and now a hint that you're looking to date someone with the same views on the war and other political issues...

hmmm...

My advice is that you don't have to keep dropping hints and waiting for him to ask you out. You should just be the proactive one and ask him out: allah@hotair.com

Allah and I have been having a torrid love affair for some time. Don't be jealous.

But, no, this question stems from the fact that the last time I was single political persuasion mattered to me not at all and now it does a lot. And I was probably more political then.

I didn't mind the difference before, but the tension is just too high now.

I mean, if I need someone to tell me that I'm an idiot for my beliefs, I can turn on msnbc. I don't want to cook dinner for someone who treats me that way.

As a post-9/11 conservative, I've had (counting in head) two or three relationships fail as a direct result of political disagreements.

So yeah.

As long as she's great in bed I don't care what her politics are.

Date? Sure.

I dated a career educator who voted for Gore in 2000. By the time we were married in 04, she had evolved into a staunch conservative.

Libs come in three forms:

-Tender hearted decent people who have never applied logic to economics, policy & politics. (teachable)

-People who buy into their own victim-hood. (teachable)

-Contemptible elitists who beleive they know what's best for everyone. (irredeemable)

I don't bother dating men that I know I will often want to stab during political debates.

Nah...Liberal men are too wussified and weak for me.

As a conservative I feel that I should respect the views of others, and treat them with respect when discussing our respective views.

As a liberal, my spouse not only does not share my politics, she does not share my tolerance. Thus every situation becomes an angry fight.

I have been clear with her that I do not need or demand her to share my views. I only ask that she be able to listen to them as respectfully as I do hers. This she cannot do, because to her the world is black and white, good and evil (wait, aren't I supposed to be the simplistic one?).

Who do I blame? Without implying that I could not do better, it is very clear from whence this fanaticism come, and it is the media. The selective trumpeting of all things bad and the attribution of them to Bush / Republicans / conservatives has proven to be more than she can see clearly through. A few days ago I sent her a link to the Shorenstein study of media bias. That act alone caused a multi-day acrimonious episode, and it did not get read.

How can she not have been influenced by the pervasive BDS she sees in the newspaper, on NPR, on every television show, news or fiction? I have lost my loved one to the Democrats as surely as they would like America to lose Iraq.

No. Life is tough enough without killing each other because of ideologies.

I'm happily married to my wonderful wife, so the question doesn't really apply to me anymore.

That said, however, I would recommend that anyone pondering this issue consider it an issue of intellectual respect. How could you intellectually respect someone who was a staunch lefty?

I'm not seeing it.

I guess it just sort of depends on how much respect you have for other people's views. Personally, I have no problem "agreeing to disagree" so to speak, but some people really can't handle that. My wife has trouble with this. She needs people to agree with her. It seems to be a personal insult if they don't. Fortunately, she's somewhat middle-of-the-road with her views, so we get along ok.

But, I like you, am much less tolerant of political differences today than I was when I was younger and more political. I think it's because, back then, political discussions tended to invigorate me, and now they largely exhaust me. I no longer have the interest in spending all day (or any more than a couple of hours per week) arguing about politics.

I think it's because, back then, political discussions tended to invigorate me, and now they largely exhaust me. I no longer have the interest in spending all day (or any more than a couple of hours per week) arguing about politics.

That's really interesting. I'm thinking that's the case for me as well. My other reason, I think, is that I became politically radicalized by election 2000. I was thinking "those bastards are trying to steal the election!" and I had no one with whom to share that view so I went out and got involved in Republican politics. The time after that election was, by far, my most partisan and extreme politically. But I had no problem dating liberals and now I just wouldn't, I think because 9/11 happened between then and now and made politics so much more important than I thought it was back in 2000.

Dear Lord, I can't imagine being with someone from the left. They make me crazy on ty and blogs, let alone trying to understand their twisted vitriolic viewpoints. Not me, no way. I'd rather have someone who's ignorant of what's going on in the world but then she probably wouldn't hold my attention for too long either.

