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.

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

The Politics of Compromise and Conviction

"Scott Turner is a brilliant case study for how ambition causes politicians to accept feeble attempts to reason away their beliefs or ethics..." writes Luke Harris.

Getty Images, Kent Nishimura

The Politics of Compromise and Conviction

Scott Turner was a Texas House Representative, now serving in the Trump Administration as the Secretary of U.S. Housing & Urban Development (HUD). In the Texas House, he talked about “being the best we can,” and espoused high standards for himself and his colleagues; however, in his current position, he has voiced no complaints or objections against the administration or the Republican Party. Perhaps for less cynical reasons than power itself, but to pursue his policies on housing and healthcare. Turner is a brilliant case study for how ambition causes politicians to accept feeble attempts to reason away their beliefs or ethics, always for something greater, something they can achieve with one more step. That “one more step” toward completely surrendering their integrity, confounding their ethical clarity, and adopting whatever means meet their ends.

During a keynote address in 2014, he spoke of the duty to break the status quo, Democrat or Republican, he said, “We need servant leaders…. People who live by conviction and principle, not by the waves of the sea of what’s popular today.” He shared his experience growing up in a poor home, and his father working two jobs. At his confirmation, he talked empathetically about the homelessness crisis and how his family took in his uncle, providing him with the services he needed. Trump has made comments expressing disdain for the homeless; he said these people were hurting the “prestige” of major cities, and many homeless people might prefer their situation.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ghislaine Maxwell’s DOJ Meetings Spark New Scrutiny Over Epstein Files

Ghislaine Maxwell, September 20, 2013

(Photo by Paul Zimmerman/WireImage)

Ghislaine Maxwell’s DOJ Meetings Spark New Scrutiny Over Epstein Files

Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein, has met twice this week with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche—a move that’s raising eyebrows across Washington and reigniting public demands for transparency in the Epstein saga.

Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year sentence in a Florida federal prison, reportedly initiated the meetings herself. According to her attorney, David Oscar Markus, she answered “every single question” posed by DOJ officials over the course of nine hours of interviews. Sources indicate that she was granted limited immunity, which allowed her to speak freely without fear of self-incrimination.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Was Told He’s in Epstein Files

A billboard in Times Square calls for the release of the Epstein files on July 23, 2025 in New York City.

(Photo by Adam Gray/Getty Images)

Trump Was Told He’s in Epstein Files

In May 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly informed President Donald Trump that his name appeared multiple times in the government’s files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier convicted of sex trafficking. The revelation, confirmed by sources cited in The Wall Street Journal and CNN, has reignited public scrutiny over the administration’s handling of the Epstein case and its broader implications for democratic transparency.

The new reports contradict an account given earlier this month by the president, who responded "no, no" when asked by a reporter whether Bondi had told him that his name appeared in the files.

Keep ReadingShow less
Is the U.S. Heading to a Police State? Trump Executive Orders and Project 2025 Raise Alarms
Protesters confront California National Guard soldiers and police outside of a federal building as protests continue in Los Angeles following three days of clashes with police after a series of immigration raids on June 09, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.
Getty Images, David McNew

Is the U.S. Heading to a Police State? Trump Executive Orders and Project 2025 Raise Alarms

Anyone who attended high school probably remembers their world history teacher talking about countries that militarized their law enforcement to make what is referred to as a police state. Examples taught should have included SS members of Nazi Germany (1925-1945), the secret police—NKVD—of the Soviet Union (1934-1946), the military regime of Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990), and the apartheid-era (1948-1994) of South Africa.

On April 28, President Donald Trump issued an 879-page executive order (EO) commanding Pam Bondi and Pete Hegseth to work with Kristi Noem and other agencies to “increase the provision of excess military and national security assets in local jurisdictions to assist State and local law enforcement.”

Keep ReadingShow less