I Love You, But I Hate Your Politics: How to Protect Your Intimate Relationships in a Poisonous Partisan World

by Jeanne Safer

Since the election of Donald J. Trump, political differences have been ravaging our personal relationships like never before. This already widespread phenomenon will continue to grow unless we can learn to fight it. Drawing from fifty interviews with politically-mixed couples and her own experiences as a die-hard liberal happily married to a stalwart conservative, Dr. Jeanne Safer offers us a path forward in this practical guide to maintaining intimate relationships in our increasingly divided world.
The book is part relationship guide, part anthropological study, and it's sure to educate and entertain anyone who has felt the strain of political differences on their personal relationships. No matter which side of the fence you're on, Dr. Safer offers frank, practical advice for salvaging and strengthening your bonds with your loved ones. I Love You But I Hate Your Politics is required reading for any politically-minded friend, relative, or significant other in the Trump era.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Psychology, Self Help, Relationships, Audiobook, Race

233 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 11, 2019

About the author

Jeanne Safer, Ph.D., a psychotherapist in New York City, is the author of The Golden Condom, Beyond Motherhood, The Normal One, and several other books. Dr. Safer has appeared on The Daily Show and Good Morning America as well as numerous NPR broadcasts. Her work has been the subject of articles in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. She is the host of the I Love You, But I Hate Your Politics podcast.

Reviews

[Sandra · Rating 1 out of 5]

Nope nope nope. I was looking for a book that would help me talk to my father about politics without having to tell him I can’t muster the emotional capacity for such a conversation. None of the examples in the book reflected our relationship, in fact many of the father/child relationships were explained away by elderly parents starting Alzheimer’s or other similar mental deficiencies. My father may be in his 70s but he is still sharp.

Further, the rest of the book actually spent very little time explaining ways to get along, aside from the last chapter where I found a small list that might have been helpful had it been expanded on. A lot of the advice given seemed to boil down to “don’t talk about it” or “talk about it but don’t offer a rebuttal.”

In a way I found a lot of the book to be steeped in privilege. There are actual human beings affected by political policies. Ignoring that and saying, “But I love you so let’s just not talk about it,” implies that you can do so because it doesn’t affect you, and if that’s not some privileged BS I don’t know what is.

I still wholeheartedly stand by this statement: A person’s politics reflects their morals.

[Jane Morrison · Rating 1 out of 5]

I dont usually bother to leave negative reviews but I was frustrated and disappointed by this book and the privilege required to actually apply its advice. For many people politics is not just something that can be picked up and put on the shelf, their identities and existence are under attack. I was hoping to find techniques for how to improve my communication with those I care about who disagree with me but I dont really feel this has helped me. With rising inequality and polarisation in the world we definitely need to do better and find ways through it together but not in the ways outlined here, ignoring it just isnt good enough.

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read an article a few weeks ago by Kathryn Jean Lopez after her reading of this book. The title made me chuckle, so I headed off to the library to pick up a copy. The night I started it I had dinner with a friend and I was telling her about the author’s situation. She’s a strong left-leaning liberal, and he’s a strong right-leaning conservative. They’ve been married for 42 years.
.
As I was reading through the book I was trying to find her bias (she laid out her position from the beginning). Was she trying to get all Democrats to do things to manipulate their Republican partners to vote differently in the next election? Was she trying to illustrate how the right isn’t right?
.
Reading through it I didn’t get that sense. She brings up some good points regarding relationships, stereotyping based on one thing (like who you voted for in 2016), when it’s appropriate to share political articles, how to have politically charged conversations (even with people who you agree with), and more. The real life examples were excellent. Not everyone figures it out. Not ever woman is a liberal and every man a Trump supporter.
.
No matter where we fall on the issues (important ones or not), we need to change the way we talk about them. Assuming that we’re always right and the other side is always wrong will not help us fix anything. The answer to every issue is much more nuanced than how the left or the right is proposing to fix it. The answer is closer to the middle than anyone seems willing to admit.
.
When we refuse to speak to people with differing opinions, we miss out. When we’ve decided that because they voted for Trump they are a monster or because they aren’t pro-life they have nothing to say that’s worth hearing, we feed into the worst parts of ourselves and our political system. We can disagree and also get along.
.
We need to figure this out as a society. We can’t just keep slinging vitriol and hatred out to our neighbors because they disagree with us – even when they’re big issues that we’re super passionate about. Relationships are more than that. Love and kindness to our neighbor is bigger than that. Respecting the dignity of another person requires more of us.
.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