I'd eat her beaver, but date her in a serious sense? No.

Could I date someone with differing political views? Sure, provided she's not a Truther or anything like that (I've hung out with those types and they do tend to dominate the discussion).

My political beliefs are one part of a greater whole and it's not about converting anyone. Being comfortable with her having different views I see as a part of being mature.

Now if she's an Avs fans, well we won't get into that...

My gf is a stauch liberal, and she's made cracks that it'll be hard for us to last long term because of our differences.

It probably depends on which issues you disagree upon.

For example, I could date someone who thinks smoking should be banned from restaurants (e.g. my current gf).

I could not date someone who thinks Israel is an evil apartheid state and that the government is controlled by AIPAC (e.g. a John Conyers staffer that I met on JDate (no, seriously)).

Well, as a guy's who's examined too many issues since 9/11 and have left the Democratic Party of which I had been a member for 30+ years and married now for 25+, I can say that without a doubt it is possible.

I remain happily married to my wife even though we're now pretty much on opposite sides of many current issues.

We just don't talk politics anymore.

Not as much fun as it used to be, but it's not the end of the world. Besides, I'd rather talk about our kids.

Been there, done that.

Of course it matters. While at first, heated differences may generate heat, after a little while, they begin to grate. There are going to be differences enough in any serious, long-term relationship. Alignment of certain core values should be a minimum requirement.

Good luck.

chsw

I think because 9/11 happened between then and now and made politics so much more important than I thought it was back in 2000.

I don't know if 9/11 affected me in that way or if I've just gotten older and more set in my ways, such that I'm much less flexible about some issues (e.g., small government, low taxes), while also caring a great deal less about others (e.g., abortion, gay marriage). But, some issues do seem petty when placed in the context of 9/11.

Also, 9/11 did reveal for me a side of the left that I would have preferred not knowing existed. I used to respect the left a great deal more than I do now. I used to think we largely had the same goals, just different opinions on how to get there. Now, I'm not so sure.

I'm going to be a contrarian here and say "yes," with the proviso included by Joe above.

About 9/11-and I don't want to sidetrack you all onto an unrelated tangent-why was it so definitive in terms of shaping your political views?

I remember taking a poli-sci course with a guy who was a huge left wing peacenik-someone who had a dove sewn in his kippah-who completely reversed course after the September 11th massacres, to the extent that he started retrospectively praising Joe McCarthy and taking after the Islamist professors at our college.

To me the attacks impacted me emotionally and pyschologically, but I don't see how they changed my political viewpoins any more than the repeated jihadi attacks on the City, successful or foiled, since the late 80s.

The reflexive hostility most Democrats showed to anything intended to ensure our security domestically or internationally was disquieting, but not surprising to the extent that it changed my pre-existing view of their party.

Gerard, I was sort of isolationist before 9/11. I wanted to trade with other countries but not pay them much mind beyond that. Now I realize that's just never going to be realistic for the US.

Also, it put terrorism front and center for everyone in a way none of the attacks had before. Anyone who didn't take it seriously after that is someone I can't take seriously either.

Wow, we were just talking about how Sheryl Crow broke poor cancer Lance Armstrong's heart because of his bush love.

"I wanted to trade with other countries but not pay them much mind beyond that. Now I realize that's just never going to be realistic for the US."

dumb that down for me please.

Okay, now I understand where you're coming from.

For me it reinforced positions I already held re: Iran, the disastrous decision to choose (Islamist) winners in the tinderbox of Europe, untrammeled immigration into the U.S., etc...

But I kind of acknowledge the need to have a more muscular diplomatic diplomatic corps and intervention in some areas, e.g. Africom.

It's probably easier to sustain a politically mixed relationship that started before out political discourse went to hell than it would be to start one. My wife and I have learned how to talk about politics - it's actually pretty similar to talking about sports - we can discuss whether a candidate made a good strategic decision and things like that, but neither of us has made any serious attempts to change the other's mind for a few years now.

I think that using Truthers or those wackjobs in Olympia as examples of "the other side" for dating purposes is kind of a straw man argument. Could someone who would vote for Thompson or Romney get involved with someone who plans to vote for Clinton or Obama? I still honestly don't see why not - unless you honestly believe that there is no way a decent, intelligent person could reach a different conclusion than you on the major issues of the day.

well, i prefer conservatives.....but there arent many conservative gay boys around. haha. so i tend to just go for "liberal, but not political" or apathetic.

Three things:

1.) I think it's sad that our politics have gotten to the point where people can't have intelligent discourse without it degenerating to acrimony.

2.) If you can't discuss _politics_ (which, at the end of the day, is _not_ an immediate "dealbreaker"), then you gotta start wondering how you're going to discuss things like kids, finances, health issues, sex, etc.. In other words, the opposing political beliefs shouldn't matter as much as the fact that you can't have an argument without it spinning into the final scene from a John Woo (version Hong Kong) movie. It wouldn't matter if you were both donkeys or both elephants--if you can't communicate, you're through.

3.) That being said, you would have to look at what else this person brings to the table. Also, do any of their friends assume rabid badger form when arguing? Because, yeah, nothing ruins a holiday party like two guests going hammer and tongs over an issue that really doesn't affect the price of tea in China outside of election years.

Just sayin, if you and the other person can talk and communicate without it getting out of hand, they have other positive attributes (like they make you feel good about yourself, have been known to make you laugh so hard you pass out, and will be there for you when you find out a parent has two days to live), and despite the fact they're a pink liberal they'd make a great spouse, date them. Otherwise, the problem's not politics--the problem's they're an a** and shoudl be shown the exit door.

Just my $.02...which, with the way the dollar's going, is only good for making wishes.

We are meant to be apart from one another.

Socially, personally, sexually, etc.

It is improper for progressives to mix with neocons because it was not meant to be in the first place.

Work together, chat casually on a blog, remark on the rain on an elevated subway platform, fine.

But you will notice singles deliberately affecting certain manners of dress, hairstyles, even overt religious symbols, slogans, etc. that are subtle reminders of the profound differences that divide us. It is simply too emotionally draining to hit it off with someone new, only to discover they stand for what we despise.

We are enemies, on opposite sides of the barricades, and it's immensely preferable to simply accept that fact of life right off the bat, and face the fact that discrimination in one's personal affairs is simply common sense and good taste.

I'm 5 years and 2 kids into a right/libertarian - left/Democrat marriage. It's all good!

I think it's more consequential than just 'arguing about politics.'

If a person is in their early 20s and just looking to casually date for fun and giggles, then you could still probably date someone from the dark side.
But if you're looking to date to lead to marriage, I think it's best to find someone who shares the same core beliefs and values to share your life with.

I think a few people in this thread perceive political differences to be as uncomplicated as if one person just happens to root for the Yankees, and the other person happens to root for the Red Sox.
However, in that case, the team you root for is more about geography or province, rather than "ideology."
But "rooting" for a political party is much different---you do so because of the inherent beliefs and values represented by that party.

It's a little difficult for me to get all hot and bothered about someone who is oblivious to the fact that Islamic Jihadists have a goal of establishing a worldwide caliphate based on Sharia Law---I don't care how many of Victoria's secrets she wants to share with me !
I also wouldn't want to trust my credit card to someone who votes to raise my taxes.

Also, I think that if the two people are each very passionate about their politics, it ends up creating resentment that becomes difficult to transcend. (On the other hand, if one of them is apolitical, it may not be a problem.)

We conservatives tend to believe that lefties are merely wrong about issues, while lefties tend to believe that we conservatives are "evil" in the views we hold.

I think people right-of-center are generally more respectful of people with differing views.
At college campuses, left-wing speakers never need bodyguards because they know that the College Republicans will not assault them or shout them down.
But look how often conservative speakers at college campuses are harrassed.
They usually have to have bodyguards.

Seriously, if a woman thinks I'm "evil" because I believe in low taxes and that I believe it is essential for us to fight Islamic Jihad, how can she give herself to me...if I support "evil" ?

It came to me as a complete and utter shock that the man I am seriously considering a rest of the life scenario with is not a little Alex P. Keaton clone. I somehow ended up knee deep in a serious relationship with him despite assuming it would be a fun fling of sorts (how did that happen?) So, I guess being able to agree to disagree works for us...

Perhaps there was a time when people of differing politics could date without a big all out brawl. I think in today's climate things are different. Not just life style, but BDS is awful out there, seems people can't just civilly disagree, they want to get in your face, to scream at you red in anger and disagree. Especially the left they tend to go into a rage, with the mention of George Bush. I remember when I was younger, the same left went into a rage with the mention of Rudy Giuliani (or Ghouliani as they called him). The rage you see within the upper politicals as in Congress, has drifted down or perhaps the people down below are sending it up, I don’t know. Congress folks have to look good on tv, non Congress folk don’t, they can let the mean hang out as in Code Pink or Daily Kos. This all translates into interactive relationships between men and women, many of opposite extreme can’t stand be with each other civilly in the same room anymore. I have been told by women on Jdate, within the chat rooms there, they would never date anyone who votes Republican.

I am sure Code Pink types and Move-on.org are extreme, but they seem to set the pace that seems to make people of differing opinion uncomfortable, you don't want to live with someone who at any minute will go into a rage because you praise President Bush or Rudy Giuliani. Heck I think even within similar realm, conservativism, people can’t even get along either. Can you imagine with some people if I told them I am pro-choice, they might go nuts though I agree with everything else. Look how some are reacting to Rudy.

What happened to my post?

What happened to my post?

It got stuck in my spam filter and I wasn't near a computer to approve it.

We conservatives tend to believe that lefties are merely wrong about issues, while lefties tend to believe that we conservatives are "evil" in the views we hold.

You are correct bbias! And this is only reinforced/epitomized by this weak-minded bilge above you:

We are enemies. We are meant to be apart from one another. Socially, personally, sexually, etc. It is improper for proregressives to mix with neocons (WTF is a neocon?) because it was not meant to be in the first place.

This could have been stated verbatim from a George Wallace speech during Jim Crow's salad days (every politician behind that abomination was a progressive Democrat BTW).

I'm with Karol - 9/11 cemented my already staunch belief system. What precludes me even more from sharing fluids with a dhimmi lefty is their herclean effort to ignore the odious threats we face (in and out of the country). They aren't just naturally stoooooooooooopid, they work very hard at it (see: hashforbrains above).

Progressives have no business messing around with neocons or their sympathizers. It cannot work, and it is unnatural.

I am a strong proponent of this...it trumps even any sort of grouping together by nationality or religion, for one can always accept the other partner's beliefs or customs.

But you cannot build a life together with a murderous, unclean, violence-driven, sex-repressed, war-mongering, regressive neocon (or their derivatives) if you are an intelligent, decent progressive.

You cannot share common values with a rightist that claims to believe in The One Above, yet worships the idol of money above all else.

Yes, you can differ on individual ISSUES, but even those must be vetted out, resolved, and kept to a bare minimum. The die is cast, reconciliation between enemies with essential ideological differences is no longer possible in the nation, and if you want to have peace in the home and in the family it is up to YOU to behave properly, not equivocate and make excuses for social laziness and cheap thrills.

Bad boy,
your idea that the right is more respectful of opinions not of their own took some serious damage when Bush said "If the democrats win, the terrorists win and America loses", just before Pelosi and co got in. I don't buy what you are saying, I think hardline politicos will always spew anti-opponent bilge instead of using facts and argument to present a case.

