The Relational Consequences of a Trump Vote

Five strategies to talk about the impact of a Trump vote this holiday season

Oh yah. <checks calendar>

Thanksgiving is next Thursday, thus beginning the month-long annual American fever pitch of the intersection between family connectedness and unbridled capitalism.

Photo by Gabriel Garcia Marengo on Unsplash

Oh yah. <checks calendar>

Thirteen days ago, 50% of our voting contingent selected a known rapist and criminal to be the next POTUS. And said criminal is proposing other known rapists and criminals (RFK Jr., Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, for starters) to be members of his Cabinet.

Last week,

Adam Parkhomenko

, former DNC National Field Director, posted this tweet in his notes. You probably saw something similar in your social media channel du jour as well:

What does it mean to judge someone?

Harry Hollingworth, one of the pioneers in the field of industrial psychology (or, as he deemed it, the psychology of business), and former President of the American Psychological Association, defined judgment this way:

“A process, a characteristic procession of events, wherein there is involved the indication of one relation, not through its direct perception and report or naming, but on the ground of the perception of a second relation instead.”

Judgment is an individual process, and a passive-aggressive one at that.

When I see a guy walk into a restaurant with a red MAGA hat on, as happened on Thursday, I clocked it, and thought to myself, “Dangerous person.” I did not engage with him, outside of an extended leer from the corner of the restaurant where I had parked.

For all I know, this elderly man with his elderly wife has a lot of wisdom to teach me about nuclear physics or craftsmanship or the history of Quincy (the city where I work) or something completely unexpected.

But I saw the red hat. And I avoided interaction, while simultaneously keeping my eye on him to know where he was in the restaurant, to see who would interact with him, who would compliment his hat.

There’s been a lot written about the problematic elements of progressive moralism. I mean, we just did a podcast series about this called “How to Practice Social Justice Without Being a Jackass”.

As I’ve reflected over the last two weeks, I’ve realized that it’s not the moralism itself that bothers me. I align with most of what Andrea Junker shared in her post. (I’m a bit wary about aligning with the “So will history,” a comment that reeks of magical thinking.)

What bothers me most about Andrea’s post, and the thousands of other similar posts, is the passivity of it.

It’s one thing to judge someone. It’s one thing to diagnose someone with lack of morals or racism or allegiance to fascism.

But without identifying the relational implications or consequences of engaging in these types of behaviors, these posts read as toothless, vacuous, performative, and ultimately, meaningless.

It’s a completely different thing to say to someone directly, “Because you voted for Trump, with full knowledge of who he is and what he represents, this is what you can expect from me and our relationship moving forward.”

This statement places the Trump voter in a two choice dilemma. You can have one of these things:

1. A relationship with me.

2. A relationship with the subculture that reinforces these relationships with hatred, gaslighting, and untruth.

But you can’t have both.

Now, if Andrea Junker (or insert social media commentator here) were to post the bolded statement above, and if you were to see it, there’s not a lot of relational consequence for picking option 2. You likely don’t know Andrea, and it’s easy to move on.

However, if Andrea were to communicate the bolded statement face to face to, let’s say, her Trump-voting father, that comment would be what we refer to in family therapy as a perturbation of the family system.

What the hell does that mean? Look no further than

God

s Substack post from November 11:

That last question is especially pertinent.

Why do they think there are no consequences for their batshit crazy choices?

There’s been a lot written about the longevity of the right-wing media machine, especially given the merger between Silicon Valley executives, journalism companies (Fox News, Sinclair Broadcast, etc.), neoconservative thinktanks and the politicians that they fund, and the Evangelicals that Julia and I study.

There’s also been a lot written about the creation of a competing left-wing, pro-democracy media infrastructure, the search for the “Joe Rogan of the Left”.

These are interesting ideas, and I think will be important to develop a media infrastructure that defines and describes progressive values.

I don’t think that we win this war with MAGA over the next four years next several decades through developing a competing online ecosystem.

I think we win this war with MAGA through in-real-life relationships that don’t rely on technology for their fuel. (And this will be especially important as tech companies increase surveillance and data harvesting, as

Carole Cadwalladr

reminds us on Substack and The Guardian.)

And that starts with having honest conversations with the Trump voting people that we know about the consequences for their decisions—specifically, the impact on their relationship with you.

Because in 2024, a vote for Trump is an alignment with power over collaboration, vibes over expertise and professional knowledge, dominance over safety and trustworthiness, and unbridled individualism over communal responsibility.

I’m not suggesting that you end these relationships, or cut these people off, or “set those boundaries”. Cutoffs and premature terminations, especially via ghosting, bring their own psychological challenges.

But I’d ask for you to guide these conversations around these three questions:

1. What does (important person to you’s) Trump vote represent to you about their view of other people?

2. What are interactions or relational processes that you would like to have but are otherwise unable to because they voted for Trump (and are likely influenced by Fox News and a litany of other right-wing media)?

3. What would it take both from you and the important-person-to-you-Trump-voter to rebuild trust in the relationship?

A few quick notes to help organize your thoughts:

1. Write your first draft as a letter. This doesn’t mean send it as a letter or text. But because this is a big conversation, it does set the expectation that there will be multiple drafts before delivery.

2. Frame any conversation from the perspective of trust, rather than right-or-wrong. “Because you voted for Trump, I have lost the ability to trust you when I talk about the challenges that come with being a woman. As such, I will leave important information about the development of my and my daughter’s lives out of our interactions.”

3. Name specific losses. “Because of your vote for Trump and heavy of diet of disinformation, I do not trust you to be alone with our children. We will continue to reach out, but either me or my partner will always be present for your interactions with them.”

4. Speak from the perspective of fantasy—what you hoped for, and the potential of the relationship—and reality. “What I had hoped for was that I could turn to you to talk about this important topic. However, I realize that I cannot safely talk with you about this, because you chose alignment with Republican values and a heavy diet of disinformation from Fox News.”

5. Name what reconciliation looks like. And reconciliation doesn’t look like voting for Pete Buttigieg or whoever the 2028 Democratic Presidential candidate will be. Instead, suggest that reconciliation looks like volunteering at a nonprofit that supports civil rights. In my case, what I’m proposing to my dad is that we watch news content together from sources that aren’t:

   1. Fox News

   2. Sinclair Broadcasting

   3. Someone funded by The Heritage Foundation

   4. Someone who received funding from someone who funded The Heritage Foundation

Two more immediate relational consequences to consider:

1. Expect some combination of denial, dismissal, or gaslighting. The person that you’re sharing this information with will likely not understand your perspective, suggest that you’re overreacting, or worse, use emotion to try to get you to change from your position. I’d encourage you to have a scheduled, time-limited conversation with the person.

2. For the 30-60 minutes following the interaction, do something to take care of yourself. Go on a walk or a run. Call a trusted friend. Schedule a romantic meal with your partner. Do the things that are the most restful and restorative to you.

These are really hard conversations to have, because folks who did not vote for Trump are also in a two-choice dilemma:

1. A trusting relationship with people that we love, even those that voted for Trump.

2. Civil rights.

With any two-choice dilemma, there’s a temptation to try and have both.

Also, with any two-choice dilemmas, the attempt to have both will result in a less authentic commitment to both. We’ll talk more about two-choice dilemmas in future articles.

If you’d like help with this process, Julia and I would love to offer our space through relational or family coaching services. Email us at sexvangelicals@gmail.com for more information. And stay tuned to January 1, for the official launch of our coaching business!

Let’s heal together!

Jeremiah and Julia