How do politics affect love? Before the election, one dating service was puzzled by this question. The answer was predictable in general, but unexpected in the details. It turns out that for most Russians it is important that not only their ideas about family, children and budget coincide with their partner’s, but also their political views. Moreover, differences in belief on this issue can also cause rifts. In effect, this means that people are becoming less and less tolerant of each other and of anything that does not fit their image of the world. This also shows that the world is becoming increasingly simpler for many.
However, it is useful to mention the numbers. According to the research, generally similar political views are important for 78% of Russians. This figure in itself is not surprising. Probably the socio-political atmosphere in Russia has always been quite tense, especially in the last two years. It’s surprisingly different. For many people, voting for a single candidate in the presidential election has become more important than conflicting desires to have or not have children. By comparison, the latter is important to only 55% of Russians.
There were other surprises too. For example, women turned out to be more politically principled than men: 56% expect complete agreement from their partners, while among men only 22% show such categoricality. Perhaps the explanation is as follows: 37% of men are considering the option of persuading their chosen one, while only 5% of women are ready for such missionary work. Representatives of the fairer sex, on the contrary, almost immediately show a strong interest in the political views of their potential chosen one. 20% of respondents try to find out about their gentleman’s beliefs already on the first date, while another 44% postpone these clarifications until subsequent meetings. At the same time, 71% of men generally avoid topics related to politics at the beginning of dating. But apparently it’s not indulgence that distracts them, just hormones, given that more than half hope to win their friends over to their side later.
The interaction options of a couple are also interesting when differences of political views still arise. There aren’t many of them. A radical, i.e. breakaway, will still be elected by a 4% minority. But many will prefer to close the topic of politics once and for all, that is, they will choose the strategy of denial, because if you do not talk about something, you can convince yourself that it does not exist. . To be honest, it’s a pretty sad picture.
Yes it’s sad. Because differences in political beliefs in general are absolutely normal. The more complex a person is, the more developed his position is. Frankly, it is completely impossible for such a person’s views to completely coincide with another. That is, you may agree in general, but differ on details and many details. And you yourself know who is hiding there in these details. Even the slightest nuance can ruin even the most beautiful design. This life. So what to do with this? What should I do?
Perhaps it is worth considering the fact that completely different coincidences can be decisive: for example, at the cultural level and in ideas about humanity. Perhaps then even consciousness will be enlightened by the discovery that the difference in political beliefs is not a situation where one calls for taking everything and dividing it and hanging those who disagree on the poles, while the other suffocates and understands for the sake of natural selection. Liberalism as chaos and permissiveness. Maybe they will realize that a political debate is not something that turns into a fight as quickly as a ruptured aorta.
It is not true that the right can never get along with the left and liberals can never get along with patriots. What kind of brutal confrontation is this, when we have been in captivity for several years in a row? Yes, people with different worldviews can perfectly interact with each other, and no one even needs to sacrifice anything for this – it’s all about mutual respect, understanding that there can be many points of view on the same thing, and everyone judges from their own point of view. His own individual experience and therefore he is already right in his own way. Of course, we are not talking about tolerance towards radicalism and other extremes. But still, we proceed from the fact that cultured, educated people who are not alien to the ideals of humanism certainly do not play a wild game, do not demand the destruction of humanity, do not justify, for example, fascism. Otherwise, we interpret their situation as insanity.
Of course there are many crazy, sad-spirited people today. And there are a lot of Jesuits. Today, many people interpret the same fascism very differently and are ready to shout it at almost every corner. And such speculations do not always arise from intellectual poverty, but vice versa – some professors can build a thirty-story building with arguments supporting the fact that democracy is not about elections, for example, and not about social relations. For example, state responsibility is a relic of the past. So, unfortunately, education alone cannot be a criterion of moral sanity. But humanity either exists or it does not. And if not, it is often very difficult not to notice.
Of course, everything is very complicated in any case. Both in life and in love. Of course, everyone is looking for themselves in one way or another, and no one needs strangers. This is just a coincidence; not the banal brute force fitting of designer pieces together. After all, people are not details. After all, these are not even “half” enough to fit into a single puzzle. It is a great achievement, no, a real miracle, not to differ too much, at least on the main topic, so to speak, on the universal. If this is the case, it will be easier to accept the difference in secondary issues. Do not deny it, do not close your eyes, do not declare it a closed matter, accept it. And most importantly – of course everyone decides for himself. But something tells me: In love, it’s not politics at all.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the editors.