I was incredibly close to my grandparents. They were thoughtful, well-read and deeply engaged citizens who believed strongly in civic participation. They followed the news and took voting seriously.

Despite my curiosity and more than a few questions over the years, I still have no idea for whom they voted.

That was not unusual for their generation. Many Americans grew up in homes where politics was taken seriously but treated as private. Friends could share a meal without comparing party affiliations. Co-workers could collaborate for years without knowing how one another voted. Even within families, people often cast their ballots quietly.

Today, that norm feels almost unrecognizable.

In the age of social media, silence about politics can be interpreted as indifference — or worse, complicity. Celebrities are urged to “use their platform.” Businesses are pressured to release statements about complex public policy questions. Individuals with modest online followings face demands to comment on national events immediately and publicly.

In a remarkably short time, our culture moved from one where political restraint was often considered polite to one where political expression is frequently expected.

Technology played a major role in that transformation. Social media collapsed private conversation, public debate and personal identity into the same digital space. A comment that once might have been shared quietly among friends is now broadcast to hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people at once.

The incentives of these platforms are also worth considering. Nuanced arguments rarely go viral. Outrage, certainty and moral clarity travel much faster. Algorithms reward posts that generate strong reactions, which means the loudest and most emotionally charged voices often receive the most visibility.

The result is a political conversation that can feel less like a discussion and more like a performance. Statements are issued quickly. Positions are declared publicly. Those who hesitate — or who choose not to participate — can find themselves criticized for saying nothing at all.

This expectation extends far beyond elected officials. Consumers want brands to signal their values. Employees want to know where companies stand on social issues. Public figures are scrutinized not only for what they say, but for what they fail to say.

There is a reasonable question worth asking: Do we really need to know everyone’s politics?

In many situations, the answer may be no.

For generations, etiquette treated politics and religion as sensitive topics in mixed company. The goal was not to suppress civic engagement or discourage meaningful debate. The idea was to recognize that certain subjects carry a high potential for conflict — and that social harmony benefits from a degree of discretion.

Etiquette never required people to avoid political discussion entirely. Instead, it encourages people to consider the context. Is this the right setting for this conversation? Is the other person interested in having it? Am I trying to understand, or simply trying to win?

These questions matter because disagreement itself is not the problem. In a healthy democracy, disagreement is inevitable and often productive. Robust debate helps societies refine ideas, challenge assumptions and improve policies.

The problem arises when disagreement becomes synonymous with contempt.

Social media made it easier than ever to reduce complex individuals to single opinions. A person who holds a different view on one issue can quickly be labeled, dismissed or publicly shamed.

Nuance disappears. Intentions are assumed. Conversations harden into accusations. It becomes difficult to build trust or maintain relationships under those conditions.

Many Americans already feel the consequences. Families avoid certain topics at holiday gatherings. Friendships quietly fade after political arguments online. Some people choose to remain silent, not because they lack convictions but because they worry that any statement will be misunderstood or weaponized.

Ironically, a culture that demands constant expression can make genuine dialogue less likely. There may be value in rediscovering a measure of political privacy. Not every relationship requires ideological alignment in order to function. Neighbors can borrow a ladder from one another without discussing public policy. Parents can cheer for their children at the same soccer game without comparing their views on national issues. Colleagues can collaborate effectively even if they vote differently.

The ability to coexist across political differences is not a weakness. It is one of the quiet strengths of a pluralistic society. Etiquette offers a useful reminder here: respect does not require agreement. It requires recognizing the dignity of the person across from you.

That principle applies both online and offline. Before responding to a provocative post, it may be worth asking whether the goal is to understand or to score a point. Before publicly shaming someone, it may be worth considering whether a private conversation would be more constructive. Before assuming the worst about someone’s character, it may be worth remembering that people are often more complicated than their most recent comment suggests.

None of this means political speech should be avoided or discouraged. Civic participation is a vital part of democratic life. However, the tone of our disagreements matters just as much as the substance of our views.

The ability to disagree without being disagreeable is not an outdated social nicety. It is a civic skill — one that may be more important now than ever.

In a polarized era, treating others with courtesy, curiosity and restraint can feel almost radical. Yet, those qualities are precisely what allow a diverse society to function.

Democracy depends on free speech. It also depends on the character with which we use it.

_____

ABOUT THE WRITER

Alison M. Cheperdak is the founder of Elevate Etiquette. She is the author of the book “Was It Something I Said? Everyday Etiquette to Avoid Awkward Moments in Relationships, Work and Life.” She wrote this for InsideSources.com.

_____

©2026 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.