How to handle an obnoxious politically obsessed friend

Political ideology can corrupt the mind, and science.

E. O. Wilson

Update: Since I first wrote this article, I have fielded many questions, been confronted with much more politically obsessed, and forced to return to this piece. I have spoken to many of you who described a family member with an unhealthy obsession with politics. And lots of conversations started with “my friend is obsessed with politics, waht should I do?” As a result of these many conversations, I spent more time trying to grasp this topic better. As a result, I have added some material to clarify and better help you understand and navigate these complex relationships.

You have run into people who are obsessed with politics. Right?

They can be pretty annoying, and after a few attempts at a logical argument, you probably shifted to trying to avoid getting them started on their political views.

But what do you do when it is a close friend?

Do you have a politically obsessed friend?

Are you having trouble dealing with them?

No matter which position of the political spectrum you are on, you doubtless have a friend on the opposite side and attached to their position.

It’s natural to become passionate about a political issue or another. But what happens when your friend become so consumed by a position they have taken and become obsessed? What happens when they are blinded to logic, unable to engage in ordinary discourse, and are even obnoxious to others?

An Example of Political Obsession in Social Media

A friend of mine posted this message on Facebook:

“Truth. Justice. Equality. Freedom. If any of those words mean anything to you, you will understand what I am about to say: I despise any brown person who continue to support and enable Trump and this administration, more than I despise Trump himself. You may say, who cares? Good question, I’m inconsequential. But Truth, Justice, Equality, Freedom, are not.”

This friend, along with many others, despises Donald Trump, the then elected President of the United States.

They expect everyone who is brown (as this friend is) to share their political view.

That is a racist position!

This person will despise any brown friend more than they hate President Donald Trump (I didn’t think this was possible) if their brown friend doesn’t share the same political views.

Now I’m sure there is hyperbole in this post. At least I hope so.

If not, then the answer to the question, “what to do about your obnoxious politically obsessed friend,” would be straightforward.

You should disengage. You may even have to lose the friend.

But is that the correct answer?

A Great Response

This post, by another friend in an unrelated thread, took a very different view:

“Some of the most incredible people I know voted for Donald Trump, and some of the most incredible people I know voted for Hillary Clinton. 

The people that I know that voted for Trump are not racist, misogynistic, or hateful, and the people that voted for Hillary Clinton are not hateful and intolerable. 

If you are someone that woke up this morning and is going to start seeing people as who they voted for, and not as the person you have always known them to be, then you are what is wrong with America. 

I will never think any less of a person who has different views than me, because some of the most beautiful, inspirational people I know will disagree with what I believe with all day long, but at the end of the day they are still that beautiful inspirational person I have always known them as. 

Don’t think less of people because some of their beliefs don’t align with yours and don’t lose quality people in your life because you choose hate over love.”

Now that’s a great response, though I doubt it will soothe my obsessed friend.

What could you do about your friends political obsession?

How to respond to political posts on Facebook? On Twitter? On Social Media in general?

1. Think about the person you are responding to.

   Is the poster politically obsessed or short of that extreme view? A reply only works if the recipient(s) are open to political disagreement. 

2. Think about the media where you are replying.

   With Facebook, you are typically replying to a connection and their connections. There is some opportunity for civility. With Twitter, your replies are open to the public, and there are hordes of extremists who will be happy to add their vulgar views supporting either side of the debate.

3. Think about the purpose of your reply.

   Are you correcting something factually incorrect or voicing a strong opinion? Keep in mind even facts are subject to some interpretation which is usually the source of disagreement. The further away your reply is from agreed facts, the less likely the value of your response.

Breathe before you reply

Don’t immediately fire back a response pointing out the logical flaws in your friends’ posts. That will most likely lead to an escalating ping pong game of logical and illogical statements.

Breathe. Wait a while.

Let the moment pass and if you feel so strongly later, then take the time to pen a thoughtful fact-based and unemotional response.

Be prepared for an emotional reply.

Ignore using technology

Consider using technology to help you ignore the rants and raves.

Most social media tools allow you to mute or temporarily/permanently hide posts by someone whose views you would prefer to avoid.

Be prepared to lose a friend

If your friend crosses your lines, call them out, and be prepared to walk away from the friend.

If your friend defines themselves based on their political beliefs, if they hate you for disagreeing with them, there isn’t much of a foundation for a friendship.

If your friend defines themselves based on their political beliefs, if they hate you for disagreeing with them, then there isn’t much of a foundation for a friendship. Please Click To Tweet

Additional background and my thoughts on Political Obsession

I am an American and living in the USA. 

My discussion on political obsession or political correctness is mainly based on my experience and depth in American politics. But having traveled and lived in many places around the world for very long periods, I can write with confidence that the perspective shared can equally apply to other political theaters, geographies, and even to issues such as identity politics or sexual politics. And in the USA, the view is relevant whether you are a Democrat, Independent, Republican, conservative, liberal, or progressive.

