NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The New York Times Magazine’s “The Ethicist” advice column suggested that a liberal reader — seeking guidance on how to handle a friend living in a deep-red rural town with her Trump-supporting husband, whom he felt wasn’t politically active enough — should respond with empathy.
The anonymous reader explained his situation to columnist Kwame Anthony Appiah Saturday.
“I’m an H.I.V.-positive gay man who is distraught with where the country is headed, so I am actively participating in protests. I have a liberal friend who lives in an overwhelmingly Trump-supporting small town and is married to a Trump supporter,” the reader seeking advice wrote.
“She messages me often about her fears of what is going on and seems equally distraught. I’ve shared with her how current politics could affect my life and how, although I’m very aware of my privilege, I’m concerned about people who aren’t as privileged and how they could be affected.”
FAMILY BREAKUPS OVER POLITICS MAY HURT MORE THAN YOU THINK, EXPERT SAYS
The reader continued his critiques, chastising his friend for only sharing her political beliefs on social media rather than attending protests in her small rural town.
“She comes off to me as someone who’s comfortable in her life and doesn’t want to shake anything up, which is the height of hypocrisy to me,” he added. “I feel like apathy is how we got here in the first place, and I’m really struggling with how and whether to keep people like this in my life.”
The Ethicist noted that, for those who live in large urban cities in the U.S., attending progressive protests is about as “contentious as an ice cream social” and “cost-free” for its participants.
“Most people you know will be pleased to see you out there.”
YOUNG MEN SHIFTING TO POLITICAL RIGHT IS CAUSING WOMEN TO DISTRUST DATING APPS, SAYS ATLANTIC WRITER
“For her, in a small Trump-supporting town, it’s another story. Neighbors who see her at a protest are neighbors she’ll see at the supermarket and the school board. That could mean living with their disapproval; it could also mean ostracism,” Appiah pointed out. “And unlike in cities, where numbers can swell to visibility, protests in small, homogeneous towns may achieve little beyond reinforcing the majority’s sense that the minority is odd or out of step.”
Responding to the reader’s assertion that her friend’s unwillingness to fully express her political beliefs is the “height of hypocrisy,” The Ethicist questioned whether it’s fair to label her friend a hypocrite.
“Hypocrisy means professing beliefs you don’t hold. She shares your views but confronts some very different costs when it comes to public action,” he explained. “And then, because she’s married to a Trump supporter, those costs run right through her daily life.”
CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE
While the reader claimed that “apathy is how we got here,” Appiah suggested that some researchers would say that “condescension played a part” in how he approached his friend’s situation.
“The political scientist Katherine Cramer, for example, has explored how rural resentment has been fueled by perceptions of urban disdain,” he noted.
In his closing remarks, The Ethicist offered a humbling reflection, suggesting perhaps it’s the reader’s friend who should rethink their relationship, not the reader.
“As you ask whether to keep people like your low-key friend in your life, I fear that the failure of empathy here is on your side. Your small-town friend may have assessed her circumstances more carefully than you give her credit for. Maybe the question is whether she should keep someone in her life who refuses to consider that possibility,” Appiah concluded.
In November 2024, after the presidential election, “The Ethicist” column responded to a reader question about how Democratic voters should deal with close relatives who supported Trump over Vice President Kamala Harris.
“I strongly oppose Trump, as do my wife and her family, who live nearby. I’m troubled by my mother’s support of someone I consider morally abhorrent and dangerous, especially when she voted in a former swing state,” the person seeking advice wrote.
“With the result of the 2024 election, my wife and her family are directing their understandable fury at my mother. My wife’s sister said, ‘‘If she voted for Trump again, I’m completely done with her.’’ I expect that the next time they interact it will not be pretty.”
The Ethicist tackled a similar question in October 2024, answering a reader’s question about whether it is appropriate to leave the country if the “wrong” candidate becomes president.
In February 2025, a reader asked the advice column whether a “straight White dude” can date “women of color” to “combat racism.”
Read the full article here
