Dear Miss SmartyPants, 

I have an acquaintance who could maybe become a friend, but I’m not sure I really want that to happen.  Ever since he found out I lean toward the liberal side in my political views, and am an atheist, he has started e-mailing me dissing Obama and anyone else in the Democratic Party who is currently in the news.  He also assails my atheism, as if he thinks he will change my mind.  My efforts to explain my thinking fall flat. These topics are almost the only ones we discuss, and the entire basis for our relationship.

I know a little about this guy’s background, ethics, etc. and admire him in many ways.  But I have a feeling I represent a challenge to him, and he is proselytizing to one whom he considers ignorant of truth, justice, and the American way.  I believe he actually thinks his bumper sticker slogans are going to win me over, but I have arrived at my conclusions after years of reading, deliberation, and soul searching.  I am certainly not about to jump on over to his way of thinking, but I do like to hear what the other side has to say.  Once in a while something will make sense to me, and I will consider changing my views, at least on that particular topic.  I can be swayed by a persuasive enough argument.  I wish my antagonist would express himself more clearly, there must be good reasons why he thinks as he does.  If he could express those views in a thoughtful manner, I would welcome the exchange.  But as it is, he is just parroting what I hear and read in the conservative news outlets.  This is frustrating, because he doesn’t even seem to know he is doing it.  So, should I quit wasting my time responding to his diatribes?  The dialogue could be eye-opening for both of us, if only we could engage in civil discourse.   

Undecided

Dear Undecided,

The old rule regarding dinner party conversation is, do not bring up the topics of politics, religion, or sex.  The reason, obviously, is that these are not just interesting subjects to most of us, but they are emotionally charged.  We don’t want a food fight breaking out over the chateaubriand.  You and your “maybe” friend are venturing into dangerous territory by trying to discuss two of these hot-button topics, while being diametrically opposed in your viewpoints.  My inclination is to advise to let it go.  It’s serving no real purpose, and just gets both of you riled up, I suspect.  (You are riled, don’t deny it.) 

On the other hand, it is regrettable that we all seem to be very Balkanized right now, only talking with those who agree with us, and getting our news from agreeable sources.  So, if you decide to buck the trend and continue the correspondence, you both should agree to set some ground rules.  Your measured response can make a difference in how your correspondent sees the world, just as he may make a difference in how you see the world.  Good opening lines to express a contrary view can include, ”In my experience …” or “The information I have from (quote source) …”, said calmly and not accusingly.  Also, no fair bullying or belittling.  Anger or defensiveness should prompt a change of subject.  Adults should be able to disagree amicably, but that is often easier said than done!