actually know what DH's views are about a lot of things. I have a fair idea about ET's from our early conversations and discussions. -
silverwhisper said on Nov 08, 2007....
you know, i'm shocked at how few responses there are to this! maybe soulcasters are amidst discussing such things w/ their SOs?
ed -
uniquely-ironic said on Nov 08, 2007....
SW - politics is one subject that many abstain from just because of the potential for arguments. -
lfbno7 said on Nov 08, 2007....
My wife and I agree on gay marriage (thumbs up), torture (we torture each other regularly), and religion (we totally ignore it). -
Eilan said on Nov 08, 2007....
My husband and I are in agreement on a lot of issues, which is surprising because he's Rush Limbaugh's #1 fan. (He really loves me. He won't listen to Rush in my presence because he knows I'll get pissed!) It's the only point on which I question his sanity. *waves at husband in case he reads this*
My husband's a registered Republican, but he's not averse to crossing party lines, and in light of recent "events," he's amused by the Republicans trying to establish themselves as the party of morals and values. The Democratic leaders in our state have tended to be more friendly to the state organization he worked for. I'm somewhat liberal with occasional Libertarian leanings, if that makes sense.
We've pretty much agreed to disagree on some issues, like abortion.
-
Twylarants said on Nov 08, 2007....
In the 100 or so years we've been married, I've managed to sway my husband's opinion on things most important to me, because I am a very reasonable person and he's not. He tends to make sweeping statements that sound logical to him until I repeat them back to him slowly, with an emphasis on the words that sound ridiculous to me. Then he says "Oh.." and changes his opinion.
He's a registered Republican, but I've convinced him he's a closet Libertarian with conservative leanings.
-
the_infernal_optimist said on Nov 08, 2007....
I started to reply to comments this morning but was too out of it to finish.
Polar: Shared faith does help to circumvent a lot of potential differences on major issues, I bet. :)
ed: I'm not surprised to find that the two of you are often in agreement on the big stuff. That's really neat to me that you can sort of hone your positions together.
I am watching several debates as they occur, both video clips and online discussions. And I think I'm learning...thank you for your part in that. :)
As far as being so different...ehhh...I've never been good at looking at things I know I don't want to see. Why surprise there? Also, I tend to think u-i is right re: lack of responses.
u-i: It's good that you do discuss things, and there are worse things than canceling each other out. At least you each get to vote without worrying that the other will get angry/be disappointed or whatever. :)
Alyss: Isn't it interesting to see what we don't pay attention to? I mean, I guess it doesn't matter as much in day-to-day stuff as, say, child-rearing does for you and for me, but you'd think it would be a little different. I'm glad you and ET have been able/willing to talk about those things.
Mr. 7 (for the life of me, I can't think of a better way to abbreviate that, so I'm stealing from des): Thanks for the grin.
Eilan: It sounds like you and your husband have a healthy relationship WRT politics.
Twyla: I swear if I ever come away from one of your comments not smiling, I'm going to find you and ask what you've done with the real Twyla. :-D Closet Libertarian, huh?
I was a registered Republican once. I got better! ;-)
~Infernal
-
sheltercrow said on Nov 09, 2007....
I'm repeating myself here but I think this may be a better place for this. So I'll start off with... my understanding about some political mayhem.
The United States is run behind the scenes by a consortium of corporations that manifests itself through the need of all political candidates for fund raising. No candidate can succeed in our current circumstances without corporate sponsorship; the public alone simply cannot provide the huge sums needed for today’s political campaigns.
This creates the conditions for the conundrum of where a candidate’s loyalty lies. To the corporate sponsors that provide the funds to get the elected in the first place or to the country that he/she is supposed to serve after their elected.
The fact that politicians consider politics a career is also a crucial factor in this discussion. That a politician wants to earn as much as possible and for as long as possible is only natural when he/she considers it as a career and not a patriotic act as the public might mistakenly want.
The career aspect always wins out over the public service part wherein the need to service the corporate sponsors interests is found to be the paramount as concerns the needs to service the public interests.
