You Support Trump: Can We Still Be Friends or Is It Over?

By Seth Davin Norrholm, Ph.D. and

David M. Reiss, M.D.

The admonishment “never discuss religion or politics” publicly is almost quaint in the time of Trump – with the religion part hardly even relevant anymore.

Sadly, our political landscape has been so divisive lately that friends and close family relationships can be disastrously torn apart when there is even superficial talk about the Trump Presidency and its seemingly endless supply of controversy, bombast, and outrage.

As therapists, more often than ever before, both within our clinical practice and in other conversations, we find ourselves being asked if it is possible for persons with opposite opinions to maintain a relationship. Not surprisingly, this is a difficult question to answer.

Depending on the situation and the people involved, the answer can be yes, no, or maybe/maybe not.

More times than not, persons with opposite opinions of Trump do not just disagree on political philosophy or policy issues – they truly see each other as irrational (at best). Certainly, this represents a difficult chasm to bridge. But, take heart, it’s not impossible.

Since our previous articles make it clear that we do not have kind opinions of Trump’s fitness to serve as POTUS (for example, click here, here, or here), it would be presumptuous to provide advice to supporters of Trump regarding how they might maintain friendships with us, hence, the title and direction of the content of this article – although the general principles set out below can fairly well be used in both directions.

There are a few things to keep in mind when you are considering engaging a known supporter of this President in an effort toward reconciliation or compromise. First, it is critical to know where they are coming from regarding their support of Trump. In general, some of the President’s supporters have: (1) displayed a willful or unwitting sense of ignorance regarding Trump’s qualifications and nefarious ties, (2) shown an endorsement of his isolationist, populist, hyper-aggressive, ultra-nationalist, misogynistic, bigoted, or racist points of view, or (3) unwavering political support of the Republican party (GOP) and its political figures across the legislative and executive branches of government. We would argue that it may be most productive to engage the latter group of the President’s supporters given that many long standing Republican affiliated figures have come out openly to decry the actions and policies of Trump.

Prominent examples of “woke” Republicans arguably include former Congressman David Jolly of Florida (@DavidJollyFL), GOP strategist and MSNBC contributor Steve Schmidt (@SteveSchmidtSES), Daily Beast contributor Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson), Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), and ACA Repeal and Replace dissenters/Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Susan Collins (R-ME). It may be worthwhile to point to these individuals when discussing party affiliation and one’s support of this Presidency.

An additional item to keep in mind in preparation for what may be a very difficult conversation is how to effectively approach the individual and the subject matter. Resist any temptations to present your case uninterrupted as if you were delivering an opening statement in a debate or courtroom proceeding. This may result in defensiveness by your counterpart and/or the perception of a verbal attack. A more successful strategy might include asking your discussant why he or she previously supported or currently supports the President. An opening question along the lines of “What did you expect to gain from the Trump Presidency?” It would not be unexpected to hear responses including tax cuts, employment, an increased sense of security, or a “shake up” of the Washington establishment. These are areas that may engender further, productive discussion as opposed to responses that are more racially or “jingoistically” charged. In the case of the former, there may be an occasion to ask the follow-up question, “Do you feel like you are seeing the results that you expected?”

Tips for Engaging Friends and Family in Trump-related Discussions:

I. Know Your Limits

• Even if you consider any form of support for Trump irrational, develop a clear sense regarding where you draw the line regarding what opinions or beliefs you perceive as so unethical (to use the term broadly) that maintaining a relationship with a person holding those beliefs is in itself unethical and untenable. In other words, accept the reality that you may have to simply walk away for the foreseeable future.
• Every irrational position is not necessarily “fatally” unethical – but some are, and should be.
• If someone is coming from a position of open or steadfast racism, bigotry, misogyny, or hatred, there is really no point having a discussion or a debate and maintaining any significant relationship invites abuse, guilt, and loss of self-esteem. In other words, practice self-care and avoid this added strain on your psychological readiness for enduring the Trump era. This may mean that the relationship is over for all intents and purposes other than interactions that are necessary for practical reasons (e.g., the person being a co-worker, family member, etc., with whom you have to interact),

• Define which other issues you consider so lacking in decency or compassion (even if not overtly hateful) that maintaining anything more than a perfunctory relationship is dangerously toxic.
• Draw a line, and hold to it.
• No matter how much you detest the positions and/or the person who holds those positions, if there was a relationship present previously, be prepared to experience mixed feelings, feelings of ambivalence, and some degree of loss and sadness.

Remember, acknowledging the significance of the loss of the relationship is important but must not cause you to back away from your convictions.

