Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

How to talk politics without talking trash

Experts offer tips for keeping your cool amid the heated political debate

By Marc Shulgold, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published October 12, 2008 at 3 p.m.

Text size  

Photo by Marie Griffin, Rocky Mountain News

Jim Anderson, consultant

Jim Anderson, consultant

Sandy Connolly, bank teller

Sandy Connolly, bank teller

Paul Vondle, investment adviser

Paul Vondle, investment adviser

Marie McCord, petroleum landman

Marie McCord, petroleum landman

Bree Eddy, corporate secretary

Bree Eddy, corporate secretary

Gary Langford, energy company engineer

Gary Langford, energy company engineer

Jaquelyn Gratrix, administrative assistant for a financial-services firm

Jaquelyn Gratrix, administrative assistant for a financial-services firm

Jonathan Caswell, banker

Jonathan Caswell, banker

More More Living

More stories »

As usual, Oscar Wilde said it best: "Arguments are to be avoided - they are always vulgar and often convincing."

In the heat of the presidential campaign and now the accompanying economic crisis, political rancor has surfaced in America's homes, workplaces, barbershops and taverns. Friends, lovers, family members and strangers engage in debates and discussions that all too often turn ugly - as Wilde observed. And rarely is there any convincing going on.

Some folks enjoy the intellectual sparring, some run from any hint of it. Most accept that it's part of life in these politically and economically fragile times. Yet, in a country founded on free speech, we shouldn't downplay its importance.

Stimulating debates are one thing; finger-pointing, name-calling and fisticuffs are another. Is it possible to keep matters civil? Experts believe it is. Here they offer some advice that's hard to argue with.

* Establish ground rules and stick to them. Easy to say, hard to do, says Englewood-based author Debra Fine (The Fine Art of Small Talk, Hyperion Books). "You can't enforce ground rules on other people," she says, "so you have to enforce them on yourself. Speak your opinions, but don't exceed 4 minutes, then let them speak theirs. Don't monopolize, don't proselytize. Make it a tennis volley rather than a batting-cage session."

* Agree to disagree. "People fight - it's human nature," reminds Gail Laguna of the online Jewish dating service JDate. "A lot of people enjoy it, couples in particular. But it's important to keep things in perspective, to find common ground on issues. I know it's tough to sit back and listen to another viewpoint, but appreciate that it's part of what makes each of us unique and individual."

* Don't feel compelled to hold things in. Fine told of a poker party her husband attended that soon fell into a lively conversation about the economic bailout. "There was no alcohol involved," she said, "but it still grew into loud, bombastic words, with guys almost coming to blows.

"It's OK to express your emotions and your passions. Sometimes, though, if you're determined to win, it can harm relationships with friends and family."

* Opposites sometimes attract. Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver, James Carville and Mary Matalin. Although it's usually a recipe for disaster, couples who belong to opposing political parties can coexist. Laguna forwarded an e-mail from one of JDate's clients:

"Not only would I date outside of my political party, I married a Republican (and divorced him - oops). I've dated both Dems and Republicans. It's all good, as long as we don't talk politics (or eat crackers) in bed."

Stick to the rules of civility, enjoy the conversation and leave any differences behind after the discussion.

* Show respect for your adversary. There's a certain personality type, Fine observed, that feels compelled to interrupt an opponent. Instead, Fine says, "Become a good listener. Let them complete their thought. You can also show respect in your tone of voice. Don't be condescending.

"And please, just because you're passionate, you don't have to be reduced to profanity or name-calling. Make it a fair fight."

* Don't invite trouble in your choice of dinner-party guests, but if you encounter it, take control. "If it were my home and things got out of hand," Fine said, "I would interject something like, 'This is becoming heated. Let's change the subject. So, how are your kids doing at college?' "

Laguna added that planning can be helpful. "If you know that a guest has a different view from the others, prepare them. Decide in advance how to handle things. . . . My advice is to avoid inviting guests who you know will cause a ruckus. You don't put a wolf and a lamb together."

* It's OK to avoid confrontations. "There's nothing wrong with saying, 'Let's not talk politics,' " Fine says. "When someone presses for your opinion and you don't want to respond, a simple 'No comment' is perfectly acceptable."

But what if a confrontational person happens to be a significant other? "Should they insist on engaging in discussion," Laguna said, "try to find another outlet. If that doesn't work, maybe that relationship isn't meant to be.

"Look, in every relationship there's some tiptoeing. Sometimes you have to bite your lip," Laguna said. "And there are other subjects such as money and religion that are common sources of arguments."

As the Irish proverb goes, "Better be quarreling than lonesome."

Do you talk politics with family and friends? Why or why not? Here's what people on the 16th Street Mall had to say:

Jim Anderson, consultant:

"A good friend of mine has views that are opposite from mine. It never gets out of hand. They say it's best to stay away from politics and religion in conversation with friends. But with him, it's always an intellectual discussion. I like arguing with him. He's a financial planner, so he's economy-based in his approach. I'm not afraid to go there - it's part of the fun. We've argued about the flat tax and about the (presidential) election. When he said that Obama lacked experience, I said that no experience other than actually being president will do. Really, only Eisenhower had the proper experience to be president, when you think about it."