With these conditions as the overriding concerns for any politicians’ longevity it is no accident that the US finds itself embroiled with these horrible fake democracies around the world. That Democracy is antithetical to corporate interests is an unspoken truth. If corporate interests are to be invested with being the principle aim of our political class it must be made clear, by the politicians, to the American public that these interests are American interests. The main media outlets, being owned and operated by these same corporations, have always provided a more that welcome platform for these contrived formulations for what the American interests are. The facts, if put through the lens of true reporting, would show that these fake democracies provide security for corporate interests not American interests as defined by being for the public good.
-
the_infernal_optimist said on Nov 09, 2007....
And that had...what to do with whether you and your SO agree on main political issues? ;-) Or is there more coming?
~Infernal
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 09, 2007....
Shelter crow, I thought your last comment was terrific. Like infernal said, I don't know what it had to do with the subject of this post, but it sure was well put. That's America for ya. -
TinSoldier said on Nov 10, 2007....
Hmm. Mrs. Tin and I don't discuss politics very often.
However, she's a conservative Democrat and I'm a liberal Republican, for whatever that is worth. Sometimes we disagree. It can be really weird though.
But we both vote.
-
sheltercrow said on Nov 10, 2007....
I must have misunderstood the nature of your post.
I could not resist a chance to have a rough and tumble free for all about politics. We still have the time.
Maybe I should put a post up for a tar and feathers project?
-
crybabylu said on Nov 10, 2007....
TinSoldier:, you stole my line about me being a conservtive liberal and my husband being a liberal republican.....haha
We are Libertarian, however, there are still some areas we don't totally agree on, but they don't cause arguements.
-
lfbno7 said on Nov 10, 2007....
I'd tar and feather all of them and then ride them out of Washington on a rail, and for exactly the reasons in Shelter's recent comment, because they don't serve us, they serve their contributors, and therefore they are all traitors, by my definition, to the American people, and the fault is in the system itself, a system that forces these clowns to spend most of their energy raising money, and promoting people who do that well, which means people who betray America well. I've said before that money should be taken out of the equation, that it should be illegal to spend money on political campaigns, no tv ads, no ads period, no promotion of any kind, and a few tv stations devoted entirely to political discussions and interviews, with never more than two candidates together at a time, and a damn good moderator who will keep them on point.
Our country hasn't had a good president since Teddy Roosevelt about a hundred years ago. Every one since has been pretty awful. The system has completely broken down. It started a lot better than it is now. Our country ranges from mediocrity to absolute garbage. The last two, Clinton and Bush, are two of the biggest traitors our nation has ever seen. Ironically, it is Bush, rather than that lying piece of crap Clinton, who is the bigger liar. Clinton is honest to a fault, in comparison with the piece of shit in the White House now. He looks for the person who leaked the CIA agent's name the way O.J. Simpson looks for Nicole's killer.
My wife would agree, but she wouldnt really be paying attention. She'd be watching Kimora Lee Simmons on tv. -
sheltercrow said on Nov 10, 2007....
I would like to clarify two statements from my above post, they should read…
The career aspect always wins out over the public service part wherein the need to service the corporate sponsors interests is found to be of paramount importance as opposed to the needs to service the public interests.
With these conditions as the overriding concerns for any politicians’ longevity, it is no accident that the US finds itself embroiled with these horrible fake democracies around the world. That Democracy is antithetical to corporate interests is a real but unspoken truth. If corporate interests are to be invested with being the principle aim of our political class, it must be made clear, by the politicians, to the American public, by intentional political misdirection and falsehoods, that these interests are American interests. The main media outlets, being owned and operated by these same corporations, have always provided a more that welcome platform for these contrived formulations for what the American interests are. The facts, if put through the lens of true reporting, would show that these fake democracies provide security for corporate interests not American interests as defined by being for the public good.
Comment on "Let's talk politics, honey"
Related Posts:
MsBradford07
posted 6 days ago
| views: 63
|
In my blog, I wrote about a good on paper guy. I like his personality and he is a nice guy, but like I said the chemistry is not there.... read entire post
MsBradford07
posted 4 days ago
| views: 52
|
I was talking to a friend and she asked what is means to be in a relationship today. She had this same discussion with a male friend of hers. What he said in a nutshell was that today people get into relationships for selfish reasons. One may want a rela... read entire post
WithoutShade
posted 1 day ago
| views: 37
|
I dedicate these words to poetzsoul, in hopes that her next 25 years are motivating.... read entire post