Today, I think, for my generation, politics very strongly intrudes into the domain of friendship.
Some months ago I gave a friend of mine my traditional-conservative take on something and was told “if I knew these were your opinions, I wouldn’t be your friend” line -- what bothers me is why/how we’ve become like this? (I can’t remember the subject, but it was a fairly innocuous topic of current events).
Society didn’t used to be like this, and I think the below article shows this.
I suspect it’s the nefarious influence of social media on our culture.
Politics is about ideas; and civil discussions - especially among friends - should be the norm in a liberal society with a diversity of opinions. Ideas are either right or wrong. And we should engage and discuss things, and I always love a discussion that makes me re-think something. And I have quite often reversed positions on issues because of it.
But today, we’re walking on eggshells. A hypersensitivity to just about everything. And at any moment people can be ostracised for wrongthink.
I think we’ve been subtly programmed to hate people who think differently to us. Buckley and Galbraith (who were very anti and pro New Deal) always remained good friends. That, I don’t think, seems very possible today.
I sometimes think I was born in the wrong age.
✲✲✲✲✲
Jeff Greenfield writing in “The Pleasure of Disagreeing with Bill Buckley” (National Review, Feb 2025):
If you’re at all familiar with the contours of Buckley’s life, you likely know that he was friends with and/or an admirer of an array of figures on the left: the brilliant socialist columnist Murray Kempton, longtime activist Al Lowenstein, novelist Norman Mailer, economist (and skiing buddy) John Kenneth Galbraith. The intriguing question is why. Why, given the withering “take no prisoners” persona he presented in public debate, was he so comfortable in the company of his political adversaries?
The key, I think, is less our scintillating personalities and more how much he savored the give-and-take of argument — emphasis on the give and take. As William Kristol put it, “Buckley really believes that in order to convince, you have to debate and not just preach, which of course means risking the possibility that someone will beat you in debate.” ... Those whose exposure to political “debate” these days is confined to outlets that never open themselves to contrary views would likely be startled by the parade of figures who jousted with Buckley on air: Noam Chomsky, Saul Alinsky, Allen Ginsberg, Julian Bond, and Jesse Jackson, among literally dozens of other ideological adversaries.
It was one of Buckley’s admirable attributes — one unfortunately shared by too few across the political spectrum — that he was comfortable with changing his mind. He came to regret his early arguments about race; he came to see that Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose work he had championed in a book, was an impediment to the cause of anti-communism, and he wrote a novel reflecting that revised view.
From a more civic point of view, Firing Line stands as an unhappy reminder of the distance that political discourse has traveled since its time, mostly because it would be difficult if not impossible to find a host both ideologically committed and open, even delighted, to engage in lengthy, civil discourse with his or her foes (much less breaking bread with them).
Yeah, especially with the younger crowd it does. I have some friends on FB and they are fairly loud about how if you don't agree with them politically then you should unfriend them. To me I think that is a bit much.
ReplyDeleteEverything is a war.
DeleteI have no problem with anyone who is traditionally conservative yet who retains a moral compass about democratic values and respect for minority rights. Such people you can debate with, disagree with, and still maintain respect for their good qualities and interests. I would not be able, however, to maintain a friendship with anyone who is a far-right extremist/fascist, irredeemably racist, misogynistic, anti-semitic, anti-LGBTQ+, etc. They're entitled to stew in their own hateful, corrosive, destructive views, but I don't want them in my life. Or in power in my society or country.
ReplyDeleteSo would I Debra,
DeleteIt's been like this in the US for a decade or two. I'm disappointed to hear that the problem has apparently spread to the UK.
ReplyDeleteI think it's partly because US politics have become so toxic and extremist, and partly because social media encourage everyone to retreat into an echo chamber where they only ever interact with people who share their own world-view. When you almost never hear opinions different from your own, they can seem shocking and outrageous when you do hear them.
This is why I make a habit of reading blogs and sites that have a different viewpoint than mine -- to avoid being trapped in an echo chamber. People who never seek out different viewpoints are usually woefully uninformed, misinformed, and simplistic in their thinking about many issues. I don't want to risk getting like that.
Unlike Buckley's circle, I absolutely hate arguments and debates and go out of my way to avoid them. I think I could get along well with somebody whose views were different, but not if they insisted on endlessly trying to convert me to their viewpoint. Even conversations about politics with somebody I agreed with would get wearisome pretty fast.
The unspoken rule used to be that politics, money and religion should never be discussed in company. It's not a bad rule to follow, if one cannot have civilised discussions.
ReplyDelete