First, let’s get through some definitions:

What do you call someone obsessed with politics?

Someone obsessed with politics is an ideologue, that is, intensely or excessively devoted to a cause. Other words that might apply are fanatic, militant, partisan, or zealot. 

To be clear, I am using a definition of obsessed, which refers to “having an extreme or reckless concern.” I am not referring to those who are passionate about politics or are political junkies.

A political junkie has a deep interest in politics; in other words, a person who is interested in everything political. They are always up to date with current events, and they tend to follow the news regularly.

Usually, they have a healthy and critical insight into political matters and issues. But their interest is not limited to consuming the information. They often participate in discussions and debates; they are ready to defend their views against any opponent. 

The reality is that practical political thought requires a view that starts with non-zero sums. If you view the world as a zero-sum effort, you approach issues with the perspective that you must win, and the opposition must lose, and those are the only choices. This way of thinking is inherently divisive and leads to political obsession. 

A thoughtful politician knows they have to get past the political disagreement and find bridges with the other political party to make progress. They look for solutions that others can embrace, finding a middle ground and a position where both sides can progress. Where the result is greater than the sum of its parts, that is Non-zero.

What is political obsession?

An obsession with politics is about so much more than standing up for your beliefs, engaging in healthy debate, or thinking through the consequences of your policies – it’s a full flight from all other relevant aspects of life. Rather than assessing whether one’s behavior is rational and logical, political obsessives rationalize their extremism by participating in an activity they perceive to have some other larger purpose. Such behavior is typically rooted in some form of delusion such as grandiosity or paranoia/self-righteousness, which can drive people to take drastic actions as they often see themselves as morally superior.

Why are people obsessed with politics?

The young are introduced to political beliefs through interactions and the influence of their parents. The traditional viewpoint is that adults gravitate towards a political party that best represents their interests. I believe that this is flawed thinking, that adults gravitate much more towards the marketing messages that resonate with them. 

To be clear, I am saying that political parties, like consumer marketing, generally misrepresents their product’s case. I will show how frequently the parties serve their leaders more than their constituents in a separate piece. But that’s another piece. So let’s get back to the topic at hand.

In the formative years of an individual’s political beliefs, they are still likely to be open to political disagreement, logical argument, and dialogue. Unfortunately, this openness is crushed by an extremist view that party affiliation and ideology are more important than independent thinking for some. The politically obsessed are frequently of the opinion that they are correct. The other side does not have an argument that can be reasonable or reasoned. Therefore, they are apt to follow their party position dogmatically rather than through independent thought and assessment.

In other words, the politically obsessed shift from being independent thinkers to becoming programmed ideologues. 

Where and how are they programmed?

Over the last several decades, the educational system and the media have systematically become more biased and extreme in their views. We, humans, are susceptible to the lessons we learn from educators and our media sources. We become biased as we are bombarded with messages pushing us to an extreme view of what is good vs. what is wrong.

The process is subtle enough so that most don’t notice they are being programmed. 

As I am writing this, the democrat leaning media are running major stories on covid-19 cases, vaccines, and mask requirements. Fox News which is the primary republican information source, is focused on the Afghanistan withdrawal. The reality is that the media prioritize stories that play to their base and embarrass the opposition. Not only is their focus disingenuous, but their slant on stories is also equally intended to appeal to emotions.

Together, the media source have conspired to create a culture war narrative between the sides. 

The reality is that if you are a modern journalist, you probably work for a corporate media giant that has done the market segmentation, figured out its most profitable niche, and is marketing stories heavily to that audience.

Fox News is using the Afghanistan story to raise the specter of terrorism. MSNBC is using the Afghanistan story to dig into Trump mismanagement, leaving Joe Biden with limited choices.

If you like President Obama, then the people who oppose him are not doing so on reasonable terms. Their disagreement is based on racism and not to be aired. 

In Britain, like during the Trump era, immigration was presented by one side as a question of legal control of the nation versus anti-immigrant hate. 

Racial justice is presented as the unequal treatment of minorities by the legal system by the democrats versus the wanton disregard of criminal behavior by the conservatives.

On voting rights, one side presents voting id requirements as restricting voting. In contrast, the other side sees any attempts to remove id requirements as a recipe for allowing the ineligible to vote.

One side covers the capitol riot as an insurrection and BLM protests as a struggle against police violence towards the minority. The other side shows BLM protests as violent protests that destroy property and defund the police. January 6th was an ill-fated attempt for Trump supporters to voice their concerns over voting irregularities.

Gender, sexuality, the definition of a woman? Abortion as sexual regulation? 

Religion and its role in society, secularism, religious tolerance? All up for debate, and all pitched to favor each side distinctly. There is no middle ground.

These stories are pitched as existential threats to an unsuspecting audience. Their emotional appeals turn political struggles into the equivalent of a real war and voters into warriors. It’s not just a mid-term election; it’s a battle for supremacy. The objective is to marginalize or kill the other side.

