James Kirchick at Independent Gay Forum mentions the trouble he has had dating outside his politics:
"I can't date someone with a different belief system" is what he told me. I expected this answer from the guy I had been casually seeing. From early on, I suspected that our differing political bents -- his liberal, mine more conservative -- would ultimately cause a split. Once, we had a heated argument when I said offhandedly that people who could not afford to care for children should not have them (not a policy prescription, just a profession of personal ethics). After that, I tried to avoid political discussions altogether. So his answer did not come as much of a surprise when, a few weeks after we broke up, I asked him for his reasons. His beliefs euphemism didn't render the blow any softer: We're both Jewish.
So much for dating a proud, progressive, and ostensibly tolerant liberal. But with him, as with other liberals I know, tolerance does not always extend to appreciating someone else's differing political views. Now living in Cambridge and having grown up in the suburbs of Boston and gone to school at Yale, I've been surrounded by liberals for nearly all of my life. Most would be astonished to hear that they're the most intolerant people I've ever met. After all, I, the supposedly closed-minded conservative, never considered this guy's liberal politics anathema to the point of wanting to call off our relationship. A Mary Matalin-James Carville pairing (she the Republican adviser to Dick Cheney, he the Democratic strategist who helped Bill Clinton get elected) ours would not be.
Ilya Somin at Volokh Conspiracy responds that the problem of cross-ideological dating tends to be exaggerated:
I suspect that the most important reason for excessive reluctance to date across ideological lines is overestimation of the extent to which people's political views dictate other aspects of their lives. Ideologies that claim that "the personal is political" (a left-wing slogan that has important analogues in parts of the "family values" right) exacerbate this tendency. In reality, most people's views on public policy have only a modest impact on the way they live their lives. For example, my libertarian views are vastly different from those of most liberal law professors. But the way I live my life when I'm not writing about ideological subjects is very similar to the way most of them live theirs.
An exception are those people who embrace ideologies that really do dictate the conduct of all aspects of their lives, such as members of certain cult groups, or communists in the days when belonging to the Party meant belonging to the sort of all-encompassing group depicted by Richard Wright in "I Tried to be a Communist." However, most people in the US today don't try to inject ideology into every aspect of their lives.
For my part, I hear Kirchick's problem -- trying to find a libertarian atheist is looking for a pretty tiny demographic, but I also agree with Somin. Cross-ideological dating is a problem for people who define themselves ideologically or who tend to infer pernicious motives/values from disagreements on ideological subjects.
To this end a practiced sense of doubt and skepticism is not only a good intellectual habit, it is also good dating advice. I recognize that I have tangible opinions on a variety of subjects that are unlikely to be shared by the majority of people I meet, but I also recognize that these opinions could very well be wrong. So long as I practice a degree of self-doubt and admit to myself that there is at least a good discussion to be had on these issues, I can date practically anyone.
The only prerequisite in my mind to cross-ideological dating is that both people are capable of that kind of self-skepticism: it guarantees that neither person takes themselves seriously enough to make a fight out of any political disagreements.
On the other hand, I could see how cross-religious quarrels -- if we lump them into the cross-ideological dating category -- could pose a greater problem. For me, religious issues seem much more to reflect a person's almost metaphysical values. Religious beliefs reflect someones strong opinions on how the world is run. I can have an honest conversation with a religious person without getting my blood up, but I also don't think that I could date someone who doesn't believe that there is a rational order to existence that can be understood by human reason. (Some religious people believe this; some don't.)
If someone didn't believe that the world can be understood by human reason, they would be in effect denying one of the core values and the reason for my choice of occupation. That I doubt I could live with. So I could see how cross-religious issues would be larger than cross-political ones, but again I don't necessarily think it is fatal. I could see how a religious person -- of a deistic persuasion -- and I could agree on a variety of subjects, even if I am never going to believe that there is an invisible man watching from above.
I am curious to hear what other people have to say, but in my experience it is usually the other person who has a problem with my politics and my beliefs rather than the other way around. Maybe it is because libertarians have lower standards for agreement than the rest of the world (flagrant individualism has its consequences), or maybe it is because I am just realistic of about my chances of meeting someone similarly inclined.
- Log in to post comments
Back when I was in school a long time ago, I don't think it would have even occurred to me to ask someone about their political ideology when casually dating (although of course it would eventually come up if the relationship became long-term). I would not have considered it to be a key ingredient of what makes up a person, or even something that I would be interested in discussing casually (I was pretty apolitical at the time).
But the political environment has changed, and the way political discourse is conducted in this country has changed dramatically over the years. I would never consider dating someone who supported the current administration, and frankly I doubt I could even be close friends with such a person. It would be too much like being buddies with [insert your favorite Godwin-invoking example here].
