Politics and Girlfriends – and Guy Kawasaki?
I love my girlfriend Dana. We’ve been friends since college and spend as much time together as we can. I try to be her friend through chemo treatments and the ups and downs of life. (She contributed to an upcoming blog on how to be a friend to a girlfriend going through cancer.) I love her. I don’t necessarily love the candidate she endorses. She and I understand that we’ll cancel each other’s vote out and we’re fine with that!
I’ve been completely apolitical on Girlfriendology. (Yes, I did tweet that I went to see a Presidential Candidate last week but I didn’t say if I will vote for him or not.) In my opinion, the Girlfriendology ‘brand’ is universally welcoming to all women regardless of their age, race, economic situation or their political parties. Our goal is to encourage you to be better friends, to inspire you to spend time with your girlfriends and to make the world a better place one friendship at a time.
Guy Kawasaki questioned my apolitical stand. (He wasn’t opposing me – just offering his wise opinion which I’ll take any day of the week!) When I expressed that I was apolitical due to Girlfriendology and not wanting to discourage or turn away any women based on their political ties, his advice was to take a stand. He didn’t get to be “Guy Kawasaki” by not taking a stand. Good point, right?
What are your thoughts? How do you handle having girlfriends with passionate opposing opinions on the political race?
Like Guy’s opinion (again, THANKS GUY!), I welcome your comments. What friendship lessons can we learn in this political race and in any differing opinions?
Supporters of Obama or McCain – please leave your comments. Not on your political opinions but on how girlfriends can learn from this heated debate and see past our differences for all our similarities.
P.S. Guy: You (and Alltop) rock! And, thanks for the fun party at BlogHer!
And, Dana: I will always love you, no matter what – or who you vote for!
Guy Kawasaki image via CrunchBase
Technorati tags: girlfriendology bipartisan democrats republicans guy+kawasaki friendship
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9250a82e-35a1-429d-a1dc-d506e152f90b)
Tags: Alltop, Blogging, friendship, Guy Kawasaki, guykawasaki, mccain, obama, politics, presidential candidates, relationships, twitter, Venture capital
- Share on:
16 Comments
Very interesting/timely topic for obvious reasons. This topic has troubled me for years as a consultant.
I have been torn in the past between saying something and offending customers and not saying something and seeing really dumb ideas get put into practice that affect my business.
Well, here we are.
You know what? It’s time for EVERYONE to speak up since we are all now proud owners of private companies and our elected officials are making historic decisions by the hour that will impact us for generations.
When you do speak up on your blog or in person, get straight to the point by first listening to your audience. Try to understand them BEFORE you present your ideas. If you present it from THEIR perspective, not yours, you’ll have a better chance of being understood. Once we can start listening to each other again, we’ll have a better country.
I am a Barack supporter and I approve this message.
Have a good one,
James
I have two blogs. I recently made a split because I felt constrained in terms of what I could and couldn’t discuss having just the one. My new blog is entirely craftcentric and the other is my writing blog. I only talk politics in the second and use the other strictly for crafting.
I believe it’s okay to express your opinions and I do so without compunction. I’m a writer and I work out my thoughts through writing. I have a lot of readers who really appreciate my willingness to share my thoughts so transparently. I certainly don’t expect other people to think like I do and it isn’t a requirement of friendship. I have lots of friends who have very divergent political, religious and social views. I think by sharing our views openly with a willingness to listen instead of shutting down and becoming angry when someone disagrees, we create connection. That’s the point. I believe that all of us, all over the world, want similar things. Mostly we argue semantics.
So my feeling is, it’s okay to talk about your viewpoints as long as you are open to other points of view. That’s what girlfriends do. Accept and love each other for who we are.
Love
Margot
Wow…see, this is where it gets tough. Election seaon–its an organically devisive time. And now we’re experiencing it in what should be a safe zone.
I agree with Debba. Her blog has a specific, strategic purpose. I REALLY appreciate that. And I appreciate HER for providing that. There are hundreds of other sites where I can go to talk politics, spar with others and share new information.
