How Do You Talk Politics? Carefully.

(A note, faithful reader: if this column feels...familiar, it's because I retell a story I told last November.  That column didn't make it into the print version of the Darien Times, so I figured, what's the harm?)

Dear Philip,

My wife has forbidden me from talking politics when we are out to dinner with friends.  She doesn’t let me discuss anything political with her father.  She got upset with me for joining a conversation about the Second Amendment at a Memorial Day barbecue we went to, even though everyone was civil.

I am generally able to keep my cool when talking about politics, but my wife insists that it is not only impolite to do in public, but also what she refers to as “just a bad idea.”  I don’t really see the harm, and I’m very interested in what’s going on in the world.  Is my wife right? Am I not allowed to talk about the things that interest me, anymore?

Sick of Red vs. Blue

Dear Sick,

Your wife’s overabundance of caution, while not completely fair to you, is certainly understandable: turn on cable news for about ten minutes if you’re not yet convinced that political conversation seems to be dominated by folks who show physical signs of advanced rabies.

In fact, Sick, turn on cable news in a public place:  if you choose one channel, you’ll be instantly labeled an America-hating socialist, and if you choose another, you’ll be tagged a mouth-breathing fascist.  It seems a lot of us now love labels almost as much as we hate being disagreed with.

The problem is, we don’t just apply those labels to strangers, anymore.  Your wife is fearful when you publically discuss affairs of state for a very good reason: it used to take quite awhile for political passions to boil over; now (to mix my cooking metaphors) we seem to be living in a giant microwave, where things heat up in a fraction of the time. 

I’ve told this story before, but it seems appropriate, here:  I had the pleasure of speaking at our library’s annual meeting a few years back, and because of the timing (October of an election year), I decided to play a little prank on the crowd.  At the conclusion of a perfectly warmly-received speech, I told the audience that I felt it was important – even if they were not the popular choice in town – that I publicly support “my guys.”  Just as the temperature in the room plummeted to 32º, I whipped out a Red Sox cap and put it on.  The relief was palpable; the crowd laughed heartily.

You know what wasn’t funny?  At least three people let on to my folks during the reception afterward that if I had actually been talking about the Democratic candidates for president and vice president, they’d have gotten up and walked out on my speech. 

Hence your wife’s apprehension.

That’s not to say that all of us have to give in and stop talking about things that we feel passionate about, Sick.  The trick is to apply three simple guidelines:  The Rose Protocol, the Corleone Proposition, and the Yeager Rule.

Like talk-show veteran Charlie Rose, realize that asking questions and listening to the answers accomplishes more than talking over people or bullying them.  (That’s known as the O’Reilly Gambit.)  When someone disagrees with you, make sure to respectfully ask them about their views, rather than just denigrating them.  That leads to conversation, and away from bloviating.

Has any film ever been more chock full of brilliant advice than The Godfather?  Keep in mind that what Don Corleone said about business is also true of politics:  it isn’t personal.  Talk about subjects, not the people involved in them.  If you find a conversation devolving into personal attacks or name-calling, it’s time to employ…

…the Yeager Rule:  Know when to bail out.  Like the great test pilot who managed to not end up in an aeronautic fireball by pushing the eject button at just the right moment, you need to recognize the signs of an impending crash and extricate yourself from the conversation. 

Follow these three simple guidelines, and your wife will get over her fear of your involvement in political debate.  As long as you listen to her about everything else.

Yours in purple,

Philip

My Column Goes to the Dogs...

Dear Philip,

My wife wants a puppy.  My kids want a puppy.  I don’t want a puppy, because I know my wife and kids well enough to know that I will be the one stuck with late-night walks and training it and cleaning up after it, etc.  Our son is 12 and our daughter is 10, and I have ended up taking care of hamsters and fish that they have sworn they would take care of. 

This is the first time my wife has shown interest in a pet, and it has caused a little tension that I have put my foot down.  I wouldn’t mind having a dog, but I don’t want the added responsibility.  How do I make my family happy on this score without ending up resenting them?

Perplexed

Dear Perplexed,

Dog ownership is responsibility, hard work, and sacrifice, and should not be entered into by people who aren’t ready and willing to take those things on.  When my wife and girls asked for a dog a few years back, I said, “No way,” both for the reason you cite and also because I have asthma, and my doc said I should in no way be a dog owner. 

We now have two.  And I have an inhaler.

Bodhi and Charlie (who would have been Wyatt and Doc, had I had any negotiation skills or had my family properly appreciated Westerns) each came with sleepless nights early on, the ability to stain carpets and trash furniture, and a limitless capacity for loyalty and affection.  I can’t imagine what my hesitation was.

This is not to side with your family, but merely to point out that if you’re at the “I wouldn’t mind” stage, I suspect you’d end up just as in love with the puppy as your wife and kids will be.  If you’d written that you really don’t want a dog, period, I’d advise you not to get one, period.  Instead, I’ll advise you that your dog isn’t the only one you can train, here. 

