Turbulent Marriages Are Threatened by Trump vs. Clinton Feuding

 

A growing number of unhappy couples are having heated arguments about Trump versus Clinton and, as a result are now making appointments for marriage counseling. It is no surprise given that the American Psychological Association just concluded that half of U.S. adults say this election is a significant source of stress. In fact, half of the couples I counsel place political arguments at the top of their sparring list. ‎ I haven't seen this many political arguments in my career as a couple’s therapist. There has not been so much dissatisfaction and stress as with presidential candidates Trump and Clinton. The problem is not as simple as spouses stating, let's just agree to disagree. If it were, marriage counseling wouldn’t be needed. Here’s how I have tailored my guidance for conflict resolution skills for these couples.

The fundamental truth is that each couple has the instinctive skills to solve their own problems and cultivating and nurturing those skills may be my most important role as a therapist. ‎It is imperative to change the habitual patterns of unfair arguments. Most couples know how to de-escalate as well as how to escalate a disagreement. These Clinton/Trump disagreements turn into raging arguments that go for weeks and escalate at the risk of causing long-term damage. The wife yells at her husband, you are an arrogant thick conservative just like your father, and the husband sneers back, it’s no wonder you support Hillary because you are both lying liberals. When she shouts, he is insane and I don't know how I ever married him and they question each other's character, the situation spirals out of control. What started as a disagreement over political viewpoints is threatening the fabric of their marriage.

The first priority is for me to assess their communication. I ask them to continue their argument in front of me for 20 minutes while I study their facial expressions, body language, tone and the volume of their voices. After a glimpse of their sparring style, it is time to get to work and tone down the harmful rhetoric. 

These are the four treatment steps that seem to be most helpful:

Number 1: Teach couples how to de-escalate by calling a time-out when things get heated and they both get flooded. A time-out can’t be for five minutes because that is not enough time to calm down. Try an hour or a day or a week or just table the whole discussion and lock it in a cabinet. If the couple doesn’t calm down quickly and speak in a normal tone of voice, I apply some pressure by asking, you have ten years invested in your marriage and two children and you are ready to flush it down the drain for political differences? Last, who dreamed up that you have to resolve all your marital differences before bedtime each night? It is preferable for couples not to go to sleep angry, but resolving all differences is an unrealistic goal. Do you know what spouses should do each night? Express respect, affection, and appreciation to each other; tomorrow is another day.
Number 2: I re-focus the couple back to the topic of politics and not each other's character. I establish a ground rule: No personal attacks on your spouse in any shape or form. Otherwise this “external” conflict devolves into an “internal” struggle. Keep it on the outside; keep it external. It cannot be allowed into the inner sanctum where you store feelings, emotions, hopes, and dreams for you, your spouse and family. 
Number 3: I insist couples understand the difference between a disagreement and an argument. Disagreements are normal and common in healthy long-lasting marriages. ‎ Arguments, especially those that are scorching, are not. I reference the indispensable research of Psychologist Dr. Jon Gottman. Gottman found that two thirds of relationship issues in normal couples are perpetual. Examples of the most common disagreements are: parenting, money, work stress, intimacy, in-laws, and household chores. In his "love lab", Gottman discovered that it is the "regulation" of conflict not the "resolution" of conflict that is critical. 
Number 4: I remind each couple of the marital commitment they made in front of family, friends, and God. It is not a commitment as-long-as the love is strong, or as-long-as our political views remain in-sync rather it is a commitment No Matter What. Too often these days, commitments are like Velcro, it holds well but is easy to pull apart (Professor Bill Doherty).  Commitment is crucial as we humans are evolving and dynamic. Circumstances change; life happens. Just because you don’t have an in-law issue this year, doesn't mean you won’t next year. After all, your mother-in-law might move in with you. You don't argue about parenting your toddlers currently, but have you prepared yourself for adolescence? Not arguing about finances now is great, but what if you are laid off in an economic downturn?

As a last resort ‎I give couples an ultimatum that they must tone down the rhetoric, halt the character attacks, and start repairing immediately. I don't have a crystal ball, but I will predict that if you both continue down this road, you will likely destroy your marriage. The consequences of that choice not only impacts you both but doubles the chances that your children will get divorced.

Final note: This is a disagreement that will not end on November 8 with the presidential election. One candidate will be the winner; the other the loser. In a scorekeeping relationship which is as common as it is detrimental, one spouse will believe that he/she is the winner of the argument. ‎If the losing spouse rubs it in for months with quotes like I told you this is the kind of president she will be, it is a recipe for continued provocation and friction. Also, keep in mind that marriage is not a 50-50 arrangement. Do you know how to really win big? By giving more in your marriage, not by taking more.

