I’m A Psychologist: This Is Why Cutting Off Your Family Over Politics Won't Make You Happier

In recent years, a new kind of patient has been showing up in my office: otherwise emotionally healthy, high-functioning adults grieving the loss of once-close family relationships. The cause? Political differences. Often, these patients aren’t the ones doing the cutting off. They’re the ones left behind—parents suddenly “uninvited” to weddings, siblings who won’t return texts, adult children who send carefully worded letters that end with phrases like, “I’m protecting my peace.”

“I didn’t lose her to a tragedy; I lost her to an ideology,” said one patient in my practice, describing being cut off by her daughter.

Once relegated to family estrangement’s outer edges, political cutoff has become mainstream. On social media, it’s celebrated as radical self-care. But behind the hashtags and empowering mantras lies a growing pile of research, and personal pain, that suggests this trend isn’t making people any happier.

The “Six Ds” of Political Estrangement

A pattern has emerged in my work, especially with more conservative-leaning patients whose views feel unwelcome in academic, media, or even family settings. I call this pattern “The Six Ds”, and they include defriending, divorcing, declining to date, disinviting a speaker, decreasing contact, or dropping a relationship altogether.

Studies consistently show that liberals are more likely than conservatives to cut ties with people over political disagreements.

Statistically, those most likely to initiate each of the Six Ds are people on the political Left. Studies consistently show that liberals are more likely than conservatives to cut ties with people over political disagreements—whether that’s unfriending on social media, ghosting a friend, or cutting off a relative entirely. Conservatives, while far from immune to strong feelings, tend to remain more relational even across political divides.

Understanding the Six Ds of Political Estrangement:

• Defriending on social media: A Pew Research Center report (“Political Polarization & Media Habits,” October 21, 2014) revealed that about 26% of all Facebook users have hidden, blocked, unfriended, or stopped following someone over political disagreement. Breaking it down by ideology, 44% of “consistent liberals” did this, compared to 31% of “consistent conservatives.”

• Divorcing: A nationwide 2017 Wakefield Research survey of 1,000 adults found that 10% of couples (married or dating) have split over political disagreements, rising to 22% among millennials. Additionally, 22% of Americans reported knowing a couple adversely affected by Trump’s election.

• Declining to date: A 2020 Pew Research Center study found that 71% of Democrats who are single and looking for a relationship would not consider dating a Trump voter, compared to just 31% of Republican daