Category Archives for Politics

Cooling Heated Political Banter at the Christmas Dinner

Published in RINewsToday on December 22, 2025

Over the years, nearly everyone has encountered an iconic archetype at holiday gatherings: “Uncle Bob.” At Christmas dinner, Bob predictably launches into uncomfortable political arguments. Other family members scramble to avoid his decisive political chatter—some using humor, others retreating to watch football games on the tube or quickly starting side conversations to dodge conflict.

Last December, the American Psychological Association (APA) released survey findings that underscored just how common—and stressful—these moments have become at Christmas gatherings. Following a divisive presidential election, most U.S. adults said they wanted to avoid political discussions at the dinner table during the holidays, especially with family members whose views differed from their own.

According to the APA survey, released on Dec. 10, 2024, more than 7 in 10 adults (72%) hoped to not talk politics with family during the holidays. While 65% said they were not worried that political discussions would damage relationships, nearly 2 in 5 adults (39%) reported feeling stressed at the thought of politics arising at holiday gatherings.

The survey’s findings also indicated that nearly 2 in 5 adults (38%) said they are avoiding family they disagree with over the holidays. Younger adults were significantly more likely than adults 65 or older to say they plan to avoid family over the holidays (45% adults ages 18–34, 47% ages 35–44, 42% ages 45–54, and 32% ages 55–64 vs. 23% ages 65+).

Fast forward to today: political disagreements within families have not disappeared, maybe even intensified, and the upcoming Christmas season may once again be ripe for tension and emotional strain and stress.

A Surprising Strategy for Reducing Political Conflict

New research, however, may offer a practical way to cool political tensions before they ruin a Christmas gathering. According to research published by the American Psychological Association, (APA), when engaging in political discussions, talking about what you oppose—rather than what you support—can make others more open to your views.

“In an era of deepening political polarization, our research offers a counterintuitive insight into how we can better communicate across ideological lines: Talk about what you oppose, not what you support,” said lead author Rhia Catapano, PhD, of the University of Toronto, in a Dec. 15, 2025 statement announcing the findings.

In a series of experiments involving more than 10,000 participants, researchers examined how people express their political opinions and how framing—support versus opposition—affects how others respond. The study, Talking About What We Support Versus Oppose Affects Others’ Openness to Our Views, was published online in the Dec. 15, 2025, issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

In one experiment, people were randomly chosen to either provide their viewpoint on sensitive issues like abortion and gun control or hear someone else’s perspective on the same issue. All participants were told they were paired with someone who did not share their views, although no actual matching occurred.

Messages were carefully framed to express either support or opposition to a particular issue. For example, a statement supporting abortion message might read, “I support allowing abortions,” while a message framed in opposition would read, “I oppose abortion bans.”

Senders rated how persuasive they believed their messages would be in swaying their imaginary receiver. Receivers were asked to respond to messages from imaginary senders, reporting how closely the messages aligned with their values and whether they were open to reconsidering their own views.

Although senders believed support-framed messages would be more persuasive, the opposite was true. Receivers were significantly more open to messages framed in terms of opposition.

In a different experiment, researchers recruited Reddit users, creating a simulated Reddit environment in which participants could choose which post to read and engage in. Participants were more likely to select and engage with opposition-framed posts than those framed around support.

What Catapano found most striking was how subtle the change in framing actually was.

All of the actual arguments were the same for both framings, Catapano explained. Simply changing the wording of the first sentence from ‘I support X’ to ‘I oppose Y’—where Y represented the other side of the issue—was enough to increase receptiveness, she says.

How receptive people are to messages is affected not only by the arguments themselves, Catapano added, but by something as small as a single word in how those arguments are introduced.

Here’s the takeaway: small changes in how we talk about our beliefs can have outsized effects on how others respond—an insight with clear relevance for holiday conversations.

Setting Boundaries and Protecting Your Health

Two UT Southwestern Medical Center faculty members also offered guidance in a Nov. 21, 2024 MedBlog article, “Boundaries, respect, keys to political discussions at holiday family gatherings.”

Cameron W. Davis, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry, suggests the importance of setting  personal boundaries and identify “hot” and “cold” topics before attending the family gathering to reduce the likelihood of hostile exchanges.

Sarah Woods, PhD, associate professor and vice chair of research in the Department of Family and Community Medicine, notes that strained family relationships—often intensified by clashing opinions—can have serious short- and long-term health consequences. Her research findings indicate that strained family dynamics are linked to higher rates of chronic conditions.

According to Woods, stress triggers the release of cortisol, a hormone produced by the adrenal glands that acts as the body’s alarm system. Elevated cortisol levels can disrupt sleep, trigger headaches, increase inflammation, reduce pain tolerance, and cause shortness of breath.

Practical Do’s and Don’ts for Holiday Conversations

In their MedBlog, Drs. Davis and Woods offered the following practical advice to help keep Christmas dinner civil if political banter begins to heat up:

·         Communicate respectfully. Focus on presenting facts and ideas when discussing politics and avoid making personal attacks.

