Political breakups of friendships, relationships, and family ties

[C C]

Apparently the successor to old religious denomination squabbles and incompatibilities. (Though political divisions were historically volatile, too -- they're just getting double duty now as the former passions erode into generic gatherings and circling of the wagons). Both types of conflict involve discordance in ideology (doctrine) and morality. Secular scholars invent their socioeconomic prescriptions as much as the transcendental pundits do theirs, and both may wave at some abstract justification (from "invisible hand" to dialectical process to "nature hates oppression") as obligating _X_ to be adhered to. Albeit the spiritual genre blatantly personifies its supervising concepts more often.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Political breakups of friendships, relationships, and family ties
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1126324

PRESS RELEASE: More than a third of Americans have lost relationships with friends, family members, romantic partners, or others due to political differences, according to a study. Mertcan Güngör and Peter Ditto examined survey data from thousands of American adults to explore the interpersonal consequences of political polarization in the United States.

In 2025, some 37% of Americans reported having experienced a political breakup—a percentage that appears to have increased since 2016. Of those who reported a political breakup, 62% had a breakup with a friend, 40% with a family member, 29% with a coworker, and 10% with a romantic partner.

Democrats were more likely than Republicans to report having had a political breakup and being the initiator of one. The authors also found that people who lost relationships over politics tended to have particularly negative feelings about their political opponents, overestimate the extremity of their opponents’ political views, and think their opponents had selfish motives.

According to the authors, “bridge-burning” over politics can harm both democracy and individual well-being, contributing to increased polarization and loneliness.
_

 

[exchemist]

Apparently the successor to old religious denomination squabbles and incompatibilities. (Though political divisions were historically volatile, too -- they're just getting double duty now as the former passions erode into generic gatherings and circling of the wagons). Both types of conflict involve discordance in ideology (doctrine) and morality. Secular scholars invent their socioeconomic prescriptions as much as the transcendental pundits do theirs, and both may wave at some abstract justification (from "invisible hand" to dialectical process to "nature hates oppression") as obligating _X_ to be adhered to. Albeit the spiritual genre blatantly personifies its supervising concepts more often).
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Political breakups of friendships, relationships, and family ties
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1126324

PRESS RELEASE: More than a third of Americans have lost relationships with friends, family members, romantic partners, or others due to political differences, according to a study. Mertcan Güngör and Peter Ditto examined survey data from thousands of American adults to explore the interpersonal consequences of political polarization in the United States.

In 2025, some 37% of Americans reported having experienced a political breakup—a percentage that appears to have increased since 2016. Of those who reported a political breakup, 62% had a breakup with a friend, 40% with a family member, 29% with a coworker, and 10% with a romantic partner.

Democrats were more likely than Republicans to report having had a political breakup and being the initiator of one. The authors also found that people who lost relationships over politics tended to have particularly negative feelings about their political opponents, overestimate the extremity of their opponents’ political views, and think their opponents had selfish motives.

According to the authors, “bridge-burning” over politics can harm both democracy and individual well-being, contributing to increased polarization and loneliness.
_

No doubt it was the same in 1930s Germany.

 

[billvon]

No doubt it was the same in 1930s Germany.

On the plus side we got Einstein, James Franck, Leo Szilard, Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner from that exodus. And, a little later, von Braun.

On the minus side I can think of a power engineer, a physicist and an ER doctor who just left/are leaving the US to avoid Trump's attacks. (One was a trans woman.) And that's just the people I know. On a larger scale, 75% of American scientists said they had considered leaving the country in a recent Nature survey, and applications to foreign research programs are climbing. They are headed to Canada and China mainly.

 

[exchemist]

On the plus side we got Einstein, James Franck, Leo Szilard, Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner from that exodus. And, a little later, von Braun.

On the minus side I can think of a power engineer, a physicist and an ER doctor who just left/are leaving the US to avoid Trump's attacks. (One was a trans woman.) And that's just the people I know. On a larger scale, 75% of American scientists said they had considered leaving the country in a recent Nature survey, and applications to foreign research programs are climbing. They are headed to Canada and China mainly.

Well a brain drain effect is a bit of a different subject.

What I had in mind is that when politics takes a dark turn and starts attacking the institutions of the state and demonising whole swathes of citizens, it is not surprising that many people will feel under threat and hostility will result.

 

[billvon]

Well a brain drain effect is a bit of a different subject.

What I had in mind is that when politics takes a dark turn and starts attacking the institutions of the state and demonising whole swathes of citizens, it is not surprising that many people will feel under threat and hostility will result.

Ah, sorry. I thought you were talking about the ones actually leaving.