[Jessica]

I was originally attracted to this book because my husband and I have very different political views so I was curious about what the author would have to say about it. A few chapters in, I thought that it wasn't the book for me because it seemed to be about couples (or friends or family members) that fought about politics and it was threatening their relationship. My husband and I don't fight about our politics so I was having a hard time relating. I kept on reading, though and found it to be very affirming. All of the techniques and strategies that she suggests are sound and are the very ones that my husband and I have found to be successful. If you and your partner (or friend or family member) are having a hard time seeing eye to eye and it's threatening your relationship this is the book for you.

[Chad · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't have an intimate relationship with a Trump supporter and neither does the author. She is liberal and her husband is conservative and they both disaprove of Trump. She writes as though the conservative/liberal divide is equivalent to the Trump/anti-Trump divide. Not the same thing at all. Trump supporters don't support him because he is conservative (he isn't) - there is some other reason that they claim to feel so strongly about his policies (supply-side economics, inhumane border control, deregulation?) that they support an obviously dishonest and immoral man. Whatever that reason, whether they are bullies themselves or incapable of recognizing a bully, whether they are racist or sexist or greedy and like to see those qualities in their leader, whatever the case, an intimate relationship with a Trump supporter is not something I would allow in my life.

I live in ID so I thought this might help me understand the intelligent, compassionate people I meet who support Trump. The book helped me realize that political arguments always hide the true argument underneath. The lack of integrity that supporting Trump reveals doesn't make someone unworthy of love, but just as I wouldn't start a relationship with an alcoholic unless they were in recovery, I don't want to invest a great deal of energy in someone who can't see that expecting moral policies from an immoral man is just another twisted perversion of "the ends justify the means." I support their recovery, but I don't need to hear the hateful things that inevitably come out of their mouths along the way.

[Clara Hill · Rating 1 out of 5]

At the beginning of this book, she says don’t apply these rules to sexist, homophobic and racist beliefs. IF YOU SUPPORT TRUMP, you support sexist, homophobic and racist beliefs.

Yes, it’s complicated but I will never date a trump supporter. Also the Republican Party is a terrorist organisation in the words of Lauren Duca. Also, never kiss a Tory.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite torn by this book - on one hand, the advice to look inward at yourself and your own behaviour when it comes to political discussions, and to bear in mind the things you love about the person you butt heads with politically are useful.

But the rest of the advice is basically “don’t persist in talking about it” and “you won’t change their minds”...two things we all know deep down anyway.

“Political affiliations aren’t the only indicators of moral value” - absolutely true. But we’re also living in a time where, even if you don’t 100% agree with someone like Trump, but you voted for him, you’re enabling policies that hurt people in very real ways, and ways that we haven’t really seen in recent years. I think *not* talking about it is a privilege only people who aren’t massively affected by policies can afford.

That said, I did recognise a lot of my own behaviour in this book and I need to take on board the recognition of the way I speak to certain people in my life about these things that impassion us all greatly.

[Heidi Thiel · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciated the main theme of this book, which was that political views are not at all an indication of moral character. The author backs up this claim well with numerous examples, the most compelling of which was the woman who's conservative uncle was the only family member to come to her aid when multiple tragedies struck her life, despite their estrangement due to political issues. The author's own relationship with her husband also presented an interesting viewpoint into mixed political couples.