·         Set emotional boundaries.Pay close attention to your internal stress responses. Taking a deep breath before and during politically charged conversations can help you stay grounded.

·         Prepare in advance.No one knows how to push your buttons like a family member. Practice how you’ll respond to difficult relatives at the family gathering—and avoid pushing their buttons in return.

·         Focus on understanding others, not winning your point. Conflict is a natural part of relationships, and understanding this can help you develop the skills needed to address it.  effectively. Acknowledging another person’s perspective doesn’t weaken your own positions. The goal to reach is having respect for the other person’s views, not, victory.

According to Drs. Davis and Woods, being able to listen carefully is a useful skill when talking about political issues that make you uncomfortable.  If you decide to discuss politics at the Christmas dinner table, focus on truly hearing the other person rather than reacting impulsively. When responding, do it in a thoughtful way that reflect your values and understanding, they say.

The MedBlog authors also noted that it’s It’s helpful to identify an ally—someone you trust and feel safe with—where you can speak openly about your position on political issues that might come up at Christmas dinner or beyond.  This allows you to “practice authenticity, think openly, and experience non-judgement listing.” This doesn’t have to be someone who agrees with you politically, but rather someone who helps create a buffer zone of emotional safety, they say.

If conversations become heated, resist making impulsive decisions about cutting them off—or cutting family members or friends out of your life, recommend Drs. Davis and Woods, recommending:  Ask yourself: Is this a disagreement worth damaging a family relationship or friendship? Would quickly acting drain energy from other priorities right now?

Drs. Davis and Woods advise that if politics come up, don’t insist others agree with you or pressure them into debate. Step back from discussions that feel emotionally draining to you, you’re not obligated to participate. Politely declining, redirecting the topic, or gauging someone’s willingness to talk can prevent unnecessary tension.

Finally, having a plan can reduce stress, too. If you’re attending a gathering with a spouse or partner, get on the same page beforehand. Decide which topics are off-limits and how long you want to stay. Create a subtle signal—a hand gesture, a wink, or a touch on the shoulder—to defuse tension and awkward moments or cue your partner to step in.

A Final Note… Over the years, when I go to Christmas gatherings, my son, and I often differ on politics and other issues. When we don’t see eye to eye, I simply say, “Well, we can agree to disagree.” That usually settles the discussion once and for all.

Enjoy your Christmas gathering.

RI Newcomer Finds Political Ties Not Needed for Low-Digit Plate

Published in the Providence Journal on December 10, 2023

While Antonia Noori Farzan’s article, “A lot on our plates,” (Political Scene, News, Nov. 27) professes that only political well-connected insiders and supporters were given low-digit plates, that was not true in my case. I received my 9068- four-digit license plate by winning a state lottery.  It was “lady luck” that brought that coveted status symbol license plate to me.

 When relocating to Rhode Island in 1993 from Gaithersburg, Maryland, I became aware of many of the geographically-specific quirks in the nation’s smallest state. I quickly became aware of the state’s favorite drinks, like Del’s Lemonade, Awful Awful Shakes, and even coffee milk. I became aware of Rhode Island-specific vocabulary, too. But I found it fascinating that may Rhode Islanders liked to showcase their vehicles by showcasing a low-digit license plate.

As mentioned in Farzan’s article, handing out the widely sought- after low-number license plates used to be one of the political spoils of the Rhode Island governor’s office — you could get it if you knew somebody who knew somebody, who knew somebody or they could be handed down from generation to generation. According to a Sept. 18, 2005, article, “It’s a Numbers Game,” published in the Washington Post: “In 1995, Rhode Island began using a lottery system to eliminate patronage, after then-Gov. Bruce Sundlun (D) commandeered plate number 9 and gave it to his wife.”

Other Rhode Island governors would follow this unique tradition of holding a license plate lottery.  Quite candidly it was the luck of the draw. All you had to do was send in a post card requesting to participate. If your card was randomly drawn from the big drum during the two drawings scheduled each year, bingo, you had your low-digit license plate.

After relocating to Rhode Island, I quickly became aware of this state lottery.  I wanted to submit a card, but I just never got around to going to the State House to do so. As the Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2003, drawing approached, it was time to participate and I finally submitted my post card. As a matter of fact, I even passed postcards around to my co-workers, getting five or six of them to enter, too.

As I drove to the State Houses to turn in the post cards, I thought I was just tempting fate and testing my luck to walk away that day with the coveted low-digit plate.  As I  saw later in the Pawtucket Times article announcing winners, I learned that my new low-digit plate would be 9068. Gov. Donald Carcieri pulled my card from a clear drum containing hundreds of posts cards submitted by Rhode Islanders communities across the state. 

Since my win over 21 years ago, “9068” has adorned the five Volvos I have owned over those years.

Looking back, my plate was not due to political connections  or being a supporter of a Governor. it was just luck.  So, if future governors resume holding a license plate lottery, go with the flow and your gut feelings. 

GOP Trial Balloon Called “Trojan Horse”

Published in Woonsocket Call on April 16, 2017

In previous years, the GOP leadership, now controlling both chambers of Congress, pushed legislative proposals to eliminate Social Security and Medicare by privatizing these programs. These attempts were clearly visible for all to see. But, we are in new political times with a GOP White House seeking the destruction of these programs, too, but as some say through the back door.

