How to talk about politics at Christmas

A recently launched study by Internet Lab and Redeconhecimento Social shows that half (50%) of Brazilians avoid talking about politics in family groups to avoid arguments. According to a survey by Quaest, 17% of Brazilians say they have severed ties with family and friends due to voting in the 2022 elections. Another survey, carried out by Datafolha, shows that 54% reported experiencing a situation of embarrassment, physical or verbal threat due to their political positions – 15% received a verbal threat and 7% a physical threat. In a time of polarization, is it possible to talk politics at Christmas lunch?

• Absence and conviction: The Chamber revokes the mandates of Eduardo Bolsonaro and Ramagem after decision of the board of directors

Although our first instinct is to preserve emotional relationships by avoiding controversial topics, we can also do the opposite: use bonds of affection as a point of support to reduce our intolerance towards opposing political positions. The idea is simple: the more we live with those who think differently, the more we understand their points of view.

• INSS fraud: “If he has my child, he will be investigated,” says Lula

This thesis was presented by political scientist Diana Mutz in a thought-provoking 2007 book, “Hearing The Other Side” (Cambridge University Press). For Mutz, exposure to divergent positions develops political moderation and tolerance through cognitive and affective mechanisms.

When we discover that someone we love has opposing political views, affection creates an opening that allows us to accept disagreement and increase tolerance. To maintain social harmony, we avoid the discomfort of taking public positions that might offend friends or family members with different views. Furthermore, exposure to a divergent point of view allows us to understand that it is based on rational and moral foundations. And, by understanding multiple perspectives on a topic, we develop a less extremist, more balanced, and more moderate view of public issues, recognizing the complexity of the issues at hand.

But, to be able to use our ties of affection to depolarize political positions, we must above all demonstrate an open mind. We must assume that anyone who thinks differently is acting in good faith.

Political polarization pushes us to morally condemn our adversaries. For progressives, people on the right are insensitive, they do not want to share their privileges, they do not accept that the poor start to steal. For conservatives, people on the left are not just supporters of corrupt politicians, they are corrupt themselves – they support PT governments because they receive money from the Rouanet law or bread and mortadella for going to protests.

It is necessary to establish as a starting point for dialogue that the majority of people on the left act in good faith, wanting a fairer country; and most people on the right also act in good faith, seeking a country with more order and stability.

In his book, Mutz notes that coexistence with those who are different, while producing moderation and tolerance, discourages participation and engagement. Conversely, political scientists like Alan Abramowitz note that despite the problems, political polarization makes individuals more engaged and more ideologically consistent, which has always been considered a civic virtue.

If all of this is true, it is somewhat of a zero-sum game. On the one hand, we have stability and social cohesion, but little participation and interest in politics. On the other, we have commitment and ideological coherence, but intolerance and the risk of democratic breakdown. There must, however, be some sort of optimal point where we can live together, respecting plurality, but without losing the political differences that constitute a vibrant democracy.

We live today in a polarized society where the problems are the risk of democratic breakdown and the risk of political violence. We need to temper this polarizing fervor with a little understanding and tolerance. There is no time more opportune than Christmas with its spirit of reconciliation and fraternity.