How can couples talk politics without fighting?

Whether you like Joe Rogan or equate him with being “redpilled” that really isn’t the point. It’s how we talk about the things that matter to us most that makes all the difference. Use Gottman’s Four Horsemen framework to avoid criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling, start gently, make specific requests, and take short breaks when flooded. Add clear boundaries and curious questions, and consider structured dialogue formats like Braver Angels workshops to practice listening across differences. While this is an evolving discussion and there is much for us to learn, keep exploring and stay curious about where insights and breakthroughs can originate.

In couples counseling, I sometimes work with partners who see reality in very different ways. It’s not the most common issue, but it happens often enough that I’ve had to learn and refine the skills to help them through it. I often wonder, how can these two people have such radically different views of reality? Often this occurs in how individuals in couples counseling recall a specific incident—usually a conflict.

Most recently, in a session with a couple with whom I have been working for over a year, their divergent realities centered around politics. Prior to this topic of our sessions the couple appeared to be aligned on their political views, but when one partner started listening to Joe Rogan’s podcasts, the other accused them of “being redpilled.” What started as a ripple in everyday conversations made its way to a full-blown conflict in counseling sessions. The Joe Rogan podcasts seemed to infiltrate the sanctuary of their assumed shared value systems and was posing a real threat to not only their relationship but their co-parenting dynamic. It’s an issue I’m seeing more and more: different political views in marriage, couples with political conflicts, or even the difficulty in how they talk politics with their spouse. How can couples talk politics without fighting?

As with all conflicts in couples counseling, I usually start by teaching clients about John and Julie Gottman’s Four Horsemen technique (criticism, contempt, defensiveness, stonewalling—key predictors of relationship conflict—see below) as well as a variety of other conflict resolution and communication skills. This didn’t seem to touch the increasing tension that was a recurring theme in sessions from week to week. The introduction of polarizing political views threatened the couple’s fundamental assumptions about one another, creating a conflict unlike the typical issues I encounter in counseling.

After experiencing a growing sense of futility and dread, I simply told them: “Look, I don’t have the answers here. Just look at the world around us.” We sat and reflected together about the nature of this political polarization that occurs as, in my opinion, a cultural mental illness ripping away connections and bonds between friends, family members, co-workers, and pretty much any relationship where political polarizations occur. As a therapist I have been searching for years for how to understand this, because it didn’t impact me as a personal obstacle until 2016 and that was almost ten years ago! The phenomenon will continue: many therapists report an increase in couples experiencing political polarization in their relationships. Not just red-pill accusations, but Increased fighting, more criticism,othering, both parties digging in on their side of the political divide.

Creatively, this bright and curious couple and I worked together to explore what I called the “5th and 6th horsemen” and their antidotes. We modeled Gottman's idea that understanding the relationship dynamics during a conflict and replacing them with their “antidotes”—or healthy alternatives to conflict—can help reduce and resolve conflict. And while these techniques we explored are not empirically validated through the rigorous research that the Gottman’s utilize, we were able to shift the conversation in couples therapy and make progress towards them becoming more emotionally regulated and connected.

To understand this in more detail, in a typical conflict one person will become critical (horsemen 1) or contemptuous (horsemen 2) and the other will become defensive (horsemen 3) or shut down and wall off - stonewalling (horsemen 4). Gottman’s four horsemen have antidotes to each of these. However, as previously mentioned when we applied this to the Joe Rogan debate it fell flat. Something else was going on. Fortunately this couple had enough differentiation, mental health, curiosity, and determination to be curious about what, exactly, that was. We discovered that beyond the four horsemen there were true existential threats to basic assumptions and values in the other and the foundations of their relationship—and these threats were wrapped in an armour of the perception of different realities—realities that were disconnected. So, we identified different dynamics.

Jane: “You have been redpilled. I can’t believe you like Joe Rogan.” → othering/polarizing judgement (horsemen 5)

John: “You don’t know anything about him and he has a lot of worthwhile things to say.” → digging in (horsemen 6)

We were able to identify that, beyond criticism and contempt, Jane had a polarizing judgment and “othering” that not only shut John down, but got him dead centered on staying dug in. When John was shut down in this way he dug into his point of view more than just being defensive.

The antidotes for each we applied that seemed to have some traction were:

Othering/Polarizing judgement → Be curious about what is being said
Digging In → Set a boundary to talk another way

Successfully implementing this dynamic requires:

Both parties stay emotionally regulated
Both parties are able to maintain a strong sense of self while recognizing the other as a separate individual.

Fast forward to this year’s American Psychological Association (APA) convention in Denver, Colorado. I had the great thrill of listening to a panel of A-list scholars describe the latest breakthroughs in transforming political polarization. After nearly ten years of feeling stuck, I felt something I had been longing for—hope.

William J. Doherty, Ph.D., University of Minnesota

Bill Doherty is a couple and family therapist and professor emeritus of Family Social Science at the University of Minnesota. In response to the highly polarizing U.S. presidential election of 2016, he co-founded Braver Angels with David Blankenhorn and David Lapp.

Bill Doherty was instrumental in developing the Braver Angels workshop methodology. He used his expertise in couples therapy to create frameworks for fostering respectful communication across political divides. He developed the Red/Blue Workshop, which brings together equal numbers of "Reds" (conservatives) and "Blues" (liberals) to participate in structured exercises such as stereotyping, the fishbowl (an echo chamber shaping what we see and believe), and paired discussions, all designed to enhance understanding and mitigate polarization.

Anyone can get involved in Braver Angels work through a variety of ways.

Peter T. Coleman, PhD, Columbia University in the City of New York

A professor at Columbia University, Peter Coleman is a social psychologist specializing in conflict resolution, sustainable peace, intractable conflicts, and complexity science, making him a leading scholar in these fields.

Coleman's research, rooted in "conflict intelligence" and "systemic wisdom," focuses on effective conflict navigation across interpersonal, organizational, and global contexts. His work delves into adaptive negotiation, mediation, cross-cultural communication, political polarization, intractable conflict, and pathways to sustainable peace. He combines complexity science and peace psychology to understand why conflicts persist, examining contributing factors like power abuse, identity polarization, moral emotions, and systemic dynamics.

His most recent book, The Way Out: How to Overcome Toxic Polarization, provides insights based on leading research about how deeply divided societies can—and do—change. It suggests actions, skills, and competencies to help you navigate these times most effectively.

Fathali M. Moghaddam, PhD, Georgetown University

Fathali M. Moghaddam, an Iranian-born psychologist and professor at Georgetown University, is renowned for his groundbreaking contributions to social, cultural, and political psychology. More recently, he has introduced omniculturalism—a concept that emphasizes shared human experiences over differences—as a new approach to enhance intergroup relations and encourage dialogue.

Moghaddam’s newest book on this topic is The Psychology of Multiculturalism, Assimilation and Omniculturalism.

If you would find it helpful to improve your communication in your relationships, we’re here to help. Contact Kimberly Keiser & Associates today.

Being In Your Body: Mindful Sexuality

Kimberly Keiser has also developed a course on her educational platform, MendEd, that covers some of the basic premises of mindfulness, and also how to apply them specifically to sexuality, sexual functioning, and sexual dysfunctions.

Explore the Mindfulness Course