Overall, I did find the book worthwhile in that it constantly made me recognize my own biases and tendency to instantly condemn the other side's morals. The author provided a very wide range of example couples and it was interesting to learn how they each were able to overcome their political differences.

However, I do agree with other reviewers that a liberal dating a Trump supporter is not the same thing as a liberal dating a classic conservative. The author didn't really present any solutions for this type of arrangement beyond "never discuss politics." I think the message of this book is very valuable, but unfortunately the current political climate is too polarizing for the solutions she presented to be realistic.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

I thought I would like this book, but I didn't really. I get in heated conversations with my family, and although Safer's advice of treat your conversation partner like a human seems good on the face of it, I'm not sure it necessarily holds water in a time when the stakes are so high. I mean, on some levels that is always the case, and civil conversation is important, but there does seem to be a certain false equivalence to the way that Safer approaches talking about these issues that I find troubling.

[Cristie Underwood · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a much needed book in our current political climate for many people! My husband and I are Democrats and politics always seems to come up when we go visit my Republican family. This book gave some great tips on how to avoid conflict. Highly recommend!

[Sarah Sheppard · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was a disappointment. I give it 2 stars instead of 1, because perhaps it will help some people, and because she claims in the beginning that you can't apply these tactics to racism and homophobia. I'm a left-leaning moderate married to a socially liberal Republican. I expected this book to have more content about learning to calmly discuss, understand, and respect opposing political views. Instead, I seem to have jumped into a Boomer-era handbook for bottling your emotions and sweeping your opinions under the rug, in the name of superficial peace.

I'm clearly not in the target demographic; that was made clear just a few chapters in. Much of the book seems to be targeted at people who have literal screaming fights that are potentially relationship-ending. But her advice can be boiled down to "okay, so why did you bring it up if you know it will cause a fight?" It felt as if the author's point was that if you know your loved one disagrees with you, then you shouldn't be bringing up those viewpoints with them.

On one hand, this is a fair idea in some contexts. If you and your loved one disagree on things that have little to no impact on your actual lives and relationship, sure, avoid those topics. Or maybe learn to be more tactful about explaining your alternate view.

On the other hand, it is a huge privilege to simply ignore your spouse's opinion on certain political topics. It's easy if you have little to no skin in the game; if you're white, well educated, financially secure, able bodied, etc, you can certainly go through life without acknowledging that your spouse may have views that actively cause harm to people with less privilege.

All of that is on top of the casual victim-blaming that is woven throughout the book. The author claims that you can only control your own beliefs, but then explains how important it is to manage other people's emotions as if they are your fault. I'm sorry, but if your spouse is so emotionally fragile that sending an email with a link to an article of an opposing view leads to a nuclear level, marriage damaging fight, it's not your fault for sending the email. There's more to that than an email. It's on them to work through the reasons a hyperlink sends them over the deep end. While there's something to be said for the tactic of "don't do things you know bother your spouse," we also need to remember that it's up to them to manage their emotions and reactions when presented with views that challenge their own. It's not okay to emotionally explode on your loved ones, and it's also not okay to say "to fix my out of control emotional response, you need to change your behavior." In a relationship, it's *we* that change *our* behaviors to keep the relationship healthy.

The book, overall, left me with very little hope of ever learning how to better understand my husband's views that are so different from my own. Rather than learning how to relate to him and respect him on a higher level, the book's message to me was that keeping the peace should be valued over deep understanding; people often never evolve their political views; the success of my marriage depends on my willingness and ability to keep my mouth shut and an unrequited dump truck of emotional labor. Yay.

[Shirley DeCorte]

I was not crazy about this book but thought it might be interesting. I guess I was looking for how to solve the problems of communicating while staying civil and this was more of a report on how some people handled their situations.

[Jessica · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dnfed @ 3% when she said that unfriending people / leaving relationships/ cutting off family due to differences in political beliefs was "insane"
Human rights are not a difference in beliefs.

