
New York Magazine writer encourages democrats to 'cut off' MAGA relatives
New York Magazine's Sarah Jones insists that going 'no contact' is the only way to deal with right wing family members.
'Sometimes the act of knowing a person leaves you with no choice but to move on without them,' Jones wrote.
'If my parents liked Alligator Alcatraz, I'd no longer speak to them.
'If they were rude to my LGBT friends, I'd block their numbers. Though shunning won't work as a political strategy, there are still natural consequences for the way we speak and behave.'
Her comments were a response to a guest essay by former Obama speech writer David Litt in The New York Times, in which he advocated for reaching across the aisle when it comes to families with opposing political views.
Jones said she hails from a conservative family and suggested this has been a source of contention.
'I come from a conservative family and a conservative place, and I nurture my pain like it's a small pet,' she wrote. 'But I speak to my family and sometimes I even go home to see them.'
She shared a link to her article on Friday on X with the caption: 'Should you cut off your MAGA relatives? That's up to you, in the end, but I think it's a perfectly reasonable choice to make.'
In the piece she cited a study by marketing firm The Harris Poll which found that half of American adults are estranged from a relative, with one in five citing political differences as the reason why.
This is a phenomenon which has been exacerbated since Trump returned to office, according to Jones.
Her views are in contrast to Litt who talked about how he connected with his anti-Covid vaccine, Joe Rogan loving brother-in-law over their love of surfing after previously keeping his distance.
'Shunning plays into the hands of demagogues, making it easier for them to divide us and even, in some cases, to incite violence,' Litt wrote.
However this approach was slammed by Jones as, 'so naïve it borders on malice'.
Jones' stance was condemned by social media users who flooded her post to express their disagreement.
'Seriously, the only one that would be hurt over time in this situation is you,' one person wrote.
'Putting politics before family and not being able to take the high road says that you're unable to be neutral and keep the peace. Just agree to not talk politics and be civil with friends and family.'
'Dear Sarah, LMAO, how arrogant! You keep cutting people off, soon you will have no one. Good Luck! Laughing at you!' another added.
'Sounds like they are better off without you. Disregard everything they ever did for you in a snap, what a great person you must be,' a third person agreed.
However, Jones is not the only progressive to advocate such drastic action.
MSNBC's Joy Reid previously interviewed a Yale psychiatrist that it's fine to disown family members who voted for Trump.
Dr. Amanda Calhoun, a child psychiatry fellow at the Ivy league school, made the comments during an interview on Reid's show The Reid Out last at the end of last year, while discussing coping strategies for people upset by Trump's election win.
'There is a societal norm that if somebody is your family that they are entitled to your time and I think the answer is absolutely not,' Calhoun said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Photos show Palestinian suffering as Israeli troops push deeper into central Gaza
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.


The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
DOJ officials to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell on Epstein case to ask ‘what do you know?'
The Justice Department plans to reach out to Ghislaine Maxwell, socialite and associate of Jeffrey Epstein, to see she has additional information about the highly scrutinized case. 'Justice demands courage. For the first time, the Department of Justice is reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell to ask: what do you know? At @AGPamBondi 's direction, I've contacted her counsel. I intend to meet with her soon. No one is above the law—and no lead is off-limits,' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement Tuesday.


The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump's shift on Ukraine has been dramatic – but will it change the war?
