With the US midterms well and truly underway, a flood of TikToks has infiltrated my feed. A sea of men and women alike claiming that their votes are used to cancel out their partners. And I can’t help but wonder… should politics sit a little higher on the relationship checklist? The Irony seems lost on so many that we spend hours debating whether someone is tall enough, funny enough or a walking red flag. Yet, when it comes to political beliefs, how many of us are actually asking the important questions? More importantly, how far can a relationship stretch when the people in it stand on opposite sides of the political spectrum?
Over the last century, the politics of attraction has become an ongoing field of research for anthropologists and social scientists alike. This research owes much to an expansive, ever-changing political landscape, from female independence and the fight for gender equality to shifting attitudes toward race, sexuality, and individual freedoms. Dr Perveez Mody, Cambridge University’s director of Studies in Social Anthropology, urges that “the theoretical significance of love was to be found in the structural patterns of a society that developed to keep love from disrupting other arrangements” (Mody 5). As such, love has never existed entirely outside the political and social structures that surround it.
Historically, relationships have been shaped by mutual expectations of gender, class and social status, with individual politics often taking a backseat to the wider societal arrangement. However, as women have gained greater social, economic and political autonomy, the expectations placed on these relationships have changed alongside them. Marriage is no longer a race to secure financial and social standing; perhaps previous non-issues are at the forefront of our romantic ideologies. We could argue that we now have far more freedom to seek someone whose values, ambitions, and understanding of the world align with our own. Perhaps this is why political compatibility has found its way onto the modern dating checklist?
A term often thrown around the romantic zeitgeist is that “opposites attract”. He likes the pub, you prefer the club; he’s a pain in the arse, you’re a ray of sunshine. There seems to be a common understanding that relationships are, after all, built on compromise. But is politics where that limit of change ends? At what point does a difference in political opinion stop being an amusing back-and-forth and become evidence that you and your partner are fundamentally different?
Perhaps the real issue surrounding my argument is that politics rarely exists in isolation. Behind every ballot paper is a collection of beliefs and priorities that shape how we see the world. As such, defending a political position becomes less about the argument itself and more about protecting the person holding it. What might seem like a one-off comment on government spending could clash entirely with another person’s ideologies. When political conversations go beyond the ever-increasing price of a Freddo, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate someone’s political position from how they view the people around them. It’s no wonder a disagreement over politics can feel less like a difference of opinion and more like a personal attack. After all, if our political beliefs are intertwined with our own sense of self, what happens when the person we love challenges them?
However, I am not suggesting that couples need to agree on every policy, or that a difference in voting history should automatically send you running for the hills. After all a healthy relationship is one that leaves room for disagreement, curiosity and the occasional heated debate. But there’s a difference between challenging someone’s opinion and feeling that you have to defend your fundamental values to the person you’re supposed to feel most comfortable with. Perhaps it isn’t question of whether opposites attract, but whether we can respect someone whose idea of an equal society looks entirely different from ours. More importantly, whether or not you’d be willing to overlook that difference simply because you fancy them.
Whilst I’m sure I’m reading too far into yet another TikTok trend, but maybe they really are a reflection of a much bigger question. You can compromise on the pub, a date night and whether or not they actually get to stay the night, but how far should we be compromising before we lose our sense of self? I’m not suggesting that you put an end to your relationship based solely on voting records, but perhaps it’s time we gave politics the same attention we give other attributes in our partners. After all, getting into bed with the enemy might sound exciting in theory, but what happens when you wake up next to them?
Works Cited