Well my goodness, how many times have I run into this. Among the ladies who call themselves "liberal" there are some real sexpots out there, and they aren't all liberals.

I've devised the following tests. But as a disclaimer, I ended up with a sensible moderate-right gal, so it could be said that ultimately these tests had a zero percent success rate. But they are a product of experience.

1. Confront the cosmetic inconsistencies. We all have "cosmetic" ones. For example, I don't think the state should pay for abortions, but I do think it is obliged to execute violent criminals. Some folks call that an inconsistency. Called upon to explain it, I can write a thesis defending it. It would be very simple, very brief, and a lot of people would find it sensible; some would not.

If your sweetie can produce a concise, simple and sensible essay explaining his/her cosmetic inconsistencies, this is a sign that s/he thinks independently. That means there is some hope. If the answer boils down to "well that's what so-and-so said I should think" then head for the hills.

2. Watch how s/he treats people with whom s/he disagrees. That is how s/he will treat you, on a semi-regular basis.

3. Is there some class of person who, in his/her mind is ALWAYS right? And another that is ALWAYS wrong? If so, run as fast as your little legs can carry you.

4. The word "egalitarian" means everybody is supposed to be equal. Watch out for people who use it, for they almost always believe in something directly opposite.

5. Us guys have it easy here, Karol. The biggest trap for us is women who call themselves "feminists" and the test for that is very simple: Forty years into the postmodern movement, we still have this expectation that guys should pour large amounts of money into their girlfriends and wives during the relationship, as well as after it's over. When would be an appropriate time for feminism to finally get around to confronting that injustice? And from asking that simple question, we get a window into the lady's soul, and our future with her.

5. Another advantage us gentlemen have: Liberal women are extremely controlling, at least the ones that are huge problems for us down the road. You just find something to do that she wouldn't do if she were you, and POLITELY explain to her that you're going to do it anyway. Do it even if you don't want to do it, if that's what it takes...the important thing is her reaction.

6. If a man's a real man, he has no reason -- none -- to stay away from Hooter's. So go to Hooter's. If she makes a fuss about it, dump her ass quick because she doesn't like the fact that you're a man. And this can ultimately mean she'll have to be unhappy with you...unless she can stop you from being a man. BELIEVE me, it doesn't stop with keeping you out of Hooter's. She'll want you to watch Meg Ryan and Hugh Grant movies until you're sick to death of them, and then she'll want you to watch some more. Like I said. EXTREMELY controlling.

I should point out some of these have shown me the way to success. My current one and I, early on, went to Hooter's. Now that's her idea of a good time because she knows I like hot wings and cold beer. And I do watch an occasional "Everybody Loves Raymond" episode with her...just because I like to make her happy. I think that's the way things are supposed to be.

But no, that's not really on topic because we both agree Hillary Clinton is about the worst thing possible for the country.

bryan wrote;

"Bad boy, your idea that the right is more respectful of opinions not of their own took some serious damage when Bush said "If the democrats win, the terrorists win and America loses", just before Pelosi and co got in. I don't buy what you are saying, I think hardline politicos will always spew anti-opponent bilge instead of using facts and argument to present a case."
-----------------

bryan, by the same token, lefties think that America is worse off if the GOP is in charge.
That's just called having faith in one's beliefs.
It sounds like you're trying to equate 'having faith in one's beliefs' with 'totalitarian methods of obstruction'---gee, how Orwellian of you.

For instance, lefties attempt to shut down conservative speakers at college campuses. They shout them down so they cannot be heard, they throw things at them, they attempt to block their cars in the parking lot, and they issue anonymous threats about 'what will happen' if they come speak.
As a result, conservative speakers are often accomodated by bodyguards.

Lefty speakers don't have to bring bodyguards to speak at college campuses, because the Campus Republicans don't issue threats, they don't shout down lefty speakers, and they don't attempt to intimidate them.

