Family separated by politics

drummerboy said:

It may not completely define a person, but it points to a dark side hitherto unknown to you, which makes you fundamentally re-evaluate your relationship. Can you chummy up like before with a murderer? an embezzler? a molester?

conandrob240 said:

This is sort of like saying being a pedophile or a racist or a murderer don't completely define a person. Well, technically they probably have other characteristics, some might even be good. But the heinousness of that one part of their character doesn't allow you to respect or want to have a relationship with that person.

When you two say “you,” referring to people in general and implying that this particular outlook of yours speaks for everyone, you’re mistaken. Because it doesn’t apply to my dad, who, when a longtime friend murdered his wife, also a dear friend, in the first degree seven years ago, visited him regularly in jail and prison until the friend died of cancer behind bars.

The couple, in their late 60s, had been high school sweethearts and raised three sons in our neighborhood. One was killed in an accident around age 16 while riding in a buddy’s car. It was an unfathomable tragedy. So — and this is the point, things beyond comprehending — was the murder. When Dad turned 80 this fall, my sister asked one of the sons, now a restaurateur, if we could hold a big celebration at one of his places. He surprised us by comping it, his tribute to the man who had stood by his family.

To those of “you” who know others like my dad, or can see yourselves doing the same thing, may you keep the faith. 

“You” was in regard to myself. I wasn’t describing your father whom I’ve never met.

the exception proves the rule, as they say.

Murderers, as a rule, are ostracized.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

It may not completely define a person, but it points to a dark side hitherto unknown to you, which makes you fundamentally re-evaluate your relationship. Can you chummy up like before with a murderer? an embezzler? a molester?

conandrob240 said:

This is sort of like saying being a pedophile or a racist or a murderer don't completely define a person. Well, technically they probably have other characteristics, some might even be good. But the heinousness of that one part of their character doesn't allow you to respect or want to have a relationship with that person.

When you two say “you,” referring to people in general and implying that this particular outlook of yours speaks for everyone, you’re mistaken. Because it doesn’t apply to my dad, who, when a longtime friend murdered his wife, also a dear friend, in the first degree seven years ago, visited him regularly in jail and prison until the friend died of cancer behind bars.

The couple, in their late 60s, had been high school sweethearts and raised three sons in our neighborhood. One was killed in an accident around age 16 while riding in a buddy’s car. It was an unfathomable tragedy. So — and this is the point, things beyond comprehending — was the murder. When Dad turned 80 this fall, my sister asked one of the sons, now a restaurateur, if we could hold a big celebration at one of his places. He surprised us by comping it, his tribute to the man who had stood by his family.

To those of “you” who know others like my dad, or can see yourselves doing the same thing, may you keep the faith. 

With respect to friends or family where does one draw the line. If someone thinks that Trump is great because that someone believes in deregulation, lower business taxes, a semi-isolationist foreign policy or strict immigration laws, but considers all of Trump's flaws trivial or irrelevant or a distraction, or is cynical enough to believe all politicians have similar flaws, that is one-thing.

But what do you do with a friend or relative who is an actual White Supremist, or believes all Gay people should be executed?  

Imagine if you belonged to this family.

Mitford sisters[edit]

Jessica, Nancy, Diana, Unity, and Pamela Mitford in 1935

The sisters achieved notoriety for their controversial but stylish lives as young people, then for their public political divisions between communism and fascism. Nancy and Jessica became well-known writers: Nancy wrote The Pursuit of Love and Love in a Cold Climate, and Jessica The American Way of Death (1963). Deborah managed one of the most successful stately homes in England, Chatsworth. Jessica and Deborah married nephews of prime ministers Winston Churchill and Harold Macmillan, respectively. Deborah and Diana both married wealthy aristocrats. Unity and Diana were well-known during the 1930s for being close to Adolf Hitler. Jessica turned her back on her inherited privileges and ran away to become a communist, a result of the excitement of European politics in the 1930s. Jessica's memoir, Hons and Rebels, describes their upbringing, and Nancy obviously drew upon her family members for characters in her novels. In the early 1980s, Deborah became politically active when she and her husband Andrew Cavendish, 11th Duke of Devonshire joined the new Social Democratic Party.

