Talking about Taboo: Politics, Religion, and Money
Can you have a healthy debate about potentially divisive topics?
[Note: This topic has been the most difficult thus far to consider in a more objective way - and I acknowledge that despite my best efforts to go a route to be “pro-talking about..” that my own unconscious biases may have influenced this piece. I implore you to toss contrarian views into the comments section if you have a perspective!]
Over the last several decades, there has been an increasing divide relating to politics, religion, and money. Later in this essay we’ll discuss the implications and proposed model to discuss these topics in a respectful forum, but first let’s look at some of the background trends:
Politics
Politics first, in 1994 (contract with America year, the first year the GOP controlled the house again for decades), Republicans and Democrats were polled on 10 topics - the type you’d expect to be sticky: the role of government, race, the environment, immigration, reproductive rights, etc. In that poll, it was found that there was a 15% overall difference between Republicans and Democrats. Since then, the topics have become more polarizing, with less reaching across the aisle and less seeking common ground. In 2011 that gap widened to 26% and in 2017 it further widened to 36% according to Pew research.
TL;DR - Dems have become more liberal in their views, particularly on issues of race and the role of government, Republicans have remained relatively stable in their views albeit slightly more conservative (less Republicans identify as ‘lean right’ and instead identify as ‘right’) - there has been an erosion of ‘moderate’ and pressure to ‘choose a side’.
Religion
Looking at a similar time period, in the early 90’s, approximately 90% of Americans identified as Christian and 5% as ‘religiously unaffiliated’. In 2022, self-identification as Christian dropped to 62%, with 29% of Americans now identifying as ‘Religiously unaffiliated’. Causation for the change has many factors, although a big one is politics, as 7 of 10 persons who became religiously unaffiliated in that time period are Democrats.
Other impacts on the shift have come from:
Immigration background - less immigrants are coming to America and identifying Christian, primarily those who are from Asian backgrounds - perhaps ironically many of the ‘illegal immigrants’ coming from countries south of the border identify as Christian and are turned away
Aging of unaffiliated - each passing generation is less and less religiously affiliated, which is passed on generationally - which may also contribute to the increasing trend of Christians who have a loose practice for Christianity to remain affiliated, as there are larger %’s of relatable peers who are unaffiliated. There is less fear of being rejected by the tribe.
Education - Those who are more educated (pursue collegiate degrees) are increasingly less likely to identify as Christian. This is significant for this discussion as from 1993-2023 the % of women aged 25-34 who have attained a college degree doubled from 23% to 47% and a similar significant increase for men, moving from 24% to 38%. Seemingly there is an influence on religions alignment based on schooling.
Money
Institutionally society has unwritten rules (or even potential employment penalties) if you talk about money. There are haves and have nots.
Notably, $1 in 1992 would have been worth $2.09 in 2022, so to normalize these graphs, the median income in 1992 dollars would have been $92,200, essentially a net drop of 10%, while you see the 1% of earners exponentially grow.
In 1990, the average citizen spent $2,500-ish per year on healthcare. In 2022 that grew to $13,500 per year. Take another 10% out of the divide. Let’s talk about money!
So why not talk about Politics, Religion, or Money?
These topics frankly are personal and can evoke strong emotions as they are also components that are often incorporated into one’s identity. One’s core values are often intertwined with these topics. In the case of politics and religion, a discussion of a view that goes counter to your affiliation can quickly escalate into misunderstanding, tension, and taking offense (taking it personally). If you’re talking about money, it can quickly lead to comparisons and snap judgments about one’s worth and potential feelings of inadequacy.
Particularly it’s difficult to discuss these topics with someone new, someone who hasn’t built a level of trust.
For example, how what happens when a Catholic person adhere to a firm stance on abortion while they also may have been part of a prior divorce. Being forced to face that dichotomy may expose the person to ridicule such as things that have been said like “Is religion is only important when it’s convenient?”.
What’s the implications of the divide in these topics? (So what?)