I appreciate Guy’s input as well — take a stand! We all take stands in many ways. But if you want to have any kind of impact on a “stand” you have to think carefully about time and place. Some are appropriate and successful. Others just seem whiny. Honestly, using Girlfriendology as your “stand” place feels misguided and inappropriate.
On the other hand, lies and heresay are not fine. I admire anyone who actually has a strong opinion–even when (and sometimes especially when!) it is different from mine.
But using words like “dangerous” and insinutating racism are not the language of friends, much less a verbal format to promote constructive, thought-provoking conversation or debate. It smacks of single-issue voterism and one-station channel watching. Aren’t we supposed to be a little smarter than that?
With that, I love this site. There is a time and place for political activism and sharing. Lots of them. This is not it.
I am very vocal on my blog ~ it’s my space where I get to stand on my soap box and shout! I have dem friends who come and cheer on my train of thought, and I have GOP friends who read daily but choose to tease or debate with me in private instead of on my very public forum.
That said, one of my closest friends is a die hard GOP. She was hand selected by an area republican governor for a high position in his administration. She bleeds deep red – whereas my veins run blue. We can politely discuss why we each believe the way we believe, but in the end I know she’s a good person, and she I. I know she has good reasons for choosing to vote the way she will, and she respects the opinions, experiences and beliefs influencing my vote.
We are polite. We are loyal. We agree to disagree.
Just not on my blog – if she wants to talk republican politics, she can get her own site!
I have surrounded myself with smart, educated, thoughtful friends. I am fortunate that, in spite of any political differences, we can all voice our opinions calmly, rationally, and with the support of facts.
I think things become inflamatory (as so nicely illustrated in these comments) when people don’t have facts to back up what they are saying.
I think things become inflamatory when attacks become personal. And simply put, I won’t surround myself with those people. If a friend threatens me or my children, even in the most hypothetical way, I would certainly second guess that friendship.
I think, as Amy in Ohio points out so well, it’s about the facts. Extremism does no favors for anyone. Educate yourself objectively. Have opinions based on that education. But make sure that education always comes before opening your mouth.
Unfortunately, not taking a stand in this election is not an option, for any of us. I have no problem for each and everyone of us to say where we stand and why. There will be disagreements I’m sure, but apolitical isn’t an option.
Reality: we’re facing a class war. The gap between rich and poor got so big that the bottom fell out- and we’re all now stuck in the same hole. This is dangerous.
What’s worse, is finger pointing ain’t gonna fix a damn thing now. We need leadership- that understands inclusiveness.
That, is not the policy or the actions of the McCain/Palin ticket. Any red blooded American running to lead this country that can ignore people calling out to kill the other candidate (who serves in the US Senate) should be considered unfit for duty on the spot.
There is a certain decorum that we as Americans should hold to, and a document that says “All men are created equal.” We’ve lost touch with both- and it’s people like Dana who are the true danger to our future.
Just remember, John McCain won’t raise your taxes just like GWB wasn’t and GWBs father wasn’t- and yet, we just saw a doubling of the national debt thanks to the policy of deregulation and trickle down economics.
I recently had the opportunity to introduce a very good friend (gun-totin’, mondo-conservative, raging republican) to my sister (bleeding-heart, tree-huggin’, teachers-union liberal) and I warned them both ahead of time to play nice – not to talk politics – which they promptly did. “Spiritied” was how I’d describe the conversation.
I was enlightened by my sister’s response to me in an e-mail the next day when she said (something to the effect) It was good to have met someone who felt as strongly about their side as I do about mine. I usually surround myself with like-minded people. I realized that no matter what I belive or what I say, I am not going to sway his opinion, nor will he sway mine.
So certainly share you opinions in whatever forum works for you – even amongst girlfrinds. ‘Tis the season. In the end, just go vote – it’s cool because we can.
One thing is guaranteed – we’ll all wake up November 5th to a new president. Then, let the games begin!