The sisters and their brother Thomas were the children of David Bertram Ogilvy Freeman-Mitford, 2nd Baron Redesdale, known to his children as "Farve" and by various other nicknames. Their mother was Sydney Freeman-Mitford, Baroness Redesdale, known as "Muv", the daughter of Thomas Bowles. David and Sydney married in 1904. The family homes changed from Batsford House to Asthall Manor beside the River Windrush in Oxfordshire, and then Swinbrook Cottage nearby, with a house at Rutland Gate in London.^[3] They also lived in a cottage in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire which they used as a summer residence.^[4] The siblings grew up in an aristocratic country house with emotionally distant parents and a large household with numerous servants; this family dynamic was not unusual for upper-class families of the time. There was also a disregard for formal education of women of the family, and they were expected to marry at a young age to a financially well-off husband. The children had a private language called "Boudledidge" (pronounced "bowdledidge"), and each had a different nickname for the others.

Upon the outbreak of the Second World War, their political views came into sharper relief. "Farve" remained a conservative, but "Muv" usually supported her fascist daughters, and the couple separated in the late 1940s. Nancy, a moderate socialist, worked in London during the Blitz. Pamela remained seemingly non-political, although she was reportedly an anti-Semite.^[5] Tom, a fascist, refused to fight Germany but volunteered to fight against Imperial Japan; he was killed in action a short time after arriving in Asia. Diana, married to Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, was imprisoned in London for three years under Defence Regulation 18B. Unity, distraught over the war declaration against Germany, tried to commit suicide by shooting herself in the head. She suffered brain damage which eventually led to her early death. Jessica, a communist supporter, had moved to the US, but her husband Esmond Romilly volunteered for the RCAF and died when his bomber developed mechanical problems over the North Sea.^[6] In numerous letters Jessica stated that her daughter received a pension from the Canadian government from Esmond's death until she turned 18.^[6] The political rift between Jessica and Diana left them estranged until their deaths. The other sisters kept in frequent contact. The sisters were prolific letter-writers, and a substantial body of correspondence still exists, principally letters between them.^[2]

We can have different opinions about trade, the deficit, taxes, and other "political" issues. There is no opinion on being a white supremacist/neo nazi. No matter why you say you voted for Trump, there is no getting away with the fact that you were okay with voting for a racist. So that says something about you that many people (including relatives) can no longer stomach.

Fortunately, there are no Trump voters in my family. I have a friend who voted for him and has posted some very questionable Breitbart stuff. His feelings are hurt because I haven't reached out to him since before the election. The fact is my family is not white and I won't have someone in my home who voted for someone who purposefully stirs up racial animosity and puts my loved ones in danger. Full stop.

If policy discussion is driving you from family and friends I would suggest the issues that needs to be dealt with do not lie within the political realm.

This is a tough one but one that I have to confront everyday.   And someone above mentioned talking about issues rather than Trump is one strategy I use.    I don't have family members who would ever speak highly of the man, thank God, but I do have family members who voted for him.   We don't talk about him.   But we can talk about issues.  And that's that.  

Jackson_Fusion said:

If policy discussion is driving you from family and friends I would suggest the issues that needs to be dealt with do not lie within the political realm.

That is too general a statement. 

What if your family or friends include Dreamers or undocumented immigrants.

But this also seems too general:

eliz said:

 The fact is my family is not white and I won't have someone in my home who voted for someone who purposefully stirs up racial animosity and puts my loved ones in danger. Full stop.

There are non-white people who voted for Trump and some white people who do not believe that Trump is stirring up racial animosity, no matter how hard THAT is to believe.

Not at all. Principle is principle.

Jackson_Fusion said:

If policy discussion is driving you from family and friends I would suggest the issues that needs to be dealt with do not lie within the political realm.