[Mannie Liscum · Rating 3 out of 5]

Many of us can relate to the title of Dr. Jeanne Safer’s book: “I Love You, but I Hate Your Politics,” especially in the divisive tribal era of Trumpworld. This reviewer had great hopes that Dr. Safer, a practicing (45 years) psychotherapist, would have great insights about why we have conflicts over politics with loved ones, and how to minimize those conflicts, or at least lessen the damage from them. When Safer quite earlier in the book proudly announces that many ‘self-help books’ exist in this area of human interactions, hers is the only one to provide real help, I was both appalled at her arrogance, and intrigued that she might be correct on her self-confidence. Sadly her roadmap for both understanding and positively affecting relationships poisoned by political tribalism is both well traveled and ultimate short on deep impact. Most of what she say, based on interviews with patients of hers, is typical psychobabble (btw, I’m not denigrating psychology or therapy in the least, just calling out her ‘unique perspective’ as nothing particularly unique; my therapists have hit upon the same tactics and ‘deep’ understanding). In the end if you are already talking with a professional about this issue you won’t get much new insight from this book. If on the other hand you aren’t doing, or have never done, therapy Dr. Safer’s book may be an appropriate entryway into healing for you. 3 stars out of 5.

[Hope · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was okay. More of an anecdotal study than a book offering tangible advice. I think it would have been more helpful with takeaways or key points. Instead the author goes into examples one after the other, and the reader is left to surmise the fable.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Another witch doctor with a PhD. How to differentiate a useless book from the thousands of other useless opinions on relationships? Especially when most authors sport a PhD or, even better, MD on the cover! Well, it has something to do with Trump.

[Alexa · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book makes some good points about how many people need to learn to be more polite when discussing politics and I agree that we should try to understand where people are coming from with their views as it is usually related to upbringing.
However, Safer spends the whole book discussing politics like it’s some far off subject that doesn’t directly affect people’s lives. It’s clear the majority of her cases she discusses are privileged enough to not have politics make a large difference in their daily lives. That’s where I had a problem with this book. Safer claims politics and ideology are completely separate from morality and while that can be true to an extent it completely overlooks the real affects politics, voting, and a certain president have on people’s lives.
Overall, this book comes from a privileged spaces and is made for privileged people who views politics as a fun debate topic as opposed to decisions that affect their livelihoods.

[angela · Rating 3 out of 5]

Politics are perhaps more contentious now than they have ever been before. At least in my recent memory. How do we navigate relationships where we differ politically? Is it possible to love those from the other side? This book explore these questions and takes the reader through different types of relationship, sharing stories from people all over the country. This book is a great introduction to the topic and felt bipartisan in its approach. However, I could have used more application and advice at points and less stories. Check this one out if you are wondering how to approach relationships with those across the aisle.

[Michael E. McCullough · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok book, but most of it is common sense that decent people used to follow. Most importantly is the truism you cannot change others. I liked the fact that she and her spouse are on opposite sides but have been married for many years and they love each other.

[Cheryl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Book was ok. Just skip to the last chapter.

[Sandy✨mood reader✨ · Rating 3 out of 5]

I feel very conflicted about this book. The beginning felt a little condescending at times and like she didn’t truly understand. I enjoyed the last 1/4 of the book more than the rest, but finished feeling like there was a bad taste in my mouth. There were some takeaway tips for having civil political discussion. I think where this falls flat for me is that (bare with me I’m having a hard time articulating this) it sounds like she’s operating from a place of privilege. As in, she sides with certain issues but she is at a place in her life where even if things go the other way, it will not greatly affect her personally. So her solution is to basically just avoid talking about that topic to get along, because you love everything else about the person. Her example is the abortion issue between her and her husband. While I can see this working for non-intimate relationships (where the person is a friend or other family member and not your partner), I think it’s unreasonable and unfair to expect that that “solution” would work for everyone. If your partner votes in a way that actively causes you harm I really can’t imagine how you are just supposed to ignore that.