Sandy Connolly, bank teller:

"I try to stay away (from heated political arguments). Everyone has their opinions and beliefs. I do like politics, and I think it's important to be well-informed. But I don't engage with my family. I might question their opinions now and then, and I might join in a group discussion. But if it gets out of hand, I might act as a peacemaker. I just think that politics are not something friends should argue about."

Paul Vondle, investment adviser:

"I enjoy talking politics, but I do shy away from arguing. When my family brings up the subject, I tend to simply observe. There are differences among us, but we all try to be respectful. I was never too political growing up. But I am interested, and I do like watching the debates."

Marie McCord, petroleum landman:

"We've had heated arguments in the family. But we do hear everybody's point of view. My stepson, who's 16, just got involved in politics, but we let him go and find his own position on things. He started out on one side, but then he changed his mind."

Jonathan Caswell, banker:

"I am adamant about my views, but I like to avoid engaging in political discussions with friends, family and co-workers. Especially my family - they come first in my life. Politics are very important in my family, and I do enjoy trying to convince them (of my views), but we're able to say, "Let's agree to disagree." I did watch the (first presidential) debate with co-workers, and I started a discussion with them - but I don't talk religion or politics in the office."

Bree Eddy, corporate secretary:

"I'm one of the lone Republicans in the office. When everyone else started bashing McCain, I told them I didn't want to hear it - and they respected that. After that, when they start talking politics, I ignore them or just leave the room. All they were doing was echoing what they'd heard on TV. If they approached me, I'd make it clear that I didn't want to talk about (politics). I'm basically pretty quiet, but if they approach me, I don't bad-mouth Obama - I just point out what I like about McCain. Mostly now, we talk about other subjects."

Gary Langford, energy company engineer:

"My family does talk politics, and it does get spirited at times. But this year, we're trying to be objective. Everyone has their opinions, and I don't see them changing their minds. It seems that politics have gotten a lot more personal these days. With me, I don't like arguing on something where I don't have all the facts. For most of us, we tend to repeat the opinions of other people, quoting their talking points. Really, how many people really know what they believe? My views are in transition - I'm changing sides based on my personal situation."

Jaquelyn Gratrix, administrative assistant for a financial-services firm:

"My dad and stepmom have views that are different from the rest of the family. I don't get into it, because he's my dad. We all accept each other's different views. No one is trying to change anyone's opinions. Actually, we agree on most issues - but it's hard for us to agree on candidates. The truth is, Dad isn't all that far off from my views. I think it challenges you more to think about your views when there's a discussion going on. It puts you on the defensive."

Fun and (political) games

* Loaded Questions: Political Party ($14.95, available at Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com and loadedquestions.com). Rather than descend into heated, appetite-killing political discourse, try playing this parlor game with your dinner-party guests.

The latest in the Loaded Questions series, this one is less about politics and more about personality insight. Players write down responses to questions posed on cards and drawn from four categories.

The queries range from "Who would make a terrible first lady?" to "What is your biggest conspiracy theory?" to "What would you not expect to find in the Oval Office?" As each anonymous answer is read aloud, players try to guess who wrote it. There are no right or wrong answers - a pleasant way to avoid a nasty night of political haggling.

Are you talking politics with family and friends this election season? Tell us by voting at: RockyMountainNews/extras

Comments

  • October 12, 2008

    3:53 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    FCZ writes:

    Ronald Reagan`s Funny answer

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwn...

  • October 12, 2008

    6:25 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cowboy63 writes:

    It's also good to bear in mind "what goes around, comes around".

    The pendulum ALWAYS swings back to the other side eventually. If your party is down today, just stick around.

    When it comes to politics, it's always a comfort to remember just how little actually changes no matter who is in charge. Contrary to popular belief; we are NOT living in a Fascist, Theocracy, Dictatorship under Bush; NOR are we going to be living in a Fascist, Communist, Dictatorship under Obama. The extremes of either side never come to pass.

    For all our partisanship, Americans like a predictable, middle of the road government. Extremism from any side is never tolerated for any period of time.

  • October 12, 2008

    8:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    Cowboy63
    Sorry kimosabe, you're wrong, dead wrong. The pendulum never swings back with a filibuster-proof Congress. The GOP will be politically-corrected out of existence with a new round of civil rights and thought crimes.

    Our generation guarded against Orwell's 1984. This generation seeks 1984.

  • October 12, 2008

    9:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    EXrepublican writes:

    HopiMedicineMan,
    Lay off the peace pipe for a while will ya?
    George Bush led with Orwellian tactics. and plans... like take for instance Iraq... it is war for wars sake Just as in Orwell's 1984.
    controlling the masses through fear and manipulation. only as it turns out, FOX news is the "Administration of Propaganda."

