POLITICS ISN'T AN OPINION

Admist the noise of the past 12 hours, I never expected a stranger's nonchalant Tweet to affect my mood the most...

Perhaps it’s my familiarity with the phrase in everyday life, or simply because I inherently disagree with its sentiment. In any instance, what follows is the comment I would have responded with if Twitter allowed for unlimited characters without a monthly subscription [really takes the free out of free speech, huh].

Point, blank, period; Politics is not an opinion. The choice to remove someone from your life as a result of their political view is not akin to, let’s say, cutting someone off for their outlandishly disgusting Tesco meal deal choices. You’re not grabbing lunch with a friend who picks up a tuna and sweetcorn sandwich, carrot sticks, and a sparkling water, then immediately ghosting them at the self-checkouts. After all, if you can withstand their choice in men from the weekend, you can probably put aside their poor taste in sandwiches and sides with the knowledge that a mint or two would likely solve the issue.

And that’s what it hinges on, really. The effects of their decision don’t impact you, at least not detrimentally or indefinitely. Logically, too, this then begs the question as to what extent a person’s decisions have to affect you for it to be deemed permissible or justifiable to ‘cut them out of your life’.

Politics, for me, would be one such instance. Those close to us in life, whom we value enough to detail our everyday, may well be politically aligned elsewhere, may well subscribe to different belief systems or schools of thought. But it’d be silly to assume these differences to have the sole effect of determining how heated or interesting dinner table conversations will be. More realistically, those differences in political alignment inform how those closest to us vote, particularly in voting against the very things we wish to protect; women’s reproductive rights, socioeconomic equality, international affairs, humanism [to name a few].

When we see politics for what it is, based on the impact it has, the indignity of ‘cutting people off’ for such dissolves. Politics is not an opinion, it’s an integral facet of your character and of your morality. Your political view on immigration and abortion informs me of your views on human rights, and importantly, how you quantify a human as being worthy of rights. Your political view on taxes and governmental funding informs me of your views on socioeconomic meritocracy and economic hegemony. Your political view on international warfare and humanitarian aid informs me of your views on troubles external to the self, and thus your ability to dissociate the 'them' from 'us'.

So, naturally, no; removing another person, be it friend or family, from your life due to their political proclivities isn’t insane. What would be insane is to stand by someone who either does not have the emotional capacity or depth to empathise with social matters extraneous to themselves, or, perhaps worse, possesses this ability and simply doesn’t care; after all, is it not worse to deny the beggar out of laziness in searching your pockets for coins, than out of a cold-hearted refusal to help? Akin to Mackie’s Inconsistent Triad, it’s insane for me to logically conceive of a kind and well-rounded person voting against my moral values. And so, why should they stay?

Perhaps we’re just seeing the effects of new-age individualism; the school of thought birthed out of TikTok-licensed therapists encouraging self-prioritisation and preservation above all else, with a ‘you don’t owe anyone anything babe’ catchphrase. Still, it’s always been the mindset of the majority to view it as a problem of their’s and not our’s. Even those who do comprehend the severity of restrictive laws or international affairs that don’t directly affect them, there’s still a continuation of self-prioritisation, built from a fear of being emotionally overwhelmed by some intangible event. It’s simply too much for them; 9 to 5's are hard enough as it is. And, I get it, really. It’s much nicer to sit in idleness. Still, do you not ever judge the person who enjoys the food but refuses to cook? Who parties the most but works the least?

In turn, this negates another resounding argument I commonly hear, that those of us willing to cut people out of our lives because of politics are blind to the nuance of personhood; we view the world as two-dimensional, casting black and white projections to those around us and banishing them from our lives if they dare to disagree. A binary perspective that’ll inevitably lead to a depressive demise.

The proclivity to cut those out of our lives because of this binary, politically-centric perspective forms the very nuance they argue us to overlook. We see how a single X in a box underscores a person’s value system at the micro and macro level. We marinate ourselves at night with the potential to sway perception, and then eventually retire knowing that we likely don’t have to be concerned with their feelings if they are as equally unlikely to be concerned with our's, as women, as working class, as second generation immigrants. Yeah, a political mindset can often be quite emotionally exhausting and repetitive. But, continuously attempting to rebute or ignore the apolitical or conservative mindset of a friend? That would, in all sincerity and transparency, kill me off.

To conclude this absolutely atrocious word-vomit, here are two of my favourite excerpts from Ernesto Che Guevara and Fernando Pessoa, respectively, which I feel emulate the true essence of personhood and humanism...helps to know there's those likeminded out there :)

“If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine.” ―Ernesto Che Guevara

"Nostalgia! I feel it even for someone who meant nothing to me, out of anxiety for the flight of time and a sickness bred of the mystery of life. If one of the faces I pass daily on the streets disappears, I feel sad; yet they meant nothing to me, other than being a symbol of all life." - Fernando Pessoa