Let’s start with you, Perplexed: how on earth did you end up taking care of pets that are meant specifically to be just enough responsibility for a child?  Small pet ownership is a great vehicle for parenting, in that it allows you to explain to your kids what is required of them before you’ll let them have the hamster or fish or whatever, and then it gives you the opportunity to hold them to their end of the bargain.  Don’t want to clean the cage?  Too bad: no computer time until it’s done. 

Instead of fearing that your kids won’t show any discipline, realize that you and your wife are the ones who are supposed to instill it in them.  Tell your wife what your concerns about dog ownership are, and ask for her help in making sure that every one does his or her part.  Explain to your kids that, if you’re to consider adding to the family, they’ll need to agree to certain rules.  Don’t think of getting a puppy as a sign that you have no spine, Perplexed; think of it as a way to show some.

Yours in rug cleaning,

Philip

Your Cheatin' Coworker: To Tell or Not to Tell?

Dear Philip,

The company I work for threw an after-hours party at a bar following a day-long conference.  Lots of alcohol was consumed.  A woman who works for one of our suppliers – I’ll call her Jill – started flirting strenuously with a man who works for us, who I’ll call Pete.  Both are married to other people, and both live in the area.

By the time Jill and Pete started touching each other in ways that some married couples wouldn’t be comfortable with, in public, I noticed that several people were commenting on them, and many seemed to be uncomfortable.  Before the party had wound down, Jill made a show of saying she had to get home…and left with Pete.  I know Jill’s husband socially, and my wife is friends with Pete’s wife.  We don’t know what (if anything) happened between them, but we’re both feeling like we should say something.  Is that our place?

Angry and Uncertain

Dear Angry,

You should absolutely say something…but maybe not what – or to whom – you might think.

Before you asked if it’s your place to speak up, you noted correctly that you don’t know what happened between Jill and Pete, that night.  (Though I’d wager there’s a garage security camera that has a very good idea.)  You have your suspicions, but you can’t say for sure.

And that’s just the start of what you don’t know.  You don’t know what goes on in the homes of either party, or what their spouses know or might even accept, and you certainly don’t know how either of those spouses would react to what you have to tell them.  Maybe Jill’s husband would become angry with Jill…but maybe he’d turn his wrath on you, for suggesting that his wife was anything beyond flirtatious.  Maybe Pete’s wife would take the louse to the woodshed – or the cleaners – but perhaps she’d feel backed into a corner by your wife’s knowledge and involvement, and put her efforts into badmouthing your wife to their mutual friends.  I’ve actually seen that happen.

Again, that’s what you don’t know.  Here’s what you do know: Jill and Pete made you and several folks that you all work with extremely uncomfortable.  You know that there are other people who are in the same boat that you’re in, right now, wondering what their ethical duty is to the partners who were home that night.  You know that Jill and Pete have put you in the horrible position of wondering whether it’s better to voice strong suspicions and give the affected a chance to deal with a potentially hurtful situation, or to stay silent, and become somehow complicit in that situation.

You’ve guessed, correctly, that you and your wife can’t win here.  If you speak to the spouses, you risk all sorts of unintended consequences…and if you say nothing, and those spouses eventually discover that you were silent about the night in the bar, they’ll partially blame you for their misery.  So my advice is don’t stay silent:

The folks you and your wife need to talk to are Jill and Pete.  Chances are good that they’ll both deny they acted on all that flirtation, and they’ll use your lack of absolute knowledge to try to end the conversation.  (They’ll be all indignant, too.  Count on it.)  Don’t let them.  Tell them that your concern comes from the discomfort they very strongly created in that bar.  Tell them that you’re not alone in wondering whether their spouses have a right to know how Jill and Pete behaved in front of a room full of coworkers. 

Tell them you’re angry with them for putting you in this situation.  Make it clear that you and your wife are not the morality police, but rather two people who are adamant that your friends (their spouses) are treated with consideration and respect.

Finally, tell Jill and Pete that if they act like that in front of you again, with each other or anyone else, you’ll be forced to take it up with their spouses.  And mean it.

Yours in treading carefully,

Philip

Psst: Have You Heard About the Allegedly Anonymous Rumor?

Dear Philip:

There’s a rumor going around town that –

Let’s stop.  Let’s stop right there.  Though the phrasing has varied, several folks over the last few months have sent emails starting with some version of, “Allegedly, (neighbor/town official/guy I don’t like) has been (lying/cheating/stealing/being downright rude), and I know it’s true because I talked to someone who knows someone, and it needs to be stopped!”

There’s the person in power who’s been bullying a subordinate to bend the rules for a friend.  There’s the neighbor with an official “in” that gets her kid out of all kinds of serious jams.  There are scores to be settled and justice to be brought, and all the letters describing these situations are different except in the most basic sense:

The writers want someone else to fix things.  Things they’re not even sure are happening.

Sometimes they believe I can do it, by answering their letter directly in a way that will “out” the wrongdoer.  Sometimes I think they just want me to pass along whatever they’re upset about to the paper I write for, in the hopes reporters will investigate; which will result in righteous firings, public humiliation, and a return to moral order, alleluia, amen.  Mostly, I suspect these folks have been watching too much television.