Donald Trump presents himself as a peerless president, an unrivaled negotiator, even a 'genius'. So it's a unique moment when he comes close – I emphasize the qualifier –to conceding that another leader has outfoxed him. Trump suggested as much recently when characterizing Vladimir Putin's modus operandi. 'Putin,' he told reporters on 13 July, 'really surprised a lot of people. He talks nice and then bombs everybody in the evening.' Melania Trump may have contributed to this reassessment. As Trump recounted recently, when he told her about a 'wonderful conversation' with the Russian leader, she responded, 'Oh, really? Another city was just hit.' Trump's new take on Putin is a break with the past. His esteem for Putin–whose decisions he has described as 'savvy' and 'genius' – has contrasted starkly with his derisive comments about the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whom he memorably disrespected during a White House meeting and even blamed for starting the war. As recently as February, he declared that Russia's invasion didn't matter to the United States because, unlike Europe, it was separated from Ukraine by 'a big, big beautiful ocean'. He criticized Joe Biden's assistance to Ukraine as a waste of taxpayers' money. Now, Trump has not only changed his view of Putin, stunning many within his 'America First' MagaA movement; he's decided to start arming Ukraine. Well, sort of. Trump has gone beyond effectively conceding that Putin has played him. He has decided to sell military equipment to individual European countries so that they can supply Ukraine and restock their arsenals with purchases from the United States. The president formally announced the change during his 14 July meeting with Mark Rutte, Nato's secretary general. There was more. Trump warned Putin that if he did not accept a ceasefire – which he has steadfastly refused, just as he has ignored Trump's demand to stop bombing Ukraine's cities – within 50 days, Russia would be slammed with tariffs as high as 100%, as would countries that continued to trade with it after the deadline. Two things are clear. First, Trump's perspective on Putin has changed, unexpectedly and dramatically. Second, a war that Trump once said was none of America's business now apparently matters. The president said European countries would buy 'top of the line' American military equipment worth 'billions of dollars' to arm Ukraine. According to one report citing 'a source familiar with the plan', the total will be $10bn. This all sounds like a very big deal. But here's where it becomes important to go beyond the headlines and sound bites and delve into the details. Take the $10bn figure. That's certainly not chump change. Moreover, the main piece of equipment specified so far, the Patriot 'long range, high altitude, all weather' missile defense system, will provide desperately needed relief to Ukrainian city dwellers, who have endured relentless waves of drone attacks – several hundred a night – followed by missiles that slice through overwhelmed defenses. Ukraine has some Patriots but needs more: it's a vast country with a dozen cities whose populations exceed 400,000. However, a Patriot battery (launchers, missiles, a radar system, a control center, antenna masts, and a power generator) costs $1bn, the missiles alone $4m apiece. Ukraine may not need 10 Patriot batteries, but even a smaller number will consume a large proportion of the $10bn package. The other system that has been mentioned is the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (Jassm), which combines stealth technology and GPS guidance with a 230-mile range. Ukraine will be able to use its American-made F-16 jets to fire Jassms into Russia from positions beyond the reach of Russian air defense systems. But a single Jassm costs around $1.5m, so the costs will add up quickly. Additional items have been mentioned but only generically; still, their price must also be figured in, bearing in mind that the war could drag on. So, $10bn could be depleted quickly. Moreover, beyond a certain point the US cannot sell equipment from its own stocks without regard to its military readiness requirements. Precisely for that reason, the defense department recently declined to send Ukraine some of the equipment promised under Joe Biden. And Trump has not said that there will be follow-on sales to benefit Ukraine once the $10bn mark is reached. Even if he were to change his mind, individual European countries would be able to buy only so much American weaponry without straining their finances, especially because France and Italy have opted out of the arrangement. Trump has been uninterested in joining the recent move by the UK and the EU to impose a $47.60 per barrel price cap on Russian oil sales, toughening the $60 limit the west enacted in 2022. Finally, Trump isn't going to resume Biden's multi-billion-dollar military assistance packages – 70-plus tranches of equipment, according to the DoD. Trump's 50-day tariff deadline permits Putin to continue his summer offensive, and may even provide an incentive to accelerate it. Russia has already shrugged off Trump's tariff threat. Its exports to the US in 2024 amounted to $526m, a tiny fraction of its global sales. By contrast, Trump's secondary tariffs will hurt Russia, which earned $192bn in 2024 from its global exports of oil and related products, much of that sum from India and China. If the president follows through with his threat, Beijing will surely retaliate, and the consequence will be painful: the United States exports to China totaled $144bn last year. Will Trump proceed anyway, and during his ongoing trade wars, which have already started increasing prices in the US? His track record on tariff threats leaves room for doubt. Ukraine's leaders are understandably elated by Trump's reappraisal of Putin. But it's premature to conclude that it's a turning point that could change the war's trajectory. Washington's new policy may prove far less momentous than Maga critics fear and not quite as transformative as Kyiv and its western supporters hope for. Rajan Menon is a professor emeritus of international relations at the City College of New York and a senior research scholar at Columbia University's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies