My political beliefs stem from data analysis, academic pursuits and travels abroad.
When there’s fundamental incompatibility, it’s a recipe for conflict.
This may be a chicken-or-egg matter, but culture and ideology profoundly shape behavior.
Phil — theorizes in his book Bowling Alone about bridging vs. Bonding means ties between people like yourself (e.g., same gender or ideology), and bridging means ties with people unlike yourself.
Of course, we’re all human beings who need both types of social capital, and everyone determines which social factors matter most in the home, the epicenter of bonding.
We live in a very polarized era where relationships (even friendships) between Republicans and Democrats are fairly taboo. When liberals and conservatives can’t even have civilized conversations, how can you expect them to succeed romantically?
Could a person who’s feeling the Bern have a good time dating someone who wants to “make America great again”? I’m imagining a Sanders and Trump supporter heading out for a drink together only to come to the topic of the election, ultimately prompting a barroom brawl (induced by too much tequila).
When a man’s strongly held values clash with mine, I'd rather say “Adios!
” than worry that disagreement about which movie to watch on Netflix on Friday night could devolve into heated sparring about entitlement reform, Afghanistan or charter schools.
But after years of willful ignorance about compatibility, I’ve returned to the belief that successful relationships come when people are “equally yoked.” It's a bit ironic for me, an agnostic, to quote the Bible, but, hey, the book has enough wisdom to last so long.
For me, "equally yoked" means a couple is compatible on what matters most to each of them, whether that’s religion, location, kids or fidelity.
And there’s no point stereotyping liberals as nonshowering, socks-with-sandals, wussy granola types.