6. If a man's a real man, he has no reason -- none -- to stay away from Hooter's

The food sucks and I always get seated at the table served by the Equal Opportunity hire. You probably know the one. Pushing 50, smoker's hack, etc.

Well, whatever you do it should be your cuppa. Growing facial hair, maybe.

The point is there are a lot of ladies out there of the liberal persuasion who think they're ready to share their lives with a real man, and they really aren't. Much less expensive to figure out this is the situation up-front, than to blunder along merrily until you run headlong into the problem.

Love and business always have this in common: Every transaction, the more powerful party is the one more willing to walk away.

I'm with Shawn. I've been to Hooters once. Thanks, but if I'm going to pay that much for "scenery" and bad food, then I'll just skip to the strip club.

As to the "real man" comment--funny, but I never thought going to see women as "objects" made one a real man. Maybe it's just my own personal wiring, but I find a woman dressed to the nines far more attractive than one put in hot shorts and a tube top.

Wow! Lot's of comments.

A guy at work recently married a liberal. Whenever politics come up she becomes hysterical. I can't decide if it's because she feels strongly about her political opinions or she just doesn't like the idea he's disagreeing with her. So he never brings up politics anymore, even though he likes to talk politics. When the romance in this relationship dies they'll have nothing to talk about.

I think alamo's comment about people being liberal for different reasons is perceptive. I don't think I would mind being with a lady who's liberal because she's not particualarly political and fell prey to the facile nature of distributionist arguments. You see a lot of that here in the San Francisco area - people are liberal because they like kids and dogs but havn't thought through all the implications of raising taxes and handing out the money to poor people.

There is a certain kind of person who sees himself/herself as morally superior to you unless you believe in socialized medicine. That's probably not the right kind of person for a conservative to date.

E5, you're 180 degrees wrong. The reason she's asking is she met someone, but he's a liberal and she's trying to convince herself it could still work. Karol, you should write Mary Matalin - anyone who can put up with Carville must know "the secret".

Well, whatever you do it should be your cuppa. Growing facial hair, maybe.

Oh, I've got that covered.

Love and business always have this in common: Every transaction, the more powerful party is the one more willing to walk away.

Hear, hear.

E5, you're 180 degrees wrong. The reason she's asking is she met someone, but he's a liberal and she's trying to convince herself it could still work.

Nah, it's not about me. I was just thinking out loud... in public. Like I wrote, I don't think I'd even give a liberal a chance in that way these days. My last boyfriend was liberalish when we met, radicalized by 9/11, and mostly a libertarian now. And while we very rarely fought about politics, I just don't feel like I'd give someone with his original views a chance today. I guess I'm just marveling at the fact that I'm much less political now than I was then but am much more rigid in what I want in a man.

K,

Is it rigidity or just the realization people with a fully-formed belief system rarely (never?) change. Maybe you just don't want to deal with a source of irritation realize will be permanent.

But if you start dating a liberal I may have to come out of poker retirement and look for you in AC. :)

But if you start dating a liberal I may have to come out of poker retirement and look for you in AC. :)

Anyone that comments here regularly AND plays poker has a serious shot with me. ;-)

Bad boy writes:
"It sounds like you're trying to equate 'having faith in one's beliefs' with 'totalitarian methods of obstruction'---gee, how Orwellian of you."
It would be Orwellian of me, if I'd said (or been 'trying to say') it. I mentioned what Bush had said, but then added something about 'hardline politicos' so as not to make it about one party (or even one country).
Your points about Republican politesse are eroded IMO by Bush calling that reporter an asshole, Cheney with the "Go fuck yourself" and I won't bother with the Rove stuff. Students are hardly worth getting steamed up about.

The other day in the UK, the Oxford Union was stormed by students to prevent two "far-right" speakers from appearing. I say good. One was David Irving (Holocaust denier), the other the head of the BNP (UK neo-nazis).