The American Dream That Beckons Your Teen; Let It Wait

Bill Doherty, who I cite in this blog every chance I get, raises some terrific questions in his Psychology Today essay on Abby Sunderland, the teenager who sailed around the world. He makes some crucial points about the role of modern parents in how they give guidance and supervision to their children.

When the American dream is calling your child, how do you say no?
How have we allowed our adolescents to become adults and our children to become adolescents?
And how do parents lose their moorings when children profess a dream of competitive success?

Doherty described his own family this way: “Back in the ancient 1980s, before the age of the super child, when my son asked to add a second sport to his schedule, we said sure, if you want to drop the first one. We were not yet burdened by the cultural norm that every child is a bundle of undiscovered potential that parents are responsible to uncover and develop, no matter the cost.

Of course, the young have always had dreams, but we used to think that they should grow up before deciding on which dreams to pursue as part of an adult life. From Abby’s blog: "It has been my dream since I was 13 years old and began single-handing, to one day sail solo around the world. I am 16 years old and this blog will contain the story of my attempt to become the world's youngest solo circumnavigator.” Note the contemporary twist on the familiar round-the-world travel dream: it's to be solo and the youngest in history.

We now know that the human brain does not fully mature until around age 25 on average; that means Abby has 9 years of brain development to look forward to. For now, it's the job of parents to provide the missing prefrontal cortex for their offspring.

Abby's father said: "Sailing and life in general is dangerous. Teenagers drive cars. Does that mean teenagers shouldn't drive a car?” When a parent of a minor child compares a year of solo sailing around the world, including in the South Pacific hurricane season, to driving a car in the neighborhood, it sounds delusional to outsiders. But it feels sane to parents who have been seduced by today's culture of competitive childhood where the dreams of youth distort the judgment of adults. Behind every super child is a supportive but ultimately wimpy parent.

Doherty wisely concludes: “The antidote is simple: let high-achieving children be children first, with time to grow up, and in the meantime let parents be the adults in the family.”

I encourage you to read Doherty’s entire piece by clicking here

Private Time Indispensable to Marriage by Dr. Alan Singer

Here is my 3rd and final column describing the couples I surveyed who are celebrating their 30th Anniversaries. It was published in the Home News Tribune on December 17, 2008. Robin and Michael refer to marriage as "an evolving state". Is that a good thing? Read below and I invite you to post a comment.

Nine New Jersey couples who are celebrating their 30th wedding anniversary this year responded to a survey I conducted. This is the third and final column devoted to their responses. I asked each couple what they wanted more time for. Responses included: we want more time together, family vacations and watching our grandchildren grow up. In the fast-paced, two-career family paradigm that is so prevalent, what couples want is more time together. But, two comments concern me. Susan explained, "I wish I made more time for myself and my husband, but in my life, everyone else came first." And Heather stated, "Once the kids were born, we never made time to be alone, just the two of us." Whoa! Red flag!

When couples have a child, they tend to put their marriage on the back burner. That is one reason that researchers have found that marital satisfaction tends to decrease with the arrival of each child. After life-with-a-newborn settles into a routine, couples must dedicate themselves to nurturing their marriage as much, even more than nurturing their children. Children need their parents to have a strong marriage first and foremost; to be Super Mom and Super Dad comes second.

These couples believe that the institution of marriage has changed in 30 years and not necessarily for the better. Susie and Barry: Divorce is less of a stigma. Larry and Judy: People give up too easily and get divorced without trying to resolve their problems. Linda and Leonard added, "Marriage is not a toy, that if you don't like it you find something else; It's a lifetime commitment." Professor Bill Doherty (University of Minnesota) in a lecture delivered in 2001 refers to marriages today in the context of our consumer society where everything is temporary: "New is what sells — the past is meaningless. Only the future counts. Will my rewards be there in the future and am I getting enough out of this relationship?"

Last are several responses to the question, what is the most important thing that you learned about marriage? Most important to Linda and Leonard is, "The effect of being loved and showing love can only make you a better person." (Research supports them on that.) Suzie and Barry go a step further: "Love is not enough to sustain a marriage; you have to work on maintaining the love and the relationship."

Robin and Michael learned that marriage is "an evolving state." That response intrigued me, so I asked them to elaborate. "Nothing in life stays the same; it changes each day with each new experience and the challenges that life presents." They added, "As we grow and mature and are molded by what life brings us, it necessarily affects marriage. The hope is that your spouse helps you through those changes and that your relationship is flexible and can accommodate change."

In a 1998 lecture, psychologist John Gottman similarly describes the importance of "shared meaning." He contends: "Everyone is searching for the meaning of life in this journey of ours. The idea of creating this meaning together with someone else in a family is very key in building this friendship in marriage using the narratives, metaphors, symbols, roles, goals, and rituals that make life meaningful. This has a great impact on friendship in the marriage and on buffering transitions in the marriage, such as partner-hood to parenthood." Thank you to the nine couples who participated in this survey and Happy Anniversary!

