21 Questions
Consider how many questions now seem to come with an ideological interpretation.
Today, the answers you give to what once used to be apolitical topics, now pigeonholes you into a political camp.
Do you own Bitcoin? Fly an American flag? Drive an electric car? What is your stance on immigration? Do you believe in free markets? Do you support Israel? Which denomination of Christianity do you belong to? Where do you get your news?
Before you have explained your reasons, someone may have already decided what those choices say about your politics.
Let’s be honest. An answer to any of those questions can become a reason to make assumptions about someone’s character, intelligence, and values.
When Everything Becomes a Political Statement
Of course, some of these subjects have always had political dimensions. Economic and foreign policy are inherently political. Bitcoin raises questions about money and government authority. Flags have long carried national and political meaning.
What concerns me is how easily one opinion (on something that not too long ago was an apolitical topic) becomes a heuristic for judging someones entire worldview.
Consider cryptocurrency. There are legitimate questions about its usefulness, risks, regulation, and technological potential. But political affiliation has entered the conversation, too. In research published in 2026, Pew Research Center identified a partisan gap in cryptocurrency use for the first time in its surveys, with Republicans and Republican-leaning independents more likely to have used it than their Democratic counterparts. Read Pew’s research.
Owning Bitcoin certainly does not tell us how someone votes. Yet another subject has acquired a partisan association.
Renewable energy offers a similar example. Cost, reliability, land use, and environmental impact deserve careful consideration. But a solar panel can also become a cultural symbol. Pew reported in 2026 that Republican support for expanding solar and wind power had each fallen by more than 20 percentage points between 2020 and 2025. See Pew’s findings.
How often do we evaluate a technology on its merits before considering who supports it?
Patriotism, Sports, and the News We Watch
The same dynamic reaches into patriotism.
Standing for the national anthem, saluting the flag, or expressing pride in America can become entangled with assumptions about party loyalty. Meanwhile, criticism of the government can be interpreted as hostility toward the country itself. Surely we can love our country and have serious grievances about aspects of it?
The controversy over NFL players kneeling during the national anthem captured this divide. Some understood the gesture as a protest against racial injustice. Others saw disrespect toward the flag and country. A 2017 Marist poll documented sharply different interpretations among Democrats and Republicans. Read the findings. At the extremes, standing can be portrayed as indifference to injustice, while kneeling becomes evidence that someone does not belong here. People watching the same gesture were seeing entirely different messages. Even the moments surrounding a football game had become a dispute over national belonging.
News outlets have become part of this sorting process, too. Pew’s 2025 research found substantial partisan differences in which organizations Americans trust. See Pew’s report. There are valid reasons to question an outlet’s accuracy. But do we examine the reporting, or dismiss it as soon as we see CNN or FOX as the source? Debates about Ukraine, Israel, and other countries can flatten important distinctions as well. Humanitarian relief, military assistance, sympathy for civilians, and approval of a government are different positions. Research documents substantial partisan divisions over foreign assistance.
Even businesses face competing expectations. In the 2026 Bentley-Gallup survey, 62% of Democrats, compared with 28% of Republicans, said companies should take public positions on current events. Read Gallup’s findings. Speaking can invite accusations of political activism. Silence can invite accusations of indifference. As a corporation making political statements, I think it’s fair to say that you can’t win.
When Politics Begins Interpreting Religion
Consider the reaction to Pope Leo XIV by many Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. “The Pope is woke!” If I had a dollar every time I heard that, maybe I wouldn’t need to be in the wealth management business. Lets take a look at some of the stances he’s taken on the record:
On January 9, 2026, Leo said abortion “cuts short a growing life.” He also criticized public funding for abortion access and called for protecting unborn children while providing concrete support to mothers. Original Vatican address.
In that same address, he affirmed the “exclusive and indissoluble union between a woman and a man,” connecting marriage with welcoming and caring for children. Original Vatican address.
Also on January 9, he argued that turning pregnancy into a negotiated service exploits women and treats children as commodities. Original Vatican address.
At Lourdes on September 27, 2026, he said, “what is legal is not necessarily moral,” while rejecting intentionally causing death under the guise of compassion. He urged care, accompaniment, and palliative treatment instead. Vatican News.
In an interview published in September 2025, he said changes to Church teaching on sexuality and marriage were highly unlikely in the near future. He also expressed no current intention to change teaching on women’s diaconal ordination, while supporting women in other leadership positions. Vatican’s account of the interview.
In his May 2026 encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, examines artificial intelligence through questions of human dignity and the common good. In September, Peter Thiel called him a “useful idiot” for the Chinese Communist Party, arguing that restrictions in the West could benefit China.
The disagreement over AI was not the only example.
In April 2026, amid the pope’s opposition to the war in Iran, Trump urged him to “focus on being a great Pope, not a politician.” The remarks were discussed in a congressional briefing on Vatican diplomacy.
On April 13, JD Vance suggested that the Vatican should “stick to matters of morality” and leave American public policy to the president. His remarks aired on Fox News.
I find that distinction fascinating. I’m almost certain that the decision to wage wars (especially ones with so many civilian casualties) is a matter of morality…
Now, to be fair, Vance said the following day that he welcomed the pope’s comments on war and peace, while challenging his interpretation of just war teaching.
The Cost of Political Belonging
Whether we favor socialism, capitalism, or something in between, our convictions can become inseparable from our communities and questioning an idea can begin to feel like questioning where we belong. I know people who hesitate to give political opponents credit even when they believe it is deserved. A concession seems to feel like disloyalty. How are we to be intellectually honest when we can’t call basic balls and strikes?
In The Righteous Mind (2012), Jonathan Haidt offers a useful explanation: “Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.” We often reach a judgment and then assemble reasons to defend it.
I have to catch myself doing this, too. When confidence starts becoming certainty, I ask:
Can I criticize my own side without immediately defending it?
Can I explain an opposing argument fairly?
Do my friends require political agreement?
Do my friend groups have diversity of thought?
Political beliefs have consequences. Recognizing another person’s humanity does not require overlooking harmful ideas or actions. But our principles should help us recognize wrongdoing within our own party, too. Before your next political disagreement, try asking one sincere question before offering a rebuttal.
It is easy to recognize blind loyalty in someone else. It takes considerably more honesty to recognize it in ourselves.
Return to normalcy
Perhaps we could all benefit from holding our convictions firmly and our party memberships a little more loosely. Before your next political argument, ask a sincere question. You might discover something about the person across from you that their voting record never could have told you.
A Democrat and a Republican walk into a bar, sit down, order drinks, and have a great time. The bartender looks at them and asks, “Is this a joke?”
I’m only 28, which seems a little young to be talking about “the good old days.” Yet I remember political landscape feeling a lot less apocalyptic.
However, maybe my memory is generous. But surely enjoying someone’s company without agreeing on everything shouldn’t have to be the punchline.
