This Christmas, Don’t Talk about Politics

Why arguing with your family about politics won’t change their minds — and what actually will

If you’re reading this article, you’re probably one of the millions of people dreading spending time with family over Christmas. Unless you genuinely enjoy causing chaos, you don’t want to turn Christmas dinner into a political bare knuckle boxing match. At the same time, staying silent feels wrong. So, what should you do?

Start by reading Sarah Stein Lubrano’s brilliant book Don’t Talk about Politics. I’ve mentioned the book a few times on Substack – including in my most popular piece, Why I stopped going on TV. As I outlined in that article, the book changed the way I interact with the media – and people who disagree with me.

Lubrano delves into evidence from psychology, sociology, and neuroscience to show that political debate does not change peoples’ minds. This statement is not meant to be a provocative hypothesis – it’s backed up by very clear evidence. Multiple studies have shown that being presented with very clear evidence that one’s position is wrong will not change someone’s mind, even if they’re well-educated.

It’s not that people don’t change their minds about anything when presented with new information – just issues they consider political. One study cited by Lubrano found that people found it fairly easy to incorporate new information about who invented the lightbulb, but almost none changed their minds about gun control, even when presented with very clear information that contradicted their beliefs. Lubrano argues that this difference exists because political beliefs are central to our conceptions of who we are as people – to change the way you think about politics is to change the way you think about yourself, and your relationships with others.

There’s no such thing as the marketplace of ideas

Lubrano’s book takes aim at the liberal ideology that underpins our society. Liberals believe that society is driven forward by clashes between competing ideas; so, political debate is critical for social progress. As I explained in a recent video, this ‘idealist’ view of history contrasts with the Marxist view, historical materialism. Marx believed that the relations of production shaped the prevailing ideology.

A crude reading of Marx would suggest that the way we think is determined by our class position. Capitalists inevitably support capitalism, while workers should – unless suffering from ‘false consciousness’ – inevitably support socialism. Naturally, this isn’t how human minds work. Instead, as Lubrano shows, the relationship between class and ideology is mediated by identity – how we think about who we are shapes what we believe.

How we think about our identities is, of course, highly political. With the rise of neoliberalism people became much more likely to see themselves as isolated individuals competing with other human beings in a free market game (my forthcoming book looks into why). If you win the game, you’re a winner; if you lose, you’re a loser. Either way, you’re blaming yourself for your final score in a game that’s rigged, rather than challenging those who are making the rules.

The growth of competitive individualism alongside economic stagnation is, as I’ve argued before, largely responsible for the rise of the far right. In the past, when people were exploited, they worked together to resist the ones screwing them over. Today, many people struggling to compete in a rigged economy blame themselves for their hardship. Trump, Farage, Le Pen and many others promise to make the ‘losers’ feel strong again.

This is why you’re not going to convince your uncle that migrants aren’t tearing the country apart. His beliefs were never about facts – they were always about identity. Somewhere beneath the surface, perhaps buried under years of repression, he feels scared and insecure about his place in the world. Attacking those who are weaker than he is makes him feel strong again, especially if he can convince himself his hatred is actually rooted in a desire to protect his country.

Energise the base. Alienate the opposition.

Maybe, then, you can convince your uncle to change his views by responding to his fears with kindness and empathy. Personally, I don’t buy this argument. Some people are so far down the rabbit hole that there really is no turning back. The people who start ranting about small boats at Christmas dinner probably fall into that category.

This is where I like to draw on the work of another of my favourite political communications theorists, Anat Shenker-Osorio. When I first did my comms training with Anat about 7 years ago, she presented a framework that totally changed the way I thought about politics. She argued that the job of a good campaigner is to energise the base, persuade the persuadeables, and alienate the opposition.

Your base is the 10-15% people who agree with you and will never stop agreeing with you. Your opposition is the 10-15% people who disagree with you and hate everything you stand for. The people in these two groups will never change their minds. Everyone else – the vast majority of people – doesn’t really know what they think.

Your job as a campaigner isn’t to win over your opposition; nor beat them in the ‘marketplace of ideas’. Your job is to change the terms of the debate so that the persuadables hear your arguments instead of your opponents’. As long as everyone is talking about migration, far right parties will win elections. This is why Farage reportedly fears Zack Polanski. Because, as long as everyone is talking about inequality, the left will win elections.

How do we change the terms of the debate? You have to energise your base and alienate your opposition. You want the people who agree with you to be shouting really loudly about your message, not arguing about your opponents’ message. And you want your opponents to be angrily responding to your message, not loudly shouting theirs.

When they talk about how migrants are taking all the houses, we should be talking about billionaires are buying up flats all over the country and leaving them empty – before donating tonnes of cash to Nigel Farage to redirect the blame. When they start talking about how migrants are a drain on the public purse, we should be talking about the billions lost each year to tax avoidance and evasion, corporate welfare, and corruption – and how Farage wants to cut tax for the rich even further, just like Trump has done.

Talk is cheap

Now, back to your annoying uncle. I’m not saying you should shout across the table that he’s been brainwashed by Epstein-loving billionaires. Remember, you’re not going to convince your uncle – at best, you can change the type of debate that everyone else is hearing. And no one wants to spend Christmas watching two very opinionated people shouting at each other.

When he starts spouting nonsense about refugees, artfully change the subject. Then, when the right time arises, drop in an observation about how the water companies are jacking up bills while dumping sewage in the oceans; or how the fossil fuel companies are making record profits while people can’t afford to heat their homes. Your uncle will almost definitely start arguing with you, falling into the trap that you avoided.

Away from the dinner table, the only way to really change minds is to transform debate into action. Lubrano shows that the best way to engage people in your style of politics is to do things with them – bring them to a protest, volunteering session, or political event. Actions like this create shared experiences and trust, which can act as the foundations for the transformation of someone’s political beliefs.

At a wider social level, we need to fight back against individualism and market ideology. We need to stop treating politics like a university debate club and accept that there’s no such thing as the ‘marketplace of ideas’. We need to stop trying to compete to get to the top, as the only people who benefit from this competition are the billionaires. And we need to start working alongside other people to organise our way out of this capitalist crisis – building networks of mutual aid and solidarity along the way.