In today’s polarized America, politics often strain personal relationships. This edition of Middle Grounds examines two perspectives: one that defends boundaries to uphold values and another that urges dialogue over division.
- The Editorial Board
When Politics Become Personal: The Case for Boundaries in a Divide America
Political polarization has become a defining issue in American politics over the past forty years. What was once less divisive than sports now deeply influences personal relationships, a phenomenon fueled by the rise of social media and the internet. These platforms have provided unprecedented access to information, highlighting not only the local effects of political policies but also their global consequences.
In the past, the primary concerns for many suburban families might have been groceries and gas prices. Today, however, issues like international conflicts, social justice movements, and climate change dominate headlines, making political discourse deeply personal. These challenges have created a sharp divide between political parties and complicated relationships among people with differing views.
This raises an important question: How far is too far when it comes to letting politics affect our relationships? And why do Democrats seem more inclined to sever ties with Republicans than the other way around?
The answer often comes down to values and conviction. Republicans frequently preach unity, urging people to prioritize relationships over politics. But do they truly value unity, or does this stance merely deflect criticism of policies that oppress marginalized communities? Republican policies often restrict reproductive health care, oppose civil rights advancements like affirmative action, and cut education funding by targeting the Department of Education. Programs like FAFSA, which enable access to higher education for disadvantaged communities, have been directly threatened by these efforts. Such policies systematically strip opportunities from vulnerable populations, cementing the Republican Party’s role in perpetuating inequality.
Democrats face a different challenge: maintaining relationships while standing firmly against harmful ideologies. Why can’t they simply agree to disagree? The answer might lie in what can be described as social natural selection.
Borrowing from Darwin’s concept of natural selection, this idea suggests that traits like empathy, inclusivity, and fairness are perpetuated through social behavior. Over time, harmful ideologies and behaviors are marginalized, while progressive values thrive. Historically, social natural selection has driven progress–think of the abolition of slavery and the expansion of voting rights. Today, it can manifest as social ostracization, where individuals set boundaries to protect themselves and reinforce societal values.
Cutting off relationships with individuals whose beliefs conflict with personal values may seem extreme, but it’s often necessary to foster progress. Severing ties isn’t just about self-preservation—it’s about contributing to societal evolution. For those who have experienced the direct consequences of harmful policies, the choice to distance themselves is deeply personal.
This brings us to the ongoing debate: How far should social ostracization go? Should we unfollow Trump supporters on Instagram or refuse to spend holidays with Republican family members? The real question isn’t, “How much do these policies affect you?” but rather, “How much do you realize these policies affect others?”
Privilege often blinds people to the consequences of their actions. Many University of Virginia students, for example, will never know what it’s like to rely on Medicaid for healthcare. When I was placed in foster care at the age of four, Medicaid was essential for my survival due to a weak immune system. Policies supported by Trump and his party jeopardize that lifeline, threatening foster children like me and countless others.
Similarly, UVA’s financial aid is exceptional, but most schools don’t provide the same level of support. As a transfer student, much of my financial aid at my previous school depended on FAFSA, a program under the Federal Department of Education. Trump has openly advocated for dismantling this department. When you vote for Trump or follow his rhetoric online, you endorse policies that restrict opportunities for people like me. If you actively support individuals or movements dedicated to harming marginalized communities, then yes, I’ll unfollow you.
Ultimately, the divide in American politics reflects where we draw the line in our values. For those of us who’ve lived on the margins, these policies aren’t theoretical—they’re life-altering. Social natural selection, though harsh, fosters empathy and equity by marginalizing harmful ideologies. Setting boundaries with people who support oppressive policies isn’t about anger; it’s about building a better, more inclusive society.
- Kyra Graham
Bridging the Divided: The Case for Dialogue in Challenging Times
Post-election America is a landscape of heightened tension, emotion, and polarization. Politics are so deeply ingrained in our lives that they seep into our relationships with others. We have reached a point where unfollowing people on social media because of their political opinions has become the norm. An assumption based on who a person follows on Instagram is enough to cut them out of our feed and life.
When I woke up on November 6th, my text messages were flooded. Upon opening Instagram, I saw a wide array of responses—everything from crying to cheering over Donald Trump’s reelection. I was unable to vote in this election, but I followed both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris on Instagram to stay up to date on their campaign trails. By the end of the day, I had lost 60 followers on Instagram.
At our weekly Jefferson Independent meeting, I casually brought up the sudden dip in my Instagram following and my hunch that it was linked to the election. My co-writer, Kyra, mentioned that she had unfollowed everyone who followed Trump on Instagram, and when we checked, we saw that I was among them. This kind of knee-jerk reaction to differing views is, unfortunately, not an isolated incident—it reflects how social media has become an arena for performative actions rather than meaningful dialogue.
Social media is being transformed into an echo chamber of political views rather than a place to learn. It doesn’t matter that I follow both candidates to stay informed about both sides; our society has become so polarized that snap assumptions based on the digital world are ruining relationships. It may seem like a small thing to fixate on, but it reflects a broader theme of division in our country.
At the end of the day, healing our democracy starts with the little things. I’m not suggesting that we need to agree with everything someone posts on social media, but the opportunity for mutual understanding could encourage a more nuanced perspective, from which both parties could benefit.
Social media has become a substitute for in-person activism and has shaped the way we address social issues. In-person protests have turned into Black Screen Tuesday, story posts from @impact, and posts from both sides that villainize the other. Between November 5th and 6th, 60 people decided to protest the election of Donald Trump by unfollowing his mutuals. They didn’t do this at any other point in the election cycle, but only after the election was over—purely performative. Protests once spark change and dialogue, but when you cut off your connections to those who view the political sphere differently, you lose the opportunity to enact real change and start a conversation that could change the other person’s mind and help your cause.
Kyra and I are still friends. We went to lunch to write this article; she is a great colleague. Our political differences do not define who we are as people or our relationship, and I hope we realize this before polarization spirals even further.
- Gianna Hunsche
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Cmon now. This is a very bias article, and cutting friends off because they have a different opinion than you (if not outright harmful) is immature.
Good work Gianna! Completely agree, I have friends who have voted for both candidates.