Polacheck: Value Connections, Not Politics

Political differences strain friendships, families, and even dating, as disagreements between “left” and “right” move beyond billboards and television debates into intimate corners of everyday life. Friends who once laughed easily find themselves dissecting each other’s social media posts. In some families, political allegiance has become a test of loyalty.

Dating has become its own minefield. Some screen potential partners by political affiliation before accepting the first date: “Don’t contact me if you’re MAGA.” Or turn the equation around: “Swipe ‘no’ if you consider yourself leaning left.” What might once have been a difference of opinion becomes a character judgment.

Atlanta therapist Dr. Matthew Polacheck has seen the consequences in his clinical practice. He related, “The most devastating effect of today’s political divisiveness may not be disagreement itself, but the destruction of relationships. I have watched politics divide families, friendships and marriages. People stop calling one another. They avoid holidays. They grow guarded. Some simply give up, deciding it is easier to stop talking altogether.”

Yet, Polacheck doesn’t believe cutting people off is always the best answer. Boundaries can be necessary, particularly in unsafe or abusive relationships. But when there is still a foundation for connection, he advocates learning how to disagree without dehumanizing the person on the other side.

His approach can be distilled into these strategies: holding two seemingly opposing ideas as true at the same time. Real life is rarely as simple as heroes and villains, right and wrong. A person can support a policy because he believes it will help him while also acknowledging that it may have consequences for someone else. This doesn’t mean every viewpoint is equally valid or that cruelty or misinformation should be excused. It means resisting the impulse to reduce an entire human being to one political position.

“I strongly disagree with you, and I still recognize your humanity,” creates room for nuance and curiosity.

Release negative energy. Political outrage can become its own habit. People yell at televisions, scroll through social media and seek out news that confirms what they already believe. Anger can motivate action, but when it becomes the default emotional state, every conversation feels like a battle. Instead of opening with an accusation, he suggests trying curiosity: “I see this differently, and I’d like to understand how you got there.” If the other person is looking for a fight, say, “’I want to talk, but I don’t want to fight.’ Sometimes stepping away is the more productive choice.”

Regulate your nervous system. Once people feel threatened or overwhelmed, thoughtful conversation becomes harder. Heart rates rise, muscles tense, and the instinct can become “fight or flight.” Polachek recommends something simple: Pause. Drink water. Take a walk. Breathe slowly, allow the abdomen to expand on the inhale and slowly release the breath. He jokes that he never gives a speech without a bottle of water, not because he is thirsty, but because it gives him permission to stop, reset, and regain focus.

There is another way to think about political disagreement that Atlanta saw firsthand. Arthur Blank and Bernie Marcus, The Home Depot co-founders, didn’t share the same political outlook. Their political differences were publicly documented, with Blank supporting Democrats (or an occasional Republican), while Marcus became a prominent Republican donor. Yet, their professional and personal history demonstrated that political disagreement didn’t blot a much larger relationship. Blank himself once described Marcus as a combination of “father and brother” and acknowledged that some of Marcus’ philosophies didn’t match his. “I listen to what he says and sometimes I’ll cringe,” Blank said. “And I love him.”

In a Sept. 17, 2026, New York Times opinion piece, German Lopez points out that partisanship may not be so “cut and dry,” with new research on “heterodox” voters, people whose views don’t fit comfortably into a single ideological package. One person might be pro-abortion rights and simultaneously believe the federal budget should be more balanced.

The two-party system can make combinations harder to see, encouraging people to think in political bundles rather than individual ideas. Marcus and Blank left space for misses, overlap, and respect.