 

[TheVat]

My guess is when ideology leads to marital or close friend breakups it's probably more that underlying philosophical/spiritual differences come to light. I doubt people become estranged over trade balance or federal fiscal policies or levels of bureaucracy - it's going to be hot button issues with a moral underpinning that goes to one's basic feelings about social freedoms and rights and duty of care towards the vulnerable.

Never heard anyone split over "I'm a Monetarist, he's a Keynesian, it was horrible!"

More things like "He didn't believe in my right to choose," (reproductive rights), or "She is okay with deporting our Latino roofing crew and their children to the Congo." Those are more serious rifts AFAICT.

 

[Roosters for ever]

PRESS RELEASE: More than a third of Americans have lost relationships with friends, family members, romantic partners, or others due to political differences, according to a study

Sadly to a certain extent, this seems to be on the rise in Australia.
We have at present a slightly left of center government who romped in our elections a few months ago.
We have had many elections where the two prominent parties, left and right of the political divide, have romped in elections, but the general populace accepts this and normality seemingly carries on.
Sadly, this seems to be waning. While a large proportion of our Australian voters are "swinging voters" there is now a larger proportion that are choosing the far right. The rise of the party calling itself "One Nation" led by a Pauline Hanson is the best example of this. It has displaced the Liberals, (our right of center) party as second preference for the first time ever.
In my opinion this seems to have developed with the onset of social media, and the lies and bullshit, both sides, (but particularly the right) have posted. Issues where that divide has seen shifts towards the extreme ends of the political divide are (1) climate change. (2) Vaccinations. (3) Immigration. (4) and an issue peculiar to Australia with recognition of our indigenous people by "welcome to country" ceremonies held at major sporting events, and the flying of three flags, our national recognised flag, and two representing our indigenous people and Torres Straight Islanders.
So far right that we now have a problem with some crazy "new Nazis" regime, who often infiltrate right wing marches, creating as much turmoil as they can. Thankfully they are now mostly banned.

 

[Seattle]

In the US the "Progressive" wing does seem to be the "new religion". Like religion it's about morality and it's tolerant only if it's their morality.

It's also generally just addressing first world problems (petty) but not in all cases of course. One side complains about "Boomers" and "privilege" and the other side just deals with reality.

As an example, when people escape Cuba and make it to Miami, they rarely become "Progressive". They generally just deal with reality, display some discipline, don't complain about the "declining American Dream" or wealth inequality, they generally do quite well and become "unequally wealthy" themselves.

That, IMO, is generally the reason for some more extreme right of center movements in various countries. It's an overreaction and it's not the best judgment call but I think it is a reaction to the "Progressive" excesses.

Anticipating Bill's replies, no I'm not for slavery, am for women having the vote and all the civil rights laws of the 60s and 70s

 

[billvon]

Anticipating Bill's replies, no I'm not for slavery, am for women having the vote and all the civil rights laws of the 60s and 70s

Welcome to the progressive side!

 

[James R]

In the US the "Progressive" wing does seem to be the "new religion". Like religion it's about morality and it's tolerant only if it's their morality.

Meanwhile, in the US, the "Conservative" wing is very much sticking with the "old religion". Christian nationalism is their thing, and it's tolerant only if it's their morality.

That, IMO, is generally the reason for some more extreme right of center movements in various countries.

You think progressives are to blame for your MAGA Christian nationalists, do you? There's a novel idea.

 

[Seattle]

Meanwhile, in the US, the "Conservative" wing is very much sticking with the "old religion". Christian nationalism is their thing, and it's tolerant only if it's their morality.

You think progressives are to blame for your MAGA Christian nationalists, do you? There's a novel idea.

I agree with both of your points.

 

[Seattle]

Welcome to the progressive side!

You mean welcome to the debating club.

 

[James R]

I agree with both of your points.

I see. Can you please tell why you think that progressives are responsible for Christian nationalism.

 

[Seattle]

I see. Can you please tell why you think that progressives are responsible for Christian nationalism.

It's not that progressivism is directly responsible for Christian anything (other than a push back to traditionalism) and it's the same with nationalism.

I'm just saying that when you swing too far from common sense, taking care of business, and go to blaming "greedy corporations, Billionaires, privilege, wealth inequality" that's where the pendulum swings as it goes too far in the other direction.

Progressives focus on petty first world issues and at a certain point, some are going to say "enough". No more looking for victims, something to feel slighted about, and so the focus becomes EU take care of your own self-defense, have some controls on immigration, do something about drugs and people living on the streets, etc.

Again, the example to the point I'm trying to make might be Cubans escaping to Miami. Those are the true victims and yet they want no part of progressives and the victim game. They aren't blaming Boomers, the Billionaires, corporations, etc.

They just work hard, have discipline and they do well while the victim embracing crowd just complains.