The comments I received here were pretty much what I expected, which is why heretofore I’ve never posted or commented on a liberal blog.
I just felt, since I was singled out by name, that I had the need to speak for myself. Especially since the essence of the blog post was to speak up for yourself.
I’ve got plenty of facts to back up my points, including loads of articles and links. I was trying to be succinct. Say too much and you’re accused of going on a Republican tirade. Say too little and you’re accused of not being in command of the facts. Ah these are the times we’re living in.
Bottom line, this is what I believe. It’s my opinion and I’m sticking with it.
Dana- you stick with your opinion.
We all got stuck with the bill. $700 Billion is only the latest installment, and more to come.
Deregulation and the Republican “leadership” are responsible for the loss of US jobs, wild CEO salaries, Credit Default Swaps and a war where there were no WMDs.
No matter what you think about abortion, the death penalty, the right to own machine guns or gay marriage, they have nothing to do with electing the leader of our country.
Vote for Grandpa and Annie Mae, and look at your 101K and weep.
And, McCain voted for it too.
Read this post: http://esrati.com/?p=1134
And find out where the real mess began.
If you believe that the subprime mortgages had anything to do with the Credit Default Swaps- which are the real reason this went boom.
How do we decide the next president? Everyone has a different way.
Some seize on a specific group of hot issues: marriage, abortion, guns.
Some primarily see a need for change in domestic issues: education, health care, government efficiency.
Some are moved by grave international concerns: the war, the state of the economy, climate change.
Some simply wonder which candidate’s policies will best enable them to fill up the tank.
Others are obsessed with ideology: we all know die-hard conservatives, bleeding-heart liberals, strict independents.
Still others practice identity politics: in 2004, it was the “who’d you rather have a beer with?” quiz; in 2008, it’s which candidates most appears to be like One Of Us — meaning your race, your gender, your class, your background, your religion.
Some voters consume vast amounts of media; some focus on one news source, or none.
And then there are those voters who feel that faith plays an important role in leadership, while others vehemently oppose any combination of church and state.
But most everyone was scared by 9/11, outraged by Abu Ghraib, sickened by the Katrina debacle.
Most of us want the war to end, to prevent poverty and ignorance in our own country, to improve health care and education for all children. Most of us recognize that we need leadership which will inspire thought and innovation in the way Americans address energy, service, diplomacy — the whole scale of our collective future.
That’s how I decided who would get my vote.
And the funny thing is, I don’t even have to mention a candidate’s name, or where I stand on any of the issues: everyone reading intuitively knows who gets my vote, based upon those above predications.
So maybe it IS possible to talk politically without talking politics! I never thought of this as a forum designed to be a liberal blog, or a conservative blog — it’s not Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or Scientology, it’s Girlfriendology!
Although I can predict most of my girlfriends will vote as I will, I am certain some will not.
Either way they will still be my girlfriends.
We are all unique and different. With that comes difference of opinions and beliefs. We love our girlfriends because of who they are and sometimes in spite of who they are. We are human, we disappoint each other and as much as we do love each other we don’t always understand one another. Respect is something we can always give and must sometimes to preserve our friendships. If a subject is too sensitive or controversial to discuss with a girlfriend save it for another girlfriend. Are different political views worth losing a valuable friendship over, yes if it leads to personal attacks and condemnation no if lets just respect each others views and value our friendship more. No one is perfect and no one political candidate is either. What is more important is that our relationships, our friendships are based on mutual integrity, respect and admiration always.
Debba, Great and timely question! I feel surely we can all speak our opinions as adults. I only wish we could learn to do so in ways that do not condemn or disrespect. You would think we could act as loving adults and agree to be different and disagree without so much anger and bitterness. A mind that does not have room for a differing viewpoint is a frightening thing.