Anyway, I enjoyed the book in that it really made me want to talk about it with someone haha. But ultimately feel like this definitely would not work for everyone without making you feel like you are compromising your own values. Also, if you found your way here because you are trying to navigate talking to family who are sucked into conspiracy theories, save your time 😅 Unless you are still at the stage where you’re trying to change their mind, I feel like it would be much more affective if the CT read this book instead haha.

Also also, if you listen to the audio book with the interview at the end you’re in for a little surprise.

[Nicole Johnson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Brisk and well written but offers little in the way of help with such a painful topic. Agree to disagree doesn’t work when your relations are voting for lawmakers passing legislation that directly impacts your family as anti-trans legislation hurts mine. The examples in the book come from a place of privilege primarily and not from people like me that have relatives ignoring hateful directly impactful rhetoric that hurts their own children. I still rate the book in the middle due to the level of depth of the interviews and at least feeling less alone in some of the political pain points being commonly experienced in families.

[Julie Simons · Rating 2 out of 5]

I suppose this book lived up to Its title since it comprised anecdotal story after story of couples or family members who struggled to navigate differences in their political beliefs. What this book didn’t offer was any contribution to understanding the source of this interpersonal divisiveness or clarity on how to bridge the divide.

[Rachel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Thank goodness my husband and I don’t have this issue but the cover intrigued me when I saw it at the library so I checked it out. Couldn’t hurt, right? Somewhat interesting to read about these relationships but mostly it was frustrating to me. I think if the author’s spouse was a Trump supporter things would have been different. And I’ve always been taught that conflict avoidance is not a good thing.

[Sloane Sylling · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted this book to give me new ideas or things to try but I felt more sad when I was done because it didn’t even begin to touch on how to handle white nationalist evangelical friends and family members who have been extreme with their words and behavior.

[Norjak · Rating 2 out of 5]

I thought the main points provided sound insight, but the book was excessively padded by each chapter being more examples of variations on a theme.

[Elizabeth Ready · Rating 1 out of 5]

If avoidant personality types were a book...

[HsiaoTing · Rating 5 out of 5]

沒有接地氣所以不實用
台灣可是有統獨問題呀

[nj · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't usually write reviews, but I need to rant for a minute about this book because not only do I think it is misleading, I think it’s harmful.

With the title, I assumed that the book would be about how to talk to people you disagree with. I could not be more wrong. The only advice the author gives, is to NOT talk about politics at all, and instead find other things bond over as seen on p. 148: "Ultimately, in every instance, these couples have discovered that more unites them than divides them emotionally, intellectually, and morally". In fact, chapter 5 is titled "Relentless Hope: the dangerous delusion that we can change another person’s politics," and is all about how you SHOULDN’T talk to people or change their opinions.

Before writing the book, the author conducted interviews of people with opposing views, which are scattered throughout. In my opinion, this is the only quality that the book can provide.

One of the people she interviewed was a man named David, who was constantly fighting with his father about politics. "I've had to put up with his insane group emails for years, bloviating about some imaginary slight to the nation's integrity from the vile left... and I'm shocked how someone so gifted could be so susceptible to propaganda, how someone with so little fear could be controlled so completely by it" [p. 70]. In response, the author recommends this: "You have to realize that reaching him is never going to happen, that you can never win... You're powerless to accomplish that, and you don't need to do it" [p. 72]. Excuse me, what????

The bit that made the most sense to me was Jacqueline’s story. She writes "I hope that you find my story interesting even though it rejects your hypothesis that it is possible to build and maintain a relationship when one party supports Trump and the other doesn't." [p. 175] She writes of how she was talking to a "potential suitor" who also happened to be her ex, [p. 175] and how they were not compatible because of their politics.

"He said, 'Can't we just give Trump a chance?'... Trump-ism is more than politics; it's a worldview and a set of beliefs that are antithetical to mine. I don't think you can have a healthy relationship with such a strong clash of so many core values" Jacqueline writes [p. 176-177]. The author responds with the laughable: "...personality was a bigger deal breaker between them than politics" [p. 178], and how "Rekindling a teenage romance at an advanced age after two failed marriages would be problematic even if [they] had both been left-leaning Democrats" [p. 179]. I was genuinely speechless reading this. I still do not know what to say.

