We’re often told not to mix politics (or religion) and polite conversation. The advice is often offered as self-evident. Far from it. In fact, the conventional wisdom that politics is a subject better avoided than broached turns out to be based on four interrelated assumptions, all of them flawed.
Photo by Mickyboyc 
That avoiding politics in polite conversation is preferable to the alternative assumes, first and most obviously, that bringing up politics in a discussion will always–or at least usually–end badly. Yet this assumption is belied by the millions of decent political conversations people have every day–and have been having since the dawn of civilization. Not all political conversations are polite or helpful, of course. But even in today’s overheated climate, many are.
Another assumption behind the oft-repeated advice to avoid political topics is that when they go badly, there is nothing stopping them from getting worse. Though perhaps less obviously than the first, this assumption, too, is flawed. The world is full of people and tools dedicated to getting the most out of political conversations. Many of these–like my colleagues at Interactivity Foundation and the process we employ– have long track records of success.
Another flawed assumption behind our aversion to political discussion perhaps paradoxically stems from our respect for individuals as autonomous beings capable of making up their own minds. We justifiably believe that “everyone is entitled to their own opinion”. The problem is that we tend to take this literally; we forget that opinions aren’t formed out of thin air, but instead are built up out of feelings, values, concepts, information, and allegiances–all of which can be refined by reflection and, yes, an exchange of opinions. (The point, as I made at greater length in a previous post, is that truly autonomous individuals don’t just have or express opinions, they create them, partly with the help of conversation.)
Which leads us to a fourth and subtler assumption behind the advice to avoid political talk: that polite conversation is more valuable than civil discussion. That assumption can of course be warranted in some circumstance: it’s better to keep the peace than engage in verbal hostilities if those are the only two options. But, to return to the beginning, in most cases there are other options. The real choice isn’t between silence and being polite but between avoidance and engagement. Remaining polite by avoiding political topics won’t bridge divides or heal divisiveness. Silence doesn’t bring people together; silence only amplifies the voices of the those shouting the loudest. Fortunately, you don’t have to be a professional facilitator or mediator to share political differences in a meaningful way–all that’s required is mutual respect. You and your conversational partner are almost sure to benefit; the evidence that political discussion leads to valuable results is among the most robust in all of social science.