DaveSchmidt said:

When you two say “you,” referring to people in general and implying that this particular outlook of yours speaks for everyone, you’re mistaken. Because it doesn’t apply to my dad, who, when a longtime friend murdered his wife, also a dear friend, in the first degree seven years ago, visited him regularly in jail and prison until the friend died of cancer behind bars.

Sure, but in the case you cited, the individual committed a murder and then stopped.  Could your father have maintained his friendship if this guy if he was killing a new family member each day?

Jackson_Fusion said:

If policy discussion is driving you from family and friends I would suggest the issues that needs to be dealt with do not lie within the political realm.

I would agree with this.  I doubt people are being driven apart by policy discussions however.  People are being driven apart by fundamental differences in values.

Personally, I can get through a dinner with just about anyone and get along. I know when to keep quiet.  It's usually pretty easy to spot the people who aren't interested in a dialogue.

as stated multiple times - this is not about policy decisions.

Jackson_Fusion said:

If policy discussion is driving you from family and friends I would suggest the issues that needs to be dealt with do not lie within the political realm.

among my uncles and cousins I was always the odd man out.  Even a discussion about baseball would take a wrong turn when my uncle would go on and on about how overpaid today's players are.  "Joe DiMaggio never made more that $100,000 a year!!  And the last bum on the bench now gets $5 million!"  I knew he didn't want to hear about how much revenue MLB generates on the backs of all of its talent (including the guys on the bench).  So it was "Uh, huh.  So how do you like the pot roast?"

and none of that has anything to do with what we are saying.

DaveSchmidt, thanks for the story, perfect for Christmas imo.  Great dad, and at a guess, no surprise if you're a pretty thoughtful person too.

Thank you, mjc.

I think the problem may be your own perceptions.  Comparing the support of a politician is different from murder and child molestation.  

While the former may indicate that the person has a differing POV from yours and is even misguided(in the worst case), the latter indicates that the person knowingly performs evil acts.   And I might say that while I might choose to disassociate with a friend who does these latter things, I'm still not sure I have that choice with a family member. 

There is a lot of misinformation out there on both sides.  It is interesting for me to watch.  Generally speaking I listen to a whole lot of nonsense from friends and family on the right.  But, I have to say that I also hear a lot of nonsense from friends and family on the left. 

But reading these posts, I'm convinced that if you are having problems with your friends and family that problem is you.  Rather than trying to understand you are lumping them in with the very worst that society has to offer: murderers and child molesters.  

I can deal with people who irrationally like Trump.  I can deal with people who irrationally hate Trump.  What is truly objectionable is to lose your perspective enough to lump loved ones with different opinions with the the worst society has to offer. edrummerboy said:

It's not a question of "opinion".

We see the devil incarnate. As vile a person we've ever seen. Not one redeemable trait. Not one.


They don't.

Because they want and choose to see a Republican, and ignore evil.


That's a problem for us.


It's like finding out someone was a "xxxxxxx". (fill in some vile criminality)

It may not completely define a person, but it points to a dark side hitherto unknown to you, which makes you fundamentally re-evaluate your relationship. Can you chummy up like before with a murderer? an embezzler? a molester?


I might possibly change my view of this if I were to hear one single Trump supporter explain to me how they can justify their support, based on what they know about him. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there actually is a redeemable quality to this man.


I've read many explanations (WaPo and NYT have a mission to print as many as they can find.). Not one is convincing.

conandrob240 said:

This is sort of like saying being a pedophile or a racist or a murderer don't completely define a person. Well, technically they probably have other characteristics, some might even be good. But the heinousness of that one part of their character doesn't allow you to respect or want to have a relationship with that person.

terp said:

I think it is tough when you cannot discuss any topic with family.  However, we should always enter into a conversation willing to listen and learn from the other side.  No matter who you are you don't have all the answers.

We certainly should not write off family and friends due to what we may percieve as an objectionable opinion.  If its out of character then its likely that we just don't understand why they hold that opinion.  Take it from someone who almost never agrees with friends and family.  

