You Don’t Have to be Friends with the Conservatives Who Hate You

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

Whenever this country moves further to the right, there is a general call to action for those on the left to have even more conversations with those on the right. “The Democrats need to talk to different people, like Joe Rogan,” Matthew Yglesias argues in Bloomberg. “[Some] recognize they can’t change their loved ones’ opinions from afar,” goes a Vox article, “More still have wisened to the reality that avoiding varying viewpoints only fuels polarization.”

I want to push back against this logic that claims we must appeal to the feelings of the dominant socioeconomic group whenever they have a reactionary turn. You are not obligated to validate someone’s feelings simply because they are in power, especially if they use said power to discriminate against you.

Furthermore, I am not convinced this outlook is even a sound political strategy.

Engagement isn’t always possible

If we are being charitable, the reason this advice is bandied about so much is that keeping a metaphorical “door open” is a vital component for deradicalization (i.e., trying to pull individuals back from hateful ideologies such as white supremacy and fascism) or disengagement (i.e., getting them to pull back from hateful groups).

The advice I see over and over again from organizations dedicated to helping those who have fallen into the far-right ecosystem is to try not to be too forceful in how one goes about with deradicalization. As one RAND study argues: “The interviews and other studies suggest that heavy-handed attempts by formal institutions to deradicalize individuals often fail.” It’s more effective to wait for the myriad of factors that can make one open to deradicalization (e.g., burnout, exposure to alternative views, fellow members leaving, etc.) and then present them with an alternative during that window of opportunity than it is to shame them for their beliefs.

I do not judge people who engage in this deradicalization work as I believe it to be a legitimate form of activism. If you have the capacity to do this work or live in a heavily conservative area that requires you to compromise as an act of survival, by all means, do it — some people need to.

Yet there is a world of difference between claiming that a form of activism is valid for some people and claiming that it is something all people must do.

The reality is that conservative ideas rarely stop and end with thoughts and words. Those words become the basis for actions that can hurt other people, and every person must gauge whether preserving their individual relationship with a conservative is worth ignoring the harm said conservative is compelled to do to uphold such beliefs.

In one example reported via Business Insider, a parent had their child come out as transgender. Although they supported their child’s decision, their parents (the child’s’ grandparents) reacted with hostility. One pair of grandparents went “no contact,” and the other refused to acknowledge their grandchild’s queerness.

Sometimes, the mere act of supporting someone causes others to reject you. If you are a parent in this situation, you might have to decide which person to “help” in the relationship (your child or your parent) because sometimes — too many, in fact — egos force you to choose. As Tamra Moon continues in that Business Insider article:

“My teenager’s grandparents are of a parenting belief system that doesn’t leave much space for children to explore their interests, identities, or feelings in a safe, supportive, and judgment-free environment.”

It would be great if we could exist in a world where we can both keep a door open to those indoctrinated by hateful ideologies and protect the people those ideologies hurt, but defensiveness and brittle self-image often cause these two goals to conflict. In protecting the person they are hurting, you get labeled an enemy, and they no longer see you as a person worth interacting with as an equal.

This is further complicated when you are the person being hurt by such actions. When you are being targeted rhetorically, legislatively, and sometimes even physically, it becomes that much harder to focus on the other person’s reasons for doing said harm. You are often much more focused on your own survival and, quite frankly, do not have the time or resources to care about your oppressor’s hurt feelings.

I am sure the conservatives voting my rights away and sending me death threats have reasons for why they feel the way they do (erroneous reasons, but reasons nonetheless), but I am too busy trying to protect my standard of living to be concerned about their feelings.

If someone is attacking you, you do not keep the door open; you shut it and shut it good.

A frank conclusion

There is a lack of empathy in this entire conversation. A lot of not-so-great people expect to be empathized with at every step of the way, but they shirk at all calls for them to be empathetic toward other people. Their actions are never called into question. Their violence is never examined. They are always the perceptual victims who can do no wrong.

Yes, we want everyone to be saved from the pits of conservatism, but one person is not more important than anyone else. Their journey should not take precedent over the many others they hurt.

Someone does not get to hurt others—maybe even dozens or hundreds of others—and then get to act shocked when those people are not interested in empathizing with them. There are consequences for people’s actions, and sometimes, as a mere act of survival, those actions will cause some to stop caring about you. They will abandon all concern for your growth, your pain, and your survival altogether.

If that sounds harsh, good: it’s a response that is well-earned.