Why McCain and Obama are causing marital tension
(LifeWire) -- Pamela Rainey Lawler and Denis Lawler of Philadelphia have handled the travails of being married 38 years without seeing eye to eye on a lot of things. The upcoming presidential election is no different. Pamela, a 58-year-old self-described "left-left" Democrat, will be voting for Barack Obama. Denis, a 60-year-old longtime Republican, plans to vote for John McCain.
Although they joke about their situation, Pamela says it's hard to keep her sense of humor when the stakes are so high. Good thing they love each other.
"It gets hard when things are getting down and dirty and there is a lot on the line," Pamela, the director of outreach and development at an educational company, says of her husband, a lawyer. But she adds, "The foundation of [our] relationship is so much bigger than politics, and tends to trump politics."
Especially in an election season where emotions are running high, couples who don't agree on politics can keep the peace by being open and honest with one another.
"Where couples get in trouble is not so much having a different opinion; it's how they communicate it," says Grecia Matthews, a couples therapist and social worker in New York City. Couples need to be honest about their arguing styles and tolerance for criticism, she adds.
State your opinion
Good communication skills are important, it's true, but as Lorraine Duval knows, it also helps to be married to a good-natured spouse.
Duval, a 33-year-old music teacher and McCain disciple from Glens Falls, New York, admits that in the heat of the moment she has called her pro-Obama husband, Chris, by other, less loving names. "Sometimes you have to state your opinion," she says, though she emphasizes that Chris' easygoing nature diffuses the tension.
She returns the favor at social gatherings where Republicans far outnumber Democrats. She'll "go off the deep end" in his defense if she feels McCain voters are ganging up on him, says Chris, a 34-year-old mortician.
"We really didn't discuss our views until later on in the relationship," Lorraine explains. "It wouldn't have been an issue for me anyway."
Besides, points out Andre Anthony Moore, the founder of Marriage and Couples Counseling in New York City, if spouses agreed on everything, "life would be dull."
"But in the process of drinking in the other's opinion," he says, "you might get to be a bigger person."
Embrace the difference
Opinions always got a good airing in the Lawlers' home when she was growing up, says their daughter, Kristin, 37.
"At our dinner table, if you couldn't be persuasive, you were toast," says Kristin, an assistant professor of sociology at the College of Mount St. Vincent in Riverdale, New York.
But such debate wasn't divisive, it was healthy, she says. Even today, when the family gathers, they debate politics.
"I do think that my parents would make a good model for others who vote differently and who are able to see their differences in a positive light," says Kristin. "Difference is a vital principle -- it keeps you on your toes. Having a good opponent makes you a better debater. And if you want your side to win, you have to know how to make a strong political argument."
For the record, though, Pamela Lawler says the couple's three children tend to side with her.
Agree to disagree
"Elizabeth Leslie, 37, a Democrat from Sacramento, California, works hard to maintain the political peace with husband Troy Gassaway, 35, a Republican."
"It's exceptionally challenging," she says. "We agree to disagree."
Leslie confesses she can't help but try to sway her husband's allegiance -- as communications manager for the nonpartisan League of Women Voters of California, political persuasion is part of her job. Leslie, who was not speaking on behalf of the League, says she has persuaded her husband to vote her way on several proposals in the past two elections. She praised him for listening to her when he's on the fence about any legislation. But come November, he's sticking with McCain.
"My advice is for couples to hear the other out," she says. "The passion that made up their mind -- at least consider it."
And even if the debate gets ugly, consider the fringe benefits. All that emotion can stimulate friendlier activity, therapist Grecia Matthews points out: "There can be makeup sex."
Keeping the peace
Live in a house divided? Here are some tips for keeping the peace when you and your partner split the ticket:
• If disagreements get too personal, consider keeping sensitive subjects like politics off-limits.
• If you need to vent an unpopular opinion, talk with a friend who holds similar values.
• Agree on a "safe word" signifying that a tense conversation needs to end, out of respect for one another.
• After tensions peak, do an activity you both enjoy -- take a walk or go to the movies -- and remember why you love each other.
• Establish firm guidelines on when and where it's OK to bring up the campaign -- if at all.