Then again your blog is kinda of reflecting what’s happening on “The VIEW” (and your friend Dana is the blond)
Jill
Amy in Ohio,
Somehow I knew you’d point to Murdoch/WSJ…guess that means we need to lopp off CNN because of Ted Turner? I‚Äôm cracking up at your snideness toward the WSJ, a paper with a longstanding tradition of a liberal-leaning news department, conservatively (fiscally) oriented editorial board and a world class op ed page with scholars/writers/world leaders from the whole spectrum. I don’t think you have any idea the effort that was taken in that sale to ensure editorial freedom and integrity. Anyway‚Ķ
Regarding Dems and their giving, here you go (it’s evened out since 2006, but they sure had a commanding lead up to just last fall—one of these has a nice chart of big biz in bed with dems):
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12267399
[2008]
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6359.html
[2007]
http://liberalpro.blogspot.com/2007/10/corporate-donations-are-now-favoring.html
[2007—this has a nice list]
http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-11-09-influence-usat_x.htm
[2006]
I’d like for you to geek up on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill; your talking heads are a little too quick to point the finger at Graham for the current financial problem. Here ya go:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDM3NGE0ZjAyYjk4ODIzMDQyODNkYzg5NDU1MTNkOGQ=
(You probably don’t like Rich Lowry, but I think you’ll appreciate the facts.)
Amy, you and I have a fundamental difference in how to take care of the less fortunate and how to raise tax revenue. I‚Äôm a strong believer in the Laffer curve in economics‚Äî-at a certain point tax increases actually generate less revenue. Other reasonable people might not. For me I believe that charitable organizations are much better at taking care of the least fortunate than the fed govt (and of course, charitable giving is the first to dry up with tax increases). Yes, we need a good safety net and it needs to be done with excellence, but class warfare and wealth distribution just don’t seem to be the way to get there. It becomes nice rhetoric to get votes. But, a three percent tax increase is huge when you‚Äôre a small biz trying to make payroll and meet all the other fed, state and local obligations; of course that three percent looms even larger against a potential tax cut.
I agree that to whom much has been given, much is to be expected. But it‚Äôs not a federal government‚Äôs role to determine who that is and how much they should give. It‚Äôs the govt‚Äôs role to generate revenue through taxes, yes, but it just seems a bit immoral to do that punitively. And besides, in that little phrase, who did the giving in the first place? Not the fed govt—it came by hard work and risk taking. If the federal govt GAVE me $250,000 a year to live on I‚Äôd be glad to increase my tax rate by 3%. Maybe even 10%
But I say free people up to fulfill the expectation to give on their own. I believe they will. Many of my Dem friends have a more cynical view of people in general and don’t think they will, so they think the govt needs to do that. And therein lies…
This is an awesome country.
Barry in Ohio
Here’s Debba’s original question: “What friendship lessons can we learn in this political race and in any differing opinions? Supporters of Obama or McCain – please leave your comments. Not on your political opinions but on how girlfriends can learn from this heated debate and see past our differences for all our similarities.”
Debba, I believe sharing your opinions is vital–in the appropriate venue. I agree with you that as you manage a site with the goal of unifying women, this is probably not the place to stump. Perhaps you could do that on a separate blog or page that serves a different goal? It’s all about audience and purpose, like we learned in COM 101.
(To those of you who continue to respond to this particular post primarily to debate the merits of your candidates: Regardless of how polite or fact-based you are, this is still not the appropriate venue.)
I would rather say it doesn’t matter what my friends’ political views are – we’ll be friends to the end no matter what. But that’s not reality. One of my dear friends from college sent me a long, heated email about why Palin is a great American and identifies with American women. I disagree. We emailed back and forth a bit until I realized she was very settled on who she would vote for and why. I sensed her political ideals were tied to her religion and family values and because a candidate appears to be active in her church, she is the right leader for America. There is nothing wrong with that but it is not how I chose a candidate. I can see we have drifted apart so much since our days in college. It’s unfortunate but true. Now…onto the family dynamic. How do you deal with parents and grandparents that might vote just because they’re only buying into the drama of one party rather than making a well-informed decision?
And Dana – do not call a Presidential candidate racist without providing evidence. That is cowardly and horribly ignorant.