II. Dealing with the “Maybes”

• There will be other persons with whom you vehemently disagree, whom you perceive as essentially irrational or hopelessly naïve but not overtly hateful or despicable.
• For persons who are “close to the line”, you may decide to try to maintain a relationship but do not be surprised if it proves impossible to do so. Once you see that all you are doing is banging your head against the wall, give up – all you will get by continuing is a headache.

III. Keep in Mind that All is Not Lost

Unless you, yourself, are rigidly intolerant, there will be persons with whom you will never agree but with whom you can maintain a reasonable friendship or relationship.

• It will not be easy and even if possible, it may or may not be worth the effort – a decision you have to make, and at times reconsider along the way.
• Unless the other person is truly open to having their views questioned, it will be necessary to keep the relationship structured and keep your expectations limited.
• Especially by this point in time, nine months into the Trump Presidency, and considering everything that has transpired, it is not likely to find a full-throated supporter of Trump with whom you can have reasonable discussions.

You may be able to have reasonable discussions regarding certain policies, but probably not about the Trump administration in toto.

• Expect that you will continue to consider the other person irrational and that he/she will have the same opinion of you.
• Do not expect either person’s opinions to change.
• Do not expect that there is anything you can do to change the other person or to bring them to “see the light.”

Essentially, there must be an agreement to disagree.

If the other person attempts to engage in discussion/debate, deflect it, e.g., “You know, we each have such strong beliefs in our positions it would only hurt our relationship to go there. As much as I would like to change your mind and I’m sure you would like to change my mind, we probably need to agree that neither is going to happen and let it be.”

In some circumstances, you can go so far as to say something to the effect, “You know, one thing we can agree on is that one of us is making a serious mistake in judgment but it’s best not to debate if that is you or me. I guess time will tell.”

• Find areas in which you can have agreement. That doesn’t mean you have to signal a newfound respect for Trump, but without explicitly saying it, take advantage of “the twice per day when a stopped clock shows the right time.”

By doing that, you might find some areas in which you can both agree that “something good might come” of a certain policy, even if it is only a sliver of an overall frightening scenario.

Connecting on that level can be aided by discussing something that you hope does get accomplished while Trump is President. It doesn’t have to be a realistic hope; just a general idea that can maintain the connection without hostility, for example, “I really hope the economy improves” (even if you have no expectation that can possibly occur in response to a Trump-driven policy).

• Try to use non-inflammatory language. Rather than saying, “That’s ridiculous… that’s crazy…” simply acknowledge, “I really don’t think that’s going to work. It would be nice if it did, but I can’t see how.”
• Acknowledge to yourself that you very well may be able to maintain the relationship, especially if the other person basically follows the same tactics – but there will always be a sense of distance, there will be a fairly good measure of loss of respect.

If the person is a true friend, there may be other personal traits they have, other areas of common interest, that make the effort worthwhile. The friendship may survive with good-faith efforts on both parts, despite thinking each other has irrational political thoughts.

But prepare for a sense of at least partial loss and sadness as you cannot expect it to ever be the same as before Trump, at least in the near future. Sorrow and relief can be experienced simultaneously.

About the Authors:

Seth Davin Norrholm, PhD is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Emory University School of Medicine, a full-time faculty member in the Emory Neuroscience Graduate Program, and a member of the Emory Clinical Psychology Graduate Program. Dr. Norrholm has spent 20 years studying trauma-, stressor-, anxiety-, depressive-, and substance use-related disorders and has published over 85 peer-reviewed research articles and book chapters. The primary objective of his work is to develop “bench-to-bedside” clinical research methods to inform therapeutic interventions for fear and anxiety-related disorders and how they relate to human factors such as personality, genetics, and environmental influences. His work receives funding from the Department of Defense, NATO, and the Brain and Behavior Foundation. Dr. Norrholm has been featured on NBC, ABC, CNN.com, USA Today, WebMD, POLITICO Magazine, Scientific American, and is a regular Contributor to The Huffington Post.

David M. Reiss, M.D. has been a practicing psychiatrist for more than 30 years, specializing in “front-line” adult and adolescent psychiatry. He has evaluated and treated over 12,000 persons of diverse social and cultural backgrounds, from every occupational field. Dr. Reiss has been recognized internationally for expertise in character and personality dynamics. He is often interviewed and quoted in the print, Internet and radio/TV media, nationally and internationally, to help the public understand the psychological aspects of current events. He is an authority on issues regarding social and political phenomena, medical and mental health treatment, PTSD, violence in society, and the functioning of the current mental health system.