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.

My Brief Encounter with President Obama by Dr. Alan Singer

Do you know how long I have been waiting to write my little meet-the-President story? Years. This column appeared in the February 11, 2009 Home News Tribune and was truly great fun to write.

My brush with fame took place in the spring of 2006. I was waiting for an elevator in the U.S. Capitol building when U.S. Sen. Barack Obama appeared next to me. Here is our brief exchange:

SINGER: "Senator Obama, I want to thank you for your inspiring remarks. (One hour prior, Obama addressed our delegation.) It was nice of you to take the time in your schedule to speak to our group."
OBAMA: "You are very welcome (shaking my hand and glancing at my ID badge). Where are you from, Dr. Singer?" (Bell rings; elevator door opens and we step in.)
SINGER: "I am from New Jersey, and Senator Obama, I can see why they say you are a rising star in the Democratic Party."
OBAMA: "Thanks, that's very nice of you, but you actually just stepped into an elevator that is for senators only. Sorry."
SINGER: Oops! (Stepping out of the elevator.) So nice to meet you and best of luck to you."

So much for my face-to-face encounter with our new president. As I pressed the button to ascend in the bank of elevators designated for the general public, I never would have imagined that I had just shaken hands with the future president of the United States.

There are millions of Americans whose dreams and hopes are now fulfilled by virtue of the fact that President Obama was elected and now serves as our commander in chief. While contemplating my own dreams and hopes for our new president and our country, I came across a recent survey by the Lifetime Television Network. The research titled "Every Woman Counts" is a compilation of data based on the responses of 600 American women.

The nonpartisan "Every Woman Counts" campaign is an effort to engage women in the political process. Seventy-one percent of the women surveyed believed that the economy should be the No. 1 concern for the Obama administration. Health care and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the next highest priorities. According to the news release on the poll, "The plurality (35 percent) of women said they will know that Barack Obama is attending to the needs of women if he addresses the issues related to families and work — life balance, while 22 percent said they will hold him accountable based on the way he handles the economy. One in ten said they will base their review of the Obama administration on whether he deals with pay equity."

I was gratified that "67 percent of women said that President Obama should not consider gender at all when appointing his Cabinet, and should just focus on qualifications." But, I believe it is unfortunate that 65 percent of the women surveyed believe that male and female candidates are held to different standards on the campaign trail. Male candidates, they indicated, have the edge on: being taken seriously by voters; being covered seriously by the media; addressing issues such as national security/terrorism, and addressing the issue of the economy.

Another positive note from this research had to do with the candidacies of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. "Eighty-six percent of the women surveyed said that young girls and women in their lives would be more likely to take an interest in politics thanks to the experiences of these women," according to the survey.

And to the man in the senators-only elevator, it was a privilege to shake your hand and wish you good luck, because you really do have your hands full.

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

Lifestyles, Child Rearing Differ Based on Politics by Dr. Alan Singer

Here is an essay I wrote in the Home News Tribune on 12/20/06 regarding the 2006 Elections. To see this essay on the SmartMarriages website click here.

Red States have higher divorce rates? Blue states have smaller families? Read on if that sounds intriguing.....

Consider two unusual political trends relating to marriage and children. Red states have higher divorce rates than democratic states and blue states have smaller families than republicans. What's behind these trends?

Divorce first: Wouldn't you think that California, the "left" side of the country with its free-spirited open-mindedness and "splitsville" movie stars, has a high divorce rate? Conversely, shouldn't Bible belt states like Arkansas and Mississippi, with their family values, have low divorce rates? Wrong on both accounts.

California has one of the lowest divorce rates and Mississippi and Arkansas two of the highest (Census Bureau). Pam Belluck of the New York Times observed: "The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the Upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate (5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people) was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry and the Kennedys."

"The higher the educational level, higher the occupational level, higher the income, the less likely you are to divorce," said William V. D'Antonio, a sociologist at the Catholic University of America, noting that Massachusetts has the highest rate of high school and college completion. Kids who drop out of high school and get married very quickly suffer from the strains of not being emotionally mature and not having the income to help weather the difficulties of marriage," Belluck wrote.

I ran this question by several experts in the field. Dr. David Popenoe, of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, reiterated, "The more educated people found in the blue states have lower divorce rates and also lower fertility rates; for less educated people, it is the reverse."

Dr. William Doherty, professor of family social science at the University of Minnesota suggests, "The main issue for republicans and conservatives and evangelical Christians is that the discrepancy between their self-appraisals as the family values folks and the fact that being in those groups does not seem to convey any benefits for marital stability."
My thinking is that divorce is not an exclusively conservative nemesis and democrats have no reason to be smug. With the U.S. divorce rate hovering at 50 percent, we all have reason for serious concern.

"Larger social forces that fragment our marriages have far greater power than the teachings of conservative (or liberal) faith communities," Doherty said.
Atlanta psychiatrist Frank Pittman, from his 47 years of treating marriages, explains: "We know that Southern Baptists have the highest rate of divorce of any Christian group, perhaps because they believe that lusting in your heart is as big a deal as doing it in public. The more conservative that people are, the less tolerant they are of human frailties, their own or those of others."

Pittman concludes, "Marriage, to last, requires two imperfect people with compassion for one another's struggles and conservatives can't always do that."
Liberal baby blues is a different matter. David Brooks of the New York Times observed that birthrates are falling in Western Europe and many regions of the United States. People are marrying later and having fewer children. "You can see surprising political correlations," he said. "Bush (in 2004) carried the 19 states with the highest fertility rates. Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates."

Arthur Brooks of the Wall Street Journal emphasized, "Liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result."

According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had between them 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a fertility gap of 41 percent.
What are some factors that influence family size? Philip Longman of USA Today shed some light on this: "In the USA, 47 percent of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27 percent of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.'

Religious observance is a good predictor of ideal family size as well as income, education and family-of-origin family size. Should liberals try to persuade each other to have more children for the sake of their ideology? Procreate for the cause? I don't think so. Many governments enduring declines in fertility institute pronatalist policies. Incentives may include child allowances, birth grants and paid maternity leave, and are meant to increase family size. While these policies do not guarantee that family size will increase, they are a guarantee of treating families in a manner that makes child-rearing less of a financial burden, which is a welcome benefit. Governments often want to increase family size to ensure that there are enough soldiers for a formidable army and enough workers to pay taxes for programs that sustain the elderly such as Social Security. I don't see families having significantly more children for the sake of the Motherland or for an ideology such as liberalism.

From my two decades of research in family size and more practically speaking, as the father of four children, I can say with full confidence: The primary reason a couple should have a (another) child is because they want to love, cherish and care for that child, not for the sake of any cause or ideology.

Dr. Alan Singer is a marriage therapist in Highland Park and can be reached at DrAlanSinger@aol.com