 

[exchemist]

Meanwhile, in the US, the "Conservative" wing is very much sticking with the "old religion". Christian nationalism is their thing, and it's tolerant only if it's their morality.

You think progressives are to blame for your MAGA Christian nationalists, do you? There's a novel idea.

I don't think that's a novel idea. I think it is fairly well understood now that movements like MAGA, or Reform in the UK, and similar phenomena in Europe - even Australia? - are in significant part due to reaction against what one could call the leading edges of a progressive agenda that many people do not yet buy into. They are reactionary movements.

In the UK this might include reaction against the blurring of nationhood implicit in membership of the EU - hence Brexit- or the recent revisions of British history to highlight alternative viewpoints, notably the role that colonialism has played. This goes down well with the more recent immigrants but challenges the complacent self-image of the old whites, getting their hackles up. And of course immigration, itself a form of blowback from the colonial era, is resented by communities whose character has been radically changed within a generation. And then there is the sexual liberation stuff, e.g. promotion of gay lifestyle, the recent noisy trans agenda and so forth. [pause here for Tiassa to start foaming at the mouth, haha. ]

These are the sorts of issues on which liberal opinion (yours, mine, probably that of most others on this forum) can get rather ahead of the average bloke in the pub. And so they get turned off and start voting for Farage or someone, who tells it like it isn't, but in a way that validates their comfortable prejudices. It's a kind of rejection of modernity: a turning back to a sepia-tinted, nostalgic version of the past that never truly existed but which they would nevertheless like to try to recapture.

 

[C C]

It's not that progressivism is directly responsible for Christian anything (other than a push back to traditionalism) and it's the same with nationalism.

I'm just saying that when you swing too far from common sense, taking care of business, and go to blaming "greedy corporations, Billionaires, privilege, wealth inequality" that's where the pendulum swings as it goes too far in the other direction.

Progressives focus on petty first world issues and at a certain point, some are going to say "enough". No more looking for victims, something to feel slighted about, and so the focus becomes EU take care of your own self-defense, have some controls on immigration, do something about drugs and people living on the streets, etc.

Again, the example to the point I'm trying to make might be Cubans escaping to Miami. Those are the true victims and yet they want no part of progressives and the victim game. They aren't blaming Boomers, the Billionaires, corporations, etc.

They just work hard, have discipline and they do well while the victim embracing crowd just complains.

Trump did systematically court or romance the proles for decades, along with traditionalist pundits independently drumming up the crescendo of the populist anti-elitism mantra over the same period. (Pejoratively depicting the establishment as an arrogant, posturing moral nobility or SJW aristocracy.) But it was also a case of the left incrementally alienating them and flyover country in subtle ways that Dems weren't fully conscious of themselves until it was too late. Items that the hoi polloi interpreted along these lines, whether warranted or not: "You people are the very source of lingering bigotry. You're no longer special to us" (i.e., prole jealousy about marginalized population groups now getting the attention, etc). And, of course, now that the disaffected plebeians are out in the open as vulgar MAGA, the other side is likewise overtly in their face with its own brand of disparagement (that no longer being subtle). Ergo, the tension and spectacle continue. Along with the astounding irony of the left losing the proles, though it was inevitable eventually since there really were plenty of insensitive, oppressive throwbacks among them in the opposite context of what contemporary humanities scholars value.
_

 

[exchemist]

Trump did systematically court or romance the proles for decades, along with traditionalist pundits independently drumming up the crescendo of the populist anti-elitism mantra over the same period. (Pejoratively depicting the establishment as an arrogant, posturing moral nobility or SJW aristocracy.) But it was also a case of the left incrementally alienating them and flyover country in subtle ways that Dems weren't fully conscious of themselves until it was too late. Items that the hoi polloi interpreted along these lines, whether warranted or not: "You people are the very source of lingering bigotry. You're no longer special to us" (i.e., prole jealousy about marginalized population groups now getting the attention, etc). And, of course, now that the disaffected plebeians are out in the open as vulgar MAGA, the other side is likewise overtly in their face with its own brand of disparagement (that no longer being subtle). Ergo, the tension and spectacle continue. Along with the astounding irony of the left losing the proles, though it was inevitable eventually since there really were plenty of insensitive, oppressive throwbacks among them in the opposite context of what contemporary humanities scholars value.
_

I think the point about the left losing the proles (to show a bit of respect to them, what I take that to mean is blue collar workers without a university degree.) is absolutely key. That has been happening in all the mature democracies.

 

[billvon]

You think progressives are to blame for your MAGA Christian nationalists, do you? There's a novel idea.

Blaming your opponents for everything bad that happens is a very common approach, especially nowadays.

Here in the US, being a progressive vs a conservative determines where you are on the Overton window - and that window moves over time, driven by progressives. Conservatives oppose that movement.