Things don’t often get solved because someone thrice removed from the situation makes an anonymous complaint.  When solutions are found, it’s usually because the people involved avoided shortcuts or fantasies that someone else would magically, quietly make it all better.

A friend once phoned to tell me about a young public school teacher who got a call from a member of her local Board of Ed, asking that she “reconsider” a grade she’d given a student who was looking to go to school on an athletic scholarship.  The Board member – somehow related to the student’s parents – didn’t get what she wanted, and then leaned on the student’s coach to lean on the teacher.  Eventually, the story went, the coach got strong-armed by the town’s Superintendent of Schools.

That’s what my friend had heard, anyway, and based on the rumors, she was loaded for bear.  “This stuff goes on all the time!” she assured me.  I listened, and then asked her four questions: Did she have first-hand knowledge of any of this?  Did she hear that either the teacher or coach had been fired, or threatened with firing?  Was the kid’s grade changed? Finally, what did she think should happen?  She answered the first three with a simple “no,” and to the third she said, “Well, someone needs to be told!  This has to stop!”

And I agreed: the person who had to be told, if the story was in fact true, was the direct boss of the teacher and the coach.  The principal.  The inappropriate phone calls would have then been a matter of record, and if either of their jobs subsequently became threatened, the teacher and the coach would have had grounds for juicy lawsuits.  If the principal wasn’t willing to help, they should have gone to his or her boss, and so on.  It’s how the process works.

The problem with anonymous vigilantism is that it tends to be all heat and very little light: in my friend’s little town (and here, too, judging by my inbox) there are more than a few angry people who aren’t exactly knowledgeable about the source of their anger.  That’s a recipe for unfairly damaged reputations and rampant cynicism…

…and ill-advised letters to your faithful advice columnist, who would really rather help you figure out how to deal with your pesky mother-in-law.

...and Deliver Us from Cool Parents, Amen.

Dear Philip:

I have a 17-year-old son, and while I’m sure he has tried pot, my husband and I have been very clear that we don’t approve of it and that there will be consequences if we catch him doing it.  We have let him have a beer at home with us on a few occasions, but we didn’t let him go out afterward.  We are not the strictest parents, but we are trying to help him respect the law and the danger that drugs and drinking can cause.

Here is our problem: one of his best friends has parents who allow the boys to drink at their house, as long as everyone is sleeping over.  The parents stay upstairs while the boys party in the basement.  (They even bought their sons a special “beer pong” table.)  We don’t approve, but we don’t want him to feel he has to sneak around on us in order to be with his friends, who are good kids.  What we’re really afraid of, though, is that it isn’t just drinking going on at that house. 

He argues that what those parents do is the same as what we do when we allow him a drink at home as long as he isn’t going to drive.  Is he right?

Uncertain but Trying

Dear Uncertain:

Seriously?  You’re worried your son may have a point?  I mean, I’ll cut him some slack, on two counts: he’s got a developing 17-year-old brain, which means reasoning probably isn’t his strong suit, and he really wants to party with his friends.  But what’s your excuse?

Of course what those folks do isn’t the same as what you do when it comes to alcohol.  You and your husband are parents.   They’re idiots.  And maybe something worse.

Let’s start with you, though:  I applaud your first paragraph, Uncertain.  You’re doing it right, where it comes to alcohol and drugs.  Though some might disagree, I’m all for allowing your son a beer every once in awhile, under your supervision.  In fact, Connecticut law says a minor can consume alcohol when accompanied by a parent.  When you think about it, what better way to take the mystique out of drinking?  What better way to guide your child – carefully – through the physical effects of alcohol? 

As to the pot, you’re likely being realistic when you say you suspect your son has tried it, but you’re also rightly holding a much firmer line at home: we don’t accept it, and if we find out about it, there will be serious, meaningful consequences.  You might try sitting your son down and explaining why you allow one in the home, and not the other.  Tell him about the effects pot can have on his growing cells, on his judgment, and on his future plans, if he’s arrested.  Tell him also about the incredibly dangerous lack of quality control, when it comes to illegal substances.

Once you’ve had that conversation, you might call his friend’s parents and explain a few things to them, too: like the fact that they can – and will – go to jail for providing alcohol to minors if that basement party gets loud enough to attract the police.  Ask them if they’ve considered the civil liability they’ll face if some drunk kid gets hurt (or hurts someone else) after boozing at their house…and ask if they seriously think kids aren’t coming and going from their basement, no matter how many times everyone promises to “sleep over.”

Of course, folks dumb enough to let their kids throw ragers while they keep out of the way might not understand the subtleties of common sense…and, in their fear of not seeming cool to their kids, they might get angry with you for even voicing concern.  In fact, I’d bet on it.  

So talk to your son, instead.  Tell him all the stuff you’d have said to them, and then add how angry it makes you that his friend’s folks have abdicated very basic parenting responsibilities and created a situation that puts him, his friends, and even themselves at great risk.

Tell him that you pray it won’t take a dead teen or a perp walk to straighten those foolish, selfish people out. 

Philip