Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Navigating the holidays with family and friends doesn’t need to be difficult

family gathering
Thomas Barwick/Getty Images

Gaylord is a member of the Living Room Conversations advisory board and executive director of HomeAhead.

A friend recently asked, “How do you do it? How do you deal with the vast political differences in your family.”

My family ranges from Trump-voting Republicans to far-left Democrats and most every position in between. How do we coexist? I’d be lying if I said it’s easy ... especially during election years and sensational news events. My politically varied family stays connected, even though the connection is sometimes tenuous, through celebration and tribulation.


When my house almost burned down in the Colorado Marshall fire almost one year ago, all of my family members reached out to offer comfort and support – whatever we needed. When one of my children suffered from a difficult illness, everyone was there, in my corner, offering love and support.

When there is a death, birth, celebration or hardship in the family we come together. We’re not always graceful in our interactions but we try. We have some simple rules about not talking about politics. Sometimes we gingerly cross that line, and sometimes we trample the line. And then we regroup and return to baseline, remembering and prioritizing our connection to one another.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

At our core, we are simple beings who want love and belonging. When I am devastated by a loss I don’t care about politics – I want love and comfort. When there is something to celebrate, I want to celebrate with my family. In my world, where the rubber meets the road, there is no place for politics.

It is likely that I’ll never agree with some of my family members’ politics but I will love them and they will love me all the same.

Some of you will call me naive, irresponsible, maybe even “Pollyanna.” I’m okay with that because in my world, love wins – and so do I.

Argue, attack and avoid. What else is there?

My 18-year-old son recently told me about a conversation he had with a couple of college friends. They were discussing Covid-19, mask-wearing, and the politics involved in the pandemic. One friend expressed a very different view than the other two. Once the friend realized it was a 2-on-1 dynamic, he quickly shut down the conversation saying he didn’t want to argue.

My son asked me why it seems we have only a couple of options when disagreements arise, especially political disagreements. Why is it that the prevailing response is to argue and attack, or avoid the conversation altogether?

This launched a terrific conversation between me and my son about other options. Of course, my tenure with Living Room Conversations could not be ignored, as it is my belief that there are much better options. I encouraged my son to approach a second conversation with his friend in an LRC sort of way: with curiosity, kindness, respect and deep listening.

I reminded my son that this particular friendship has been a lifelong one, and that for him to invite his friend into a deeper discussion, the friend would need to feel safe that the friendship would not be jeopardized. I asked my son to consider this seriously, as it can test our ability to remain in friendship with one who espouses opinions that we find objectionable. Of course, the other side of the coin is that by having the conversation, my son could practice and begin to hone the skills to remain in a friendship with someone who sees things very differently.

My son decided to seek out another opportunity to have a second, deeper conversation with his friend. He reported back on his conversation. He found it interesting as he now has a better understanding of his friend’s perspective. More importantly, he exercised a muscle that is horribly atrophied in our conversations, communities and country – that of being civil and friendly in a conversation with someone who has a different perspective. I am proud of my son and I will encourage him to do more of this. It will make him a better-rounded, more intelligent, compassionate person. It will strengthen his friendships. It will allow him to begin to create and live in a world where he can coexist and even flourish, despite differences.

As for the health of the friendships after the risky conversation, they seem right on track. Recently, the three friends enjoyed a day of skiing in the Colorado mountains. Onward and upward, my son!

Read More

Complaint Filed to Ethics Officials Regarding Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick
red and white x sign

Complaint Filed to Ethics Officials Regarding Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick

On Friday, March 21, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) related to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick urging the purchase of Tesla stock on March 19th.

CLC is a nonpartisan legal organization dedicated to solving the challenges facing American democracy. Its mission is to fight for every American’s freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process, particularly Americans who have faced political barriers because of race, ethnicity, or economic status.

Keep ReadingShow less
Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

The U.S. White House.

Getty Images, Caroline Purser

Understanding the Debate on Presidential Immunity

Presidential Immunity: History and Background

Presidential immunity is the long-standing idea that the president of the United States has exemption from liability or legal proceedings for acts related to the duties of presidential office. Contrary to popular belief, presidential immunity is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution; only sitting members of Congress are explicitly granted judicial immunity through the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. Rather, the concept of presidential immunity has arisen through the Department of Justice’s longstanding policy against prosecuting presidents in office and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article II, which has developed through a number of Supreme Court cases dating back to 1867.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump
President Donald Trump.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Trump 2.0: Navigating the New Political Landscape

With Trump’s return to the White House, we once again bear daily witness to a spectacle that could be described as entertaining, were it only a TV series. But Trump’s unprecedented assault on our democratic norms and institutions is not only very real but represents the gravest peril our democratic republic has confronted in the last 80 years.

Trump’s gradual consolidation of power and authoritarian proclivities, reminiscent of an earlier era, are very frightening on their own account. But it is his uncanny ability to control the narrative that empowers him to shred our nation’s fabric while proceeding with impunity. His actions not only threaten the very republic that he now leads but overturn the entire post-WWII world order, which is now in chaos. Trump has ostensibly cast aside the governing principle with the U.N. Charter of Sovereignty. By suggesting on multiple occasions that the U.S. will “get Greenland one way or another,” and that Canada might become our 51st state, our neighbor to the north is now developing plans to protect itself from what it views as the enemy across the border.

Keep ReadingShow less
Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault

A speakerphone locked in a cage.

Getty Images, J Studios

Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault

On June 4, 2024, an op-ed I penned (“Project 2025 is a threat to democracy”) was published in The Fulcrum. It received over 74,000 views and landed as one of the top 10 most-read op-eds—out of 1,460—published in 2024.

The op-ed identified how the right-wing extremist Heritage Foundation think tank had prepared a 900-page blueprint of actions that the authors felt Donald Trump should implement—if elected—in the first 180 days of being America’s 47th president. Dozens of opinion articles were spun off from the op-ed by a multitude of cross-partisan freelance writers and published in The Fulcrum, identifying—very specifically—what Trump and his appointees would do by following the Heritage Foundation’s dictum of changing America from a pluralistic democracy to a form of democracy that, according to its policy blueprint, proposes “deleting the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), plus gender equality, out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation and piece of legislation that exists.”

Keep ReadingShow less