The author also writes about Jacqueline: "It is hard to say whether Daniel's obnoxious qualities really predominated over his fetching ones, or whether once she knew how he had voted she dismissed him altogether" [p. 178]. Like???? Jacqueline clearly stated how she felt about him and why.

Almost every story ends in a perfect ending where they all say “omg your advice was so great we are literally besties now.”

At the end of the book is a little list with tips about how to stop fights that made me laugh way to hard, and although it is written by a different person, I will include a couple golden nuggets here:

3. If the two of you can't talk about it, don't talk about it.

6. If someone else who agrees with you publicly mocks or insults the political opinions or character of your partner, it is your obligation to defend your partner. This must be mutual.

7. Do not read your intimate opponent's political posts on social media.

10. Accept that political fights are unwinnable.


Anyways, I guess what I’m getting at is that you need immense privilege and ignorance to apply any of the advice given. This book was not helpful, and if anything, it gave out toxic advice that made me feel more alone.

[Lyri Ahnam · Rating 3 out of 5]

This guide to protecting our relationships “in a poisonous partisan world” was written during Donald Trump’s first term as president, but remains highly relevant.

The author, a therapist who works with couples and families torn apart by political differences, believes “political fights in intimate relationships are not really about politics. They stem from our compulsion to change other people’s minds so that they will feel and think as we do.” She says we strive to sway others to our perspective because we equate political agreement with emotional harmony.

“The real issue is our mistaken belief that intimacy is only possible with people who agree with us on everything. . . when in fact it is only by accepting and appreciating our very real differences that true intimacy becomes possible. Otherwise we are just trying to see our own reflections.”
She says examining your own contribution to these disputes “is the key to transforming your relationship from contentious to cooperative—even though you still will not, and probably never will, agree on many important political issues.”

She has five self-inquiry questions, which I found helpful in assessing a family relationship I’m dreading with the upcoming holidays. This is how I answered these questions:
1. Does this person’s behavior or personality remind me of anyone in my family? This person’s cocky self-righteous behavior reminds me of a different family member who often belittled and bullied me as a child.
2. Why does arguing with this person make me so furious? I rarely actively argue (I’m silently furious). I feel belittled, stupid, and powerless listening to this person pontificate about their beliefs because they’re so wrongheaded (and by not opposing them I fear that I’m agreeing).
3. Is my true agenda to change their mind? How is this familiar? I feel like I’m fighting for my survival, similar to how I felt when I was dating a young lawyer who argued circles around me.
4. Why is changing this person so urgent? My underlying motivation is that I feel this person is disrespectful to my husband. Challenging their political perspective is a substitute for confronting them on their disrespectful behavior.
5. Why do I persist in trying to change them (apart from the political content)? His cocky know-it-all attitude triggers my feelings of inferiority as a woman living in a patriarchy.

In respectful discussions when both parties feel heard, “each side is more likely to see the other person as a human being with emotional needs and legitimate opinions, not just as a political adversary to be vanquished.”
The author also advocates focusing on common ground, which is virtually impossible when we’re in heated ideological conflicts. In many cases, she advocates completely swearing off political discussions with loved ones of opposing ideologies:
“It is a universal fantasy that we can change other people—especially people that matter to us—by our power of persuasion.”
“Accept that political fights are unwinnable. Realize that you can never, ever change another person’s mind about politics or anything else—and stop trying.”
One of her more powerful suggestions is to limit our conversations “to those things that let [my family member] be his best self.”

Almost all of the examples in the book are of left-leaning women and right-leaning men with a few exceptions. This likely speaks to a potential social disconnect between genders within the patriarchy as much as partisan politics. Despite this shortcoming, I Love You, but I Hate Your Politics is a useful tool to avoid family squabbles.