So much for dating a proud, progressive, and ostensibly tolerant liberal. But with him, as with other liberals I know, tolerance does not always extend to appreciating someone else's differing political views.
This is very true. At least some of the conservatives admit that they're being intolerant of those who disagree; too many liberals completely reject those who don't agree with a stringent list of ideological litmus tests while claiming to be "open and affirming."
I grew up in Berkeley. The dominant attitude of most of the people there was, unstated, "we are very liberal and tolerant and open-minded. So thoughtful and open-minded, in fact, that any other reasonable person will completely agree with us on any controversial issue, so that we should have no, um, tolerance for those who disagree."
This was in the 1980's when I was growing up there. The hate for Regan that was prevalent in Berkeley was little or no different from the hate for George W. Bush that Kurt evidences in his comment (or, frankly, that I feel myself). I remember back to being a Republican in Berkeley when it comes to interacting with and dealing with people who don't recognize the disaster that is the current administration.
Everybody should try growing up in a Democrat family in some small ultraconservative midwestern town, or in a Republican family in Berkeley. You quickly learn to have friends whose politics disagree with yours, and also not to be strident (or, often, even out of the closet) about your own politics.
-Rob
BTW -- my wife grew up in a heavily Democratic family in a small midwestern town that was very conservative.
We got married despite divergent politics. However, thanks to the current administration (which has instilled into me a deep distrust of the Republican party that will last until there is a wide rejection of the W way of doing things within the party, and an admission that he was a disaster), our politics have moved a lot closer towards each other.
-Rob (who's probably mostly a libertarian, sort of, now)
I grew up in an ultra-conservative, religious right type of home environment, and ended up (against all odds) staunchly liberal. [I used to consider myself an independent moderate, but the pendulum has swung so far right, the baseline has shifted.] And while that particular group is notorious -- and justly so -- for their intolerance, like Rob, I've definitely encountered similar attitudes among those on the far Left as well. Heck, I've seen it in science (and on ScienceBlogs), even though scientists ought to know better. Turns out they're still human, too. Go figure. :)
This seems to be less about politics and religion, and more about one of the ugliest human traits, at least when it comes to collective idiologies/belief systems: the intolerance of anyone expressing an opposing viewpoint. When a group of like-minded people form a social unit around a specific set of ideas, and someone comes along who disagrees with all or part of those ideas, the response is -- more often than not -- theurge to stamp out the opposition, silencing other views -- sometimes permanently (in the uglier phases of human history). That said, politics and religion do seem to be the two most common areas where this sort of intolerance presents itself, perhaps because both represent areas where the personal touches the public arena.
This kind of thing might be an artififact of basic brain chemistry. There was a neuroscience story floating around the science press last year, in which researchers using fMRI imaging studied the brains of subjects with strong political beliefs. They found that when the subjects heard or read views that supported their own personal beliefs, they got a rush of "happy" brain chemicals, while hearing or reading views that opposed their own beliefs did not prompt the release of "reward" chemicals. Our brain, apparently, conditions us, like Pavlov's dogs, to only want to hear opinions that fall in line with our own.
Of course, that doesn't explain oddball personalities like mine that occasionally LIKE to hear what the other side has to say on a topic. As Jake points out, this rests upon one's willingness to acknowledge that while it's fine to hold strong opinions on a subject, it's important to recognize that one is not infallible, and those opinions might just be wrong -- or can be further fine-tuned by exposure to alternative points of view.
i think jake is right in that religion is more significant than politics. i'm generally libertarianish and haven't had too many issues being with generally vanilla liberals. of course, i haven't been with someone who takes a moralistic pose in their leftish politics so my heterodoxies aren't generally big issues. also, if people like you ahead of time (e.g., don't talk politics until you get to know someone) they can't form ideas about how you are the devil because you don't reject the flat tax or something like that. in regards to religion though many religious people believe their axioms are ontologically significant, even though it might have little effect on their day to day life. and conversely for the atheist.
I don't think Liberals and conservatives date very well because of their beliefs. My brother married his college girlfriend who tries to act semi Liberal but being the brother in law for like 10 years I can feel and really since her conservative nature come out. Of course it comes from her family who is really conservative. What I really feel is like when I or my parents go over to my brother and his wife's house and tell them that we are thinking about buying this and that or I or my parents bought this there is this odd feeling that comes from my sister in law that she puts out of like oh no you should have gone really conservative when you bought this or that. She doesn't say it but my parents and I can feel the uneasiness that comes from her conservative feelings. It's interesting though when my brother is by himself he changes and thinks it's cool of what I or my parents bought or want to buy but then when he is around his wife and kids it all changes to being conservative. I don't mind being conservative as I am conservative on certain things but I hate the feeling of going around conservative people and wanting to tell them about something but feeling like you have to tip toe around the subject because of their conservative issues and think if you spend money it's a bad thing.