According to an Associated Press story, published on April 10, 2017, as the Trump Administration begins to learn from its failed attempt to repeal Obamacare, tax code reform is now on its agenda. One trial balloon, being floated by a GOP lobbyist with close ties to the Trump Administration, would eliminate the mandated payroll tax that all American workers pay to fund Social Security and Medicare.

“This approach would give a worker earning $60,000 a year an additional $3,720 in take-home pay, a possible win that lawmakers could highlight back in their districts even though it would involve changing the funding mechanism for Social Security, according to a lobbyist, who asked for anonymity to discuss the proposal without disrupting early negotiations,” says Writers Josh Boak and Stephen Ohlemacher in their Associated Press story.

Currently, about 163 million American workers pay Social Security taxes and 59 million retired and/or disabled persons collect monthly benefits. About one family in four receive income from Social Security. The nation’s social insurance and welfare program is a “pay-as-you-go-program.” Today’s workers support the program by paying their taxes into the program and the money flows back out to the program’s current beneficiaries.

GOP Stealth Attack on Social Security

Responding to the GOP trial balloon, in her blog post published last Tuesday on the Huffington Post, a politically liberal American online news web site, Contributor Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works called the GOP trial balloon “a Trojan horse”, noting that “It appears to be a gift, in the form of middle class tax relief, but would, if enacted, lead to the destruction of working Americans’ fundamental economic security.”

If President Trump proposes “the Trojan horse, it would be the newest shot in the ongoing Republican war against Social Security. That war has failed so far. The American people overwhelmingly support Social Security because they appreciate that it provides working families with basic economic security when wages are lost as the result of death, disability, or old age. And it does so extremely efficiently, securely, fairly, and universally,” says Altman in her April 11, 2017 blog post.

According to Altman’s blog posting, after Trump and GOP lawmaker have suffered legislative defeats in their “frontal attacks” against Social Security to eliminate the programs “it appears they are contemplating a “stealth attack instead.” She noted, “In the 1980s, Republicans, who had long tried but failed to cut government programs directly, discovered a new tactic. They realized that they could undermine government and eventually force cuts to spending by cutting taxes and, in their words, starve the beast. Now, Trump is making plans to use that same tactic against Social Security.”

“Not only would the Trump proposal starve Social Security of dedicated revenue, it would ultimately destroy it. Social Security is not a government handout. It is wage insurance that the American people earn, as part of their compensation, and, indeed, pay for with deductions from their pay,” observed Altman.

Altman warns that GOP lobbyist’s proposal to eliminate the payroll tax to fund Social Security is consistent with Trump’s previous actions. “No one should be fooled by Trump’s campaign promise not to cut Social Security. Before he became a candidate, he called it a Ponzi scheme and advocated privatizing it. He chose, as his vice president, Mike Pence, who complained that the Bush privatization proposal didn’t go far enough, fast enough. As President, he has chosen a staunch opponent of Social Security, Mick Muvaney, as his budget director, and another staunch opponent, Tom Price, as Secretary of Health and Human Services (one of Social Security’s trustees.), she said.

In an email urging recipients to sign a petition to protect Social Security’s funding [the payroll tax], Michael Phelan, Deputy Director of Social Security Works noted, “For decades, Republicans in Washington and Wall Street bankers have told us that Social Security is going broke―even though Social Security has a $2.8 trillion surplus and can pay out 100% of benefits for the next 17 years and over 75% of benefits owed after that.” He warns the “Republican’s tax plans might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. By starving Social Security of funding, they could finally receive their wish―replacing Social Security’s guaranteed benefit with unstable Wall Street retirement plans.”

The “Great Wisdom” of a Payroll Contribution Tax

Max Richtman, President & CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, says, “It’s no surprise that the GOP lobbyist who suggested this dangerous idea and remained anonymous. After all, who would want to own up to an idea that would trigger the collapse of the most successful government program in U.S. history?”

Richtman adds, “Peddling this kind of scheme reminds me of President George W. Bush’s 2005 privatization proposal. Only in this case, the risk factor shifts from the uncertainty of Wall Street to benefit cuts that will almost certainly occur when Social Security is forced to compete for government funding with other discretionary programs. There was great wisdom in President Roosevelt’s plan for funding Social Security through a dedicated payroll tax. As President Roosevelt said, ‘We put those payroll contributions there to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions…No damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

Darrell West, Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at the Washington, D.C.-based the Brookings Institution, sees an uphill battle to formalize the tax policy to eliminate the payroll contribution to fund Social Security. “I don’t think Trump will be able to eliminate or reduce the Social Security tax because of its dire consequences for the program itself. The program is very popular with the general public and many recipients count it as their sole support. Republicans will get killed if they try to do this. It is not a viable option now or anytime in the near future.”

When Trump releases his tax code reform proposal, aging advocates must remember that the devil is in the details. Read the proposal thoroughly with a fine-tooth comb