When divides reach certain points, there becomes irreconcilable differences. The ‘othering’ (defined very well in “The Awakened Heart” by Lisa Miller PhD where she explored “othering” as - the shaming, guilt, scapegoating, stigmatizing most of us UNCONSCIOUSLY practice in an effort to feel safety and belonging).
America’s collapse into “epidemic levels of othering” on a political level - the political are being pressured by religious value expectations (in particular the topic of abortion, which has long been a divisive topic, although with the overturn of Roe vs Wade there’s a raw painful othering from ‘both sides’ of the topic) - and monetary there is a narrative by the super wealthy (the oligarchy, or the ‘broligarchy’ that continue to try and capture as much wealth as possible while influencing politics to move away from values inherent in democracies - giving more power to money.). Middle class wages war on those in poverty or those immigrating to find better quality of life. Middle class argues with others in middle class, influenced and fueled by dis/misinformation. Distraction by keeping people focused on divisive issues continues to perpetuate ‘othering’.
These dividing lines are fueled in social media (if not even ‘algorithmic’ to stoke the fires). “Then you only talk to people who know and like you and think like you, and you don’t talk to other people.” Creating bubbles, which grow narrower and narrower.
Stances must be one or the other - you must declare what you are against or what you’re for, even if only in the ballot box. Red state/blue state; nationalist/immigrant; white/black; queer/straight.
So why consider talking about Politics, Religion, and Money?
Discussing these topics can help grow your personal agency.
Being able to respectfully discuss these topics could lead to:
Deeper interpersonal connections
Enhanced Critical Thinking Skills
Improved Issue Literacy and Support
Breaking down taboos
Proposed way to have an open discussion about Politics, Religion, and Money in a public/semi-public forum
Rather than directly engaging in these topics in formats that devolve quickly into argument, under the right context and consent, there may be a healthy and psychologically safe way to explore these taboo topics.
Key are context and consent.
Context requires these open discussions have a pre-determined scope defined for the discussion, and that all presenters and attendees are aware of the boundaries to be discussed. The goals of these discussions are not to have ‘winners and losers’, but rather to enhance the attendee’s overall understanding of topics - to better understand others’ views.
Consent requires that those who are participating, either as topic presenters or as attendees present to the discussion, agree to a set of baseline non-negotiable rules as well as highly suggested rules.
Examples of Non-negotiable Rules:
Viewpoint presenters present specific data on the topic or when sharing a personal story they use "I" statements and speak from personal experience (rather than generalizing when possible). Any generalized topics that are presented should be supported with rationale or historical basis.
No personal attacks, name-calling, or derogatory language.
Topic presenters actively listen to others without interrupting; they wait for their turn to speak and equitable time is given to present differing views.
Presenters respect the moderators authority to intervene or redirect the conversation - especially when psychological boundaries are challenged or when opposing viewpoints are challenged in confrontational/disrespectful ways.
This is not a school board meeting during COVID - you’re not entitled to an opinion. You are entitled to present why a topic is aligned with your values and to present on a factual basis.
Suggested Rules (the gray area, that may bend depending on circumstance):
Presenters will identify common ground before exploring differences.
Rather than creating an interpretation of what has been said and ‘spinning’ what another presenter has stated, first start by asking clarifying questions to better understand others' perspectives.
Focus on educating the rationale for held views rather than “winning arguments”. There are no winners of arguments when discussing money, politics, or religion.
Equal time should be given to presenting differing viewpoints as well as to hear questions from the ‘audience’. The moderator can have discretion to table a certain component of a topic if it takes up an inequitable split of discussion time.
If these topics are discussed publicly in this manner, the walls of ‘othering’ may be broken down to realize that some differences may have been manufactured by the media, social media, and the closed group of company we sometimes share (echo chambers).
As you might imagine, this suggestion has all the ingredients to either be a powerful exercise or an explosive event. Blissfully ignorant, I still believe there’s a path to implementing this format. Would love your input, especially the dissenting views!
If you’re reading this article on Saturday night and appreciate what being social does for your happiness and Wellth, forward this post to a friend that you want to spend time with... send them this article as a way to show that you want to deepen your relationship.
If you reading this after Saturday night and if the topic resonates with you, forward it to a friend who might also benefit.