In 1860, progressives wanted to free the slaves. From a societal perspective, that idea was radical. The idea that a black man could marry a white woman was unthinkable.

Ten years later, freeing slaves was sensible to most Americans. Interracial marriage was radical.

By 1960, freedom for blacks was policy, and interracial marriage (now pushed by progressives) was acceptable.

And so it goes with most civil rights issues. Womens rights - gay marriage - trans rights - they all proceed along that same path, moving from unthinkable, to radical, to acceptable, to sensible, to popular. to policy. All of which were pushed by progressives and opposed by conservatives.

There are, of course, extremists on both sides, who often get 99% of the press over any given issue.

 

[Roosters for ever]

It's not that progressivism is directly responsible for Christian anything (other than a push back to traditionalism) and it's the same with nationalism.

I'm just saying that when you swing too far from common sense, taking care of business, and go to blaming "greedy corporations, Billionaires, privilege, wealth inequality" that's where the pendulum swings as it goes too far in the other direction.

Progressives focus on petty first world issues and at a certain point, some are going to say "enough". No more looking for victims, something to feel slighted about, and so the focus becomes EU take care of your own self-defense, have some controls on immigration, do something about drugs and people living on the streets, etc.

Progressives? The whole human race has thankfully progressed and evolved since we walked out of Africa.
The "problem" that it created was that some were inevitably disadvantaged..eg: the owners of slaves were disadvantaged when slavery was abolished. Other scum like the Ku Klux Klan were in there opinion "disadvantaged" when society saw the realities in all human species being equal, creating more competition for those same white supremacists.
The advancement of human society encompassed empathy for your fellow man, as opposed to turning the other way, or as you have put it, "no more looking for victims" and/or complaining. Just sweep it all under the carpet. The old "fuck you Jack, I'm alright" mentality again.

Again, the example to the point I'm trying to make might be Cubans escaping to Miami. Those are the true victims and yet they want no part of progressives and the victim game. They aren't blaming Boomers, the Billionaires, corporations, etc.

Those same Cuban victims like many immigrants, are escaping from a situation partly caused by the USA trade embargo, and are out to make a better life for themselves. They most probably see the inequality but such inequality is still better then the conditions they have left.

They just work hard, have discipline and they do well while the victim embracing crowd just complains.

And trying to avoid ICE, being thrown into prison and deported.
What is happening in the USA today is the boomers and billionares see themselves as being disadvantaged by human progression, empathy, equality and evolution, and are putting meaning into devolution and restoring the previous status quo.

 

[Seattle]

Progressives? The whole human race has thankfully progressed and evolved since we walked out of Africa.
The "problem" that it created was that some were inevitably disadvantaged..eg: the owners of slaves were disadvantaged when slavery was abolished. Other scum like the Ku Klux Klan were in there opinion "disadvantaged" when society saw the realities in all human species being equal, creating more competition for those same white supremacists.
The advancement of human society encompassed empathy for your fellow man, as opposed to turning the other way, or as you have put it, "no more looking for victims" and/or complaining. Just sweep it all under the carpet. The old "fuck you Jack, I'm alright" mentality again.

Those same Cuban victims like many immigrants, are escaping from a situation partly caused by the USA trade embargo, and are out to make a better life for themselves. They most probably see the inequality but such inequality is still better then the conditions they have left.

And trying to avoid ICE, being thrown into prison and deported.
What is happening in the USA today is the boomers and billionares see themselves as being disadvantaged by human progression, empathy, equality and evolution, and are putting meaning into devolution and restoring the previous status quo.

You misunderstand. No one (very few) are against progress. The Luddite movement is no longer a thing.

The current "Progressive movement" tends to be well-meaning but they don't seem to ask "what could go wrong" or "is this narrative actually a problem?" In other words, the problem is lack of critical thinking before forming their solutions.

No system can get more than 100% out of that system. My posts are just systems based posts, that's all.

A free market system is about as efficient as you can get. Competition drives prices toward zero and profit drives competition to be efficient. You can't do more than that.

If you want services but don't tax enough to pay for them, you get inflation and debt.
If you want wealth equality you don't get innovation, productivity, etc. You need the incentives. The same incentives that produce more housing, jobs, services are the same incentives that result in inequal wealth.

If you want more wealth overall, it's going to be unequal.

The fundamental global problem is that people misunderstand how systems work. When they demand more than a system can produce, or demand incompatible outcomes, they unintentionally damage their own goals.

It everyone realized this, there would be little to no debt and fewer disagreements and everyone would be better off. If an economy is more efficient, there is more money. The people can decide what to do with that money, have a welfare state or not, free healthcare, whatever but it comes with a cost. Just understand the costs rationally.

My arguments are about the economic system and not the political system. Have an efficient economics system and then have whatever political system the local people want.