Conversation

Replying to
The presence of a strong functional emotional aspect to your entanglement with your family (or equivalent pack) is not a constitutive cause but an emergent effect. Ie you can’t “substitute” the emotional “need” like backfilling a job when an employee quits.
1
4
Emotions emerge when the family entanglement begin to function. Whether healthy or unhealthy (co-dependency, exploitation), once this kicks in, politics cannot easily split the pack. You have to appeal to its interests as a whole.
1
4
Though the family may have a legible public “leader” (say a working father) it is naive to assume that this leader has de facto power or that the interests of the pack coincide with those of any one member.
1
5
This was one of Hannah Arendt’s key insights: in the traditional family, the individual power of the free male head stops at the threshold of the home. Once he steps in, he may enjoy more comforts, but everybody: housewives, children, slaves, male head are fully constrained.
1
11
So when voting members of a functioning family vote, they vote the interests of the whole (I’d be *very* surprised if more than a tiny % of married couples with kids voted diff from each other, and it is significant that young people usually leave home when they can first vote)
1
9
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to
I’ll modify that claim to “length weighted” Strongly divergent couples are unlikely to even meet let alone date stably long enough to marry. If/when they do, I suspect one will gradually convert or politics will become a serious faultline.
1
2
Replying to
I imagine in many of the subset of cases with differing politics, one partner (usually the wife?) just hides their politics and parrots their partner's openly but votes differently in private
1
3
Replying to
Or they’re resourced and selfish enough that it’s a game to them because they’re not personally affected. Or they’re shielded and have a “no politics at dinner table” type family culture.
1
3
Show replies