    READ 1984 again, without the peace pipe ok?

  • October 12, 2008

    9:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    titancain

    Only one candidate knows how little power a president holds. Obama will make the same mistakes (If he wins) that Carter, Reagan and Bush I made. He inherits a bureaucracy that knows the President is limited. They are civil servants and firing them takes longer a full term of office for one or two at the higher levels. Carter was used to the Southern Governor situation where, at that time at least, the Governor was able to control the workers in his statehouse and his state. He inherited a situation where, during the campaign, a common joke was, "What is made of hot glass and glows in the dark? Answer: "Iran ten minutes after Reagan takes the oath of office." Carter looked inept and was powerless in the face of the Washington civil service.
    Reagan campaigned on a platform of change and actually tried to change the alphabet soup runaround. He actually spoke on the subject attempting to get Congress to consolidate agencies whose duties and responsibilities overlap. He failed.
    Bush I tried to streamline agency interactions. No progress and no action by Congress.
    Clinton fought with several agencies whose communications were varied and whose productivity stunk. Part of his introduction to Monica was because he was trying to understand the workings of the system inside the White House to do a better job.
    Bush II also asked for the consolidations of several agencies communications. 9/11 broke down walls between several law enforcement agencies so they could communicate. That only happened because too many eyes and ears were paying attention. The result is territorial battles, jealousy and budget demands.

    Obama and McCain both hope to make government more efficient. Neither will succeed without a divine intervention.

    Little will change. There won't be a veto-proof Congress or even a rubber stamp one. Bush had 6 years of all three houses being GOP and was unable to make any domestic changes that were unrelated to the War on Terror.

    Obama seems to have good intentions and not enough hands on knowledge of how it is done in Washington. If he wins, he'll learn. McCain already knows. He might even think he knows a way to change things. Lobbyists will swarm any new administration either directly or through their parties. Times change. Someday maybe Washington will.

  • October 13, 2008

    4:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    BO is young. He would have made a good President or even a great one with more experience outside of Illinois. That doesn't mean he'd do a bad job if he wins. He won't be able to do the job he envisions because he will be like the new kid in the office who got his job at a high level because of his education and job interview. The learning curve for such jobs includes the nose into a brick wall experience all idealists suffer and most learn from.

    People like that who are, as I believe Obama to be, honest idealists with a strong desire to make a difference do much better if they wait , as my father suggested to me, six months, before voicing any suggestions that aren't asked for. Make a detailed note of your thoughts and suggestions, date it and put it in a box. Six months later you will still find many that are good ideas. You will also find some real clunkersl You'll know how to make them suggestions that will be more than wastebasket fodder.

    Obama needs more Washington time. It's good for the country, but not my party, that if he loses this time he will get another chance in fifteen to twenty years and his "box" will be full to the brim with well refined practical applications. He will breeze to victory.

    Should he win, expect a Clinton challenge in four years. The financial mess, the war and the two widely separate sides will make re-election for whichever candidate wins a nearly impossible task. I have come to like Obama. I'm still voting for McCain because I support more of his programs than I do Obama's.

    The best thing that can come from the present situation is a reformatting, to use a computer term, of the Washington system. Too many alphabet soup agencies that overlap responsibilities, yet refuse to combine as one agency. Think of three department managers at the beginning of the computer revolution in the late 80's and early 90's.

    Those three managers can be represented as Billing, Collections and Records. With computers, all three can be recorded in the same place by half the current number of workers. Only one manager will keep a job at the managerial level. There would be a massive territorial battle and, in a non-union, private business where the owner/manager has the last, final word, six months of chaos.
    With the Washington civil service and the "protected" positions, there will be a massive resistance and a decade or more of posturing, pouting and sabotage. Many will end up stuffed into smaller jobs with the same paycheck. The positions will only disappear upon retirement IF the politicians decide to stand firm for that long.

    Today there is enough momentum to begin the process. The war on terror made it possible to combine many security agencies. When you read about experts who complain about policies or other things, look to see if they used to be in charge of some agency and that agency is now part of a merger of several. It's one thing Bush got right.

  • October 14, 2008

    9:25 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Marshdale writes:

    Cowboy63;

    How diplomatic of you. I do believe you are largly correct. Depending on which party it is, favoritism will lean one way or the other, but never go to far.

    Great comment Cowboy.

  • October 14, 2008

    2:18 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Andy writes:

    "Sorry kimosabe, you're wrong, dead wrong. The pendulum never swings back with a filibuster-proof Congress."

    No, he isn't. The Democrats had filibuster-proof majorities in 1932 and 1964.

  • October 14, 2008

    4:33 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ashley writes:

    I agree with Marshdale and Cowboy. I find you a tad patriarchal, p_myers661. Youth does not preclude greatness, any more than age guarantees wisdom. Look at Strom Thurmund.