Be Counted columnist Dr. Alan Singer is a marriage therapist in Highland Park. Respond to this column via his Web site www.FamilyThinking.com

Copter Parents Best Climb to a Higher Altitude by Dr. Alan Singer

If parents hover above their adult children and frequently swoop down to intervene on their behalf, how will those children mature and be responsible for themselves? And now, a new trend--submarine parents? This column was published in the 3/28/08 edition of the Home News Tribune

Hovering parents that install Web cameras in a child's college dorm room or accompany children to job interviews are referred to as "helicopter parents." How big a problem is this? It's hard to say. But getting parents to teach their children to be responsible for themselves is vital. If hovering parents frequently swoop down to run interference for their offspring, their children won't have an opportunity to grow up.

Recently, the 2007 Report of the National Survey of Student Engagement (Indiana University) indicated that intervention by family members does not blunt student engagement, learning, and development during college. This optimistic data comes from more than 300,000 randomly selected first-year and senior students at 610 four-year colleges and universities. Helicopter parents, those in frequent contact and frequently intervening on behalf of their children, reported: Higher levels of engagement and more frequent use of deep-learning activities, greater gains on a host of desired college outcomes, and greater satisfaction with the college experience.

According to the survey, seven of 10 students communicated very often with at least one parent or guardian during the academic year. Electronic communication was more common than face-to-face. Further, 13 percent of first-year students reported a parent frequently intervened to help solve problems, with another 25 percent saying a parent sometimes intervened.

And what is the electronic communication device of choice? The cell phone. Dr. Graham Spanier, president of Penn State, in a lecture to the National Council on Family Relations observed, "The first thing that happens when a freshman moves into the dorm, is that he hooks up his computer. Next, his mother makes his bed." Spanier went on to explain that the most interesting trend of recent years is that there is no more crying when the parents leave, thanks to cell phones. Every freshman has one. In his own survey of Penn State students, he found that within 48 hours of drop-off at college, freshmen have spoken with a parent seven to eight times on average.

Dr. Bill Doherty of the University of Minnesota explained, "This is a serious problem that extends into the workplace, when HR professionals have to field calls from Mom and Dad about Samantha's job interview, performance or benefit package." When I questioned Doherty on whether college students really need any parental supervision, he stressed that the human brain does not mature until age 25 and it is a good idea for Mom and Dad to look for signs of trouble and be prepared to intervene. Signs of trouble include slipping grades or a break in the regular schedule of communication. "But when it comes to handling their college course work and relationships with teachers and friends," added Doherty, "this is a time for kids to do their own negotiating, with Mom and Dad as mentors."

Atlanta psychiatrist Frank Pittman does not think helicopter parenting is a big problem, writing to me, "The awareness of what the kids of whatever age are doing is not control, just monitoring." Pittman does not object to parents knowing what kids are doing, as long as parents don't think they need to control it. He sees no problem, as long as the copter is far enough above and concluded, "A parent is not a probation officer. Rather than trying to catch kids misbehaving at this age and distance, we talk with them. If we make that process pleasant enough, they'll talk back."

I wonder if I am also a helicopter parent. Judge for yourself after reading this anecdote. Recently, while in Florida with my family, I suggested to my 17-year-old that we try an introductory scuba course at Pennekamp State Park in the Keys. I experienced the wonders of diving in Eilat, Israel, and wanted her to have a chance. Before I knew it, we were 35 feet below the surface with our instructor. I began to panic, but not about myself. What had I dragged my daughter into for the sake of having a good time? We human beings are land-based creatures who don't breathe compressed air from a bottle. I couldn't appreciate the magnificent reef, because I was too nervous about my daughter.

There's no talking under water — only sign language. I couldn't understand why my daughter kept giving me the OK sign. How could she possibly be OK 35 feet deep, surrounded by parrot fish, snapper, and barracuda that swam within inches of us? My hyperventilation resulted in our instructor cutting the first dive short because (no surprise) I was running low on air. As we surfaced, I expected to bear the brunt of her fear, disappointment and possibly tears. Instead, she described it as "exhilarating and awesome."

My paranoia about her well-being was entirely my agenda, not hers. Thankfully, we had a terrific second dive together that I enjoyed as a normal person. How big a problem is "submarine parenting"? It's hard to say.

"Be Counted" columnist Dr. Alan Singer is a marriage therapist in Highland Park. Respond to this column at Dr. Singer's blog http://www.familythinking.com/ or e-mail him at DrAlanSinger@aol.com "Be Counted" columnists are members of the public.