The result of political programming?

We have an electorate that is increasingly being pushed to the extreme of each side. Being independent and not having an opinion is not allowed. You must have a strong opinion. The absence of a strong opinion is viewed as support for the opposition.

If you are a political junkie, you will likely find yourself gravitating to sources that appeal to your preconceived beliefs. As a result, you are likely to get emotional when told stories that reinforce your dislike for the opposition. You might even shout at your television in anger at some of the stories you see there. 

It’s simple and genius. The more you consume limited sources, the more radicalized you are likely to become. The result is an ideologue, a politically obsessed one. 

That’s how your friend or family member becomes politically obsessed.

And the destructive behavior you see coming from your politically obsessed friend is a real challenge.

What research is saying about news and political obsession

Here is what a recent study from the University of Amsterdam found on the impact of news on our well-being:

Abstract: Following the news is generally understood to be crucial for democracy as it allows citizens to politically participate in an informed manner; yet, one may wonder about the unintended side effects it has for the mental well-being of citizens. With news focusing on the negative and worrisome events in the world, framing that evokes a sense of powerlessness, and lack of entertainment value, this study hypothesizes that news consumption decreases mental well-being via negative hedonic experiences; thereby, we differentiate between hard and soft news. Using a panel survey in combination with latent growth curve modeling (n = 2,767), we demonstrate that the consumption of hard news television programs has a negative effect on the development of mental well-being over time. Soft news consumption, by contrast, has a marginally positive impact on the trend in well-being. This can be explained by the differential topic focus, framing and style of soft news vis-à- vis hard news. Investigating the effects of news consumption on mental well-being provides insight into the impact news exposure has on variables other than the political ones, which definitively are not less societally relevant.

They found that mental well-being declined 6.1% for every hard news program watched per week!

You are likely to accuse me of conspiracy theory, so I might as well provide you with some more factual data regarding the toxicity of the news:

---

Schuster et al. (2001) found that increasing exposure to television news in the days following 9/11 was related to substantial stress reactions indicative of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Schuster, M. A., Stein, B. D., Jaycox, L. H., Collins, R. L., Marshall, G. N., Elliott, M. N., . . . Berry, S. H. (2001). A national survey of stress reactions after the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks. New England Journal of Medicine, 345(20), 1507-1512. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200111153452024

---

Diminishing civil engagement, declining public trust, and increasing levels of political cynicism have, for example, been attributed to the inherent entertaining nature of television (Postman, 1986).

Postman, N. (1986). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. London, UK: Heinemann.

---

Reliance on public affairs television, emphasizing negativity, conflict, and violence, would evoke the impression that policies do not work nor that public institutions respond effectively (Robinson, 1976).

Robinson, M. J. (1976). Public affairs television and the growth of political malaise: The case of “the selling of the pentagon.” The American Political Science Review, 70(2), 409-432. DOI: 10.2307/1959647

---

Johnson (1996) found a majority of news items (> 50%) to be bad news with depictions of violence, conflict, and suffering – the other news items most likely being neutral of tone (i.e., not necessarily positive). He also found that the proportion of negativity in the news is about 2.5 times the amount of negativity in entertainment television (Johnson, 1996).

Johnson, R. N. (1996). Bad news revisited: The portrayal of violence, conflict, and suffering on television news. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 2(3), 201-216. DOI: 10.1207/s15327949pac0203_2

---

Besides the dominance of inherent negative topics, studies find that politics and the economy are the most covered issues (De Smedt et al., 2011; Maier, 2010). Whereas coverage of presidential candidates increasingly turned negative (Patterson, 2000) and political stories are regularly framed in strategic, conflict, and game-framed manners that evoke cynicism (Cappella & Jamieson, 1996), the focus in economic news is skewed to the negative as well (Damstra & Boukes, 2017; Soroka, 2012).

De Smedt, J., Hooghe, M., & Walgrave, S. (2011). Vlaamse televisiejournaals: Het buitenland verdwijnt van de radar: Criminaliteit, cultuur, politiek en buitenland in de vlaamse televisiejournaals (2003-2010) [Flemish television news: The overseas disappears from the radar: Crime, culture, politics and foreign news in the Flemish television news].

Patterson, T. E. (2000). Doing well and doing good: How soft news and critical journalism are shrinking the news audience and weakening democracy – And what news outlets can do about it. Cambridge, UK: Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1996). News frames, political cynicism, and media cynicism. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 71-84. DOI: 10.1177/ 0002716296546001007

Damstra, A., & Boukes, M. (2017). The economy, the news, and the public. ICA 67th Annual Conference, San Diego, CA.

---

What would you do?

What has worked, what hasn’t been effective, for you?

Ignore this friend (mute them on Facebook)?

Engage them in civil dialogue? Where would you start?

Walk away from this friend(unfriend them on Facebook)?

Interested in hearing from you…