Anyway, it is likely that these opinions do not completely define this person. Otherwise, you probably wouldn't have cared about them in the first place.

It's christmas. Let's cut our loved ones a break every now and again.

nah, I have no issues with family and friends. I have one family member who I know of who supported Trump. I could live with that. I could hear her side. But continuing to support him, re-posting some of the vile, disgusting, racist things he’s said and posting things around what amount to personal, racist attacks towards Obama and others- that’s when I’m out. I’ll see you at family gatherings, I’ll be cordial to you but I have no interest in a sustained friendship/relationship with someone who thinks like that. 

Certain political movements have always preached that there are some you simply cannot ever reach. 

And then the eventual question- whatever shall we do about them? 

Klinker said:

Sure, but in the case you cited, the individual committed a murder and then stopped.  Could your father have maintained his friendship if this guy if he was killing a new family member each day?

Suppose one of your cousins is an abortion doctor and another is a Roman Catholic Bishop who believes the first is committing murder every day?

Far-fetched. I am sure I can find families where this is a serious issue. 

the country and the world are going to move away from the worst of the worst. It's part of why many of them are so angry. They have that sense that the world as they know it is disappearing.  But it has always been this way.  It's not as though there are still people out there arguing for slavery or arguing that "no Irish need apply."  In another generation, enough of the population will have Latin American heritage, that the notion that Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists will appear the way Bull Connor turning the firehouse on civil rights activists looks today.

ml1 said:

the country and the world are going to move away from the worst of the worst. It's part of why many of them are so angry. They have that sense that the world as they know it is disappearing.  But it has always been this way.  It's not as though there are still people out there arguing for slavery or arguing that "no Irish need apply."  In another generation, enough of the population will have Latin American heritage, that the notion that Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists will appear the way Bull Connor turning the firehouse on civil rights activists looks today.

And this is what is terrifying to their ilk. The "Make America Great Again" posse are nervous they won't recognize their own. It's a ridiculous, crazy notion that fuels anti-everything. Both my husband and I come from mixed race families and know many who do. We've never plotted to overthrow the gov't, marry into the Trump clan nor have we acquired obscene amounts of wealth that was stolen from Caucasians. Again, it's stupid and it's said to encourage white nationalism disguised as patriotism. How many in Trump's cabinet served in any war versus the men and women who are of Hispanic heritage in the U.S.?

I think there may be a difference between 5 time DNC delegate Bull Connor’s attacks on American citizens and Americans of any political stripe hoping to see immigration laws enforced.

Jackson_Fusion said:

I think there may be a difference between 5 time DNC delegate Bull Connor’s attacks on American citizens and Americans of any political stripe hoping to see immigration laws enforced.

calling Mexicans drug dealers and rapists isn't the same thing as enforcing immigration laws.

I'd like to know what would qualify as "irrational" hatred of Donald Trump. I've always considered Trump to be a pretty awful person even before he ran for office.  He's a bully, a bigot, a con man and a misogynist.  I think it's pretty rational to hate Donald Trump the person.

ml1 said:

I'd like to know what would qualify as "irrational" hatred of Donald Trump. I've always considered Trump to be a pretty awful person even before he ran for office.  He's a bully, a bigot, a con man and a misogynist.  I think it's pretty rational to hate Donald Trump the person.

This.

ml1 said:

It's not as though there are still people out there arguing for slavery or arguing that "no Irish need apply." 

Of course there are. Many argue that the prison system is an off-shoot of slavery. As is immigrant farm labor. And maybe it's not the Irish, but it sure can be gays, blacks, or Jews.

shoshannah said:

ml1 said:

It's not as though there are still people out there arguing for slavery or arguing that "no Irish need apply." 

Of course there are. Many argue that the prison system is an off-shoot of slavery. As is immigrant farm labor. And maybe it's not the Irish, but it sure can be gays, blacks, or Jews.

I wasn't suggesting we're near the end of bigotry in this country. Just pointing out that the specific type espoused by Trump and many of his followers is on the wane.

The OP didn't want this to be a political discussion. So much for that.