We Need to Read More Stories About Joys, Benefits of Marriage by Dr. Alan Singer

Here's my essay that was published in the Home News Tribune on June 18, 2006. You can see this essay on the SmartMarriages website by clicking here. You can also see how the ThinkMarriage blog made use of this essay by clicking here.
Newsweek's cover story admitted to their error in predicitng the odds of a woman getting married. I think their error was more basic: It wasn't a story about marriage, it was really a story about mating. See if you agree.

When a renowned periodical like Newsweek puts the words "Why We Were Wrong" in red, bold-faced type on its cover, it is bound to attract attention. The "wrong" is referring to a 1986 Newsweek article on getting married. The honesty and humility is inspiring, except that I believe they are still getting one significant aspect of the marriage story wrong. Let me explain.

In a June 2, 1986, cover story titled "The Marriage Crunch," Newsweek cited a research study that described the decreasing odds of women ever getting married as their age increases; victims of what demographers referred to as the "marriage squeeze." The main message of the study was "delaying marriage may ultimately mean forgoing it." And this was perceived as a "slap in the face" to the smartest women of this generation. But the phraseology that caused the most controversy was the statement, "40-year-olds are more likely to be killed by a terrorist: they have a minuscule 2.6 percent probability of tying the knot."

Recently, Newsweek's June 5, 2006, cover story admits that the situation looks far better 20 years later. The 1986 statistic "turned out to be too pessimistic: today it appears that about 90 percent of baby-boomer men and women either have married or will marry." This month's article cites 1996 census data, which indicates that "a single woman at 40 had a 40.8 percent chance of eventually marrying." And co-author of the 1986 article, Pamela Abramson, who penned the terrorist jibe admits, "It's true, I am responsible for the single most irresponsible line in the history of journalism, all meant in jest." The authors of the 2006 article added, "Most readers missed the joke."

I remember reading the 1986 article and still have the same question as I had 20 years ago. Why does Newsweek think that this is an article on marriage? Isn't an article that describes the odds of getting married and a trend such as the increasing median age at first marriage more about "mating" than about marriage? And if you decide to write about marriage, why not be upbeat and quote a significant finding that has, to date, not been revised or refuted? The most supportive household for a child is one with two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage (http://marriage.rutgers.edu/).

I don't remember seeing any cover stories that mention this research finding, but I wish we did. Here's why: Whether a 40-year-old woman has a 2.6 percent or a 40.8 percent chance of getting married, it is a direct consequence of her decision to pursue career goals before family and/or to be absolutely sure of her choice of a husband in order not to "settle." I don't believe that if a woman reads one (more) article on her "ticking biological clock" that it will cause her to abruptly change course from career-track to mother-track.

Call me naive, but I do believe that if a husband or wife with marital problems reads one cover story that describes the most supportive household for a child, it could make a difference in their marriage. The reason is that the vast majority of us married folks have problems (I made up this statistic). Not serious problems like abuse, which should end a marriage, but less serious problems like in-laws or finances that should not end a marriage. Dr. John Gottman's research has shown, "Most of the time couples don't solve their problems and they have perpetual problems."

But couples today may not be familiar with Gottman's research, nor do they necessarily consider the long-term consequences of short-term decisions. With a spouse who does not realize that marriage means, "It's no longer all about me," or states, "I am not getting enough out of this marriage," then today's legal system makes it easier than ever before to throw in the towel and get a divorce. Professor Bill Doherty compares divorce to an amputation. Sometimes it is necessary, but, "It should be avoided if at all possible, because it brings about a permanent disability."

I suggest that the media spotlight the research findings on healthy family life because the divorce rate (close to 50 percent) affects millions of children in the United States; children who did not and would not make that decision. If couples know that two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage is better for their child than any divorce scenario, maybe they would get help in keeping the (normal) conflict in their marriage on the "low" setting. While it is true that more couples than ever before are participating in pre-marital education and married couples' classes and therapy, it is still common to hear, "I don't buy that "stick-it-out-for-the-kids' line because I deserve to be happy." As Dr. Frank Pittman is fond of saying, "Marriage is not supposed to make you happy; it's supposed to make you married."

But guess what researchers have found? Staying in a marriage is not only good for the kids; married couples are better off financially, emotionally and healthwise. The best source for this information is Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher's book, "The Case For Marriage." In these past 20 years, the message has changed to, stick-it-out-for-the-kids and especially you, too.
That's why I believe Newsweek was wrong about what they were wrong about. And while they're at it, maybe they can work on the article titles; "Marriage Crunch," "Marriage Squeeze," you'd think it was a discussion of Sumo-wrestling or breakfast foods.

Dr. Alan M. Singer is a marriage and family therapist in Highland Park.