I’ll speculate the answer to this question by putting myself in the mindset of wanting to avoid such discussion.
What might my reasons be?
First, it might be that my mind is made up. I know I’m right. I don’t want to be bothered by someone else’s opinion. It would be a waste of time.
Second, it might be that I just don’t care – a "Que Será, Será” attitude: Whatever will be, will be. Or shorthand in today’s vernacular: “Whatever.” Leave me out of it.
Third, it might be that I want to avoid an “argument” because in my life experience I’ve come to consider “spirited discussion” to be argumentative and unpleasant; I need my “safe space”, I am a “snowflake”. In short, I want to be “polite” via self-censorship.
Fourth, it might be that I have an overly broad definition of “politics.” I might consider a number of essential human interactions to be encompassed by the word “politics” and I just don’t want to discuss them because I consider them to be “political”; too dicey; too controversial; too subjective. What are some of the verboten topics some consider to be components of politics that are declared off limits?
- Economics and tax policy
- Appropriate size and reach of government
- The extent that our human affairs are regulated
- Ability to possess our own means of self-defense verses a mandate to rely solely on government law enforcement
- The extent to which man or cosmos controls climate
- The extent we allow our nation to be controlled by outside (international) regulation and control
- The extent we control who enters or who is prohibited from entering our nation, and on what basis
- The aspects of “religion” that are subject to first amendment protections and what aspects should not be. Examples: Santeria rituals; Islamic Sharia.
There are likely many more topics that folks might place under the umbrella of “politics” as an excuse to avoid discussion.
All too often, we avoid discussing a broad array of topics that should be discussed such as the topics listed above because we or others have a waaay overly broad definition of “politics.”
So this brief analysis causes me to wonder what ideological predispositions might tend to cause one to avoid discussion of “politics?”
In my own life experience, and tempting the label of bigot and various forms of –phobery, here is my list and reasons for their inclusion:
- The clueless because they don’t know any better
- Willfully ignorant because they refuse new information
- Those caught up in social media, career, grandchildren, health issues, sports, TV and Hollywood entertainment personality cults because they have no time or interest in anything else
- Narcissists because they are self-centered; no room for interests outside of “self.”
- Liberals and progressives because they look down on conservative thought and conservatives, no matter how well informed, as backwards and not worthy of respect or discussion with them.
Whenever any of these classifications of folks are opposed to conservative thought, the polite ones merely refuse discussion. The others resort to demonstrations (sometimes violent), name calling and mockery. Most of our colleges and universities do both. Public schools, overall, stifle the open discussion of “politics” because such discussion might conflict with the official socialist indoctrination agenda.
And the Churches. Ahh, the Churches. Most choose to avoid discussion of “politics” at all cost. And by their avoidance they avoid applying Biblical doctrine to many crucial aspects of our lives. For that omission, our culture is paying dearly.
This concludes my primordial urge to classify those who dislike political discussion.