E-mail to a friend
LifeWire provides original and syndicated lifestyle content to Web publishers. Ron Dicker, a Brooklyn-based journalist, frequently writes about relationship topics. He previously covered sports for the New York Times.
All About U.S. Politics • John McCain • Barack Obama
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
33 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Manhunt Under Way for Suspect in Minnesota Lawmaker Killing
Law enforcement continued to search Sunday for the suspect in the killings of a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband and the shooting of a second lawmaker and his wife that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has called an act of 'targeted political violence.' The suspect, 57-year-old Vance Luther Boelter, is believed to have posed as a police officer to gain access to the Brooklyn Park home of State Rep. Melissa Hortman, according to law-enforcement officials. The 55-year-old lawmaker and her husband, Mark, were fatally shot there early Saturday.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration weighs adding 36 countries to travel ban, memo says
By Humeyra Pamuk WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is considering significantly expanding its travel restrictions by potentially banning citizens of 36 additional countries from entering the United States, according to an internal State Department cable seen by Reuters. Earlier this month, the Republican president signed a proclamation that banned the entry of citizens from 12 countries, saying the move was needed to protect the United States against "foreign terrorists" and other national security threats. The directive was part of an immigration crackdown Trump launched this year at the start of his second term, which has included the deportation to El Salvador of hundreds of Venezuelans suspected of being gang members, as well as efforts to deny enrollments of some foreign students from U.S. universities and deport others. In an internal diplomatic cable signed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the State Department outlined a dozen concerns about the countries in question and sought corrective action. "The Department has identified 36 countries of concern that might be recommended for full or partial suspension of entry if they do not meet established benchmarks and requirements within 60 days," the cable sent out over the weekend said. The cable was first reported by the Washington Post. Among the concerns the State Department raised was the lack of a competent or cooperative government by some of the countries mentioned to produce reliable identity documents, the cable said. Another was "questionable security" of that country's passport. Some countries, the cable said, were not cooperative in facilitating the removal of its nationals from the United States who were ordered to be removed. Some countries were overstaying the U.S. visas their citizens were being granted. Other reasons for concern were the nationals of the country were involved in acts of terrorism in the United States, or antisemitic and anti-American activity. The cable noted that not all of these concerns pertained to every country listed. The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The countries that could face a full or a partial ban if they do not address these concerns within the next 60 days are: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cote D'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Ethiopia, Egypt, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, South Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. That would be a significant expansion of the ban that came into effect earlier this month. The countries affected were Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The entry of people from seven other countries - Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela - has also been partially restricted. During his first in office, Trump announced a ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations, a policy that went through several iterations before it was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.
New York Times
34 minutes ago
- New York Times
Alex Polikoff, Who Won a Marathon Housing Segregation Case, Dies at 98
Alex Polikoff, who won a landmark discrimination case before the Supreme Court in 1976 showing that the City of Chicago had segregated Black and white public housing residents, and who then spent decades fighting to make sure that the court's will was enforced, died on May 27 at his home in Keene, N.H. He was 98. His daughter Eve Kodiak confirmed the death. Mr. Polikoff's class-action lawsuit, known as Gautreaux after its lead plaintiff, Dorothy Gautreaux, ranks among the most important decisions in the history of civil rights litigation. Ms. Gautreaux, a public-housing resident, and her five co-plaintiffs claimed that the Chicago Housing Authority had systematically funneled Black residents into a small number of poorly constructed high-rise complexes, which became havens of crime and drug use. Such segregation was an open secret in Chicago, and the subject of decades of protest — Mr. Polikoff filed the case in August 1966, just months after the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. began his own grass-roots campaign to desegregate the city. But Chicago, under Mayor Richard J. Daley, pushed back. Dr. King left the city without success, while Mr. Polikoff spent a decade fighting the city in court. Ms. Gautreaux died in 1968, eight years before the case reached the Supreme Court. By then, the lawsuit had been combined with a similar suit against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. In oral arguments before the court, Mr. Polikoff squared off against one of his former classmates from the University of Chicago Law School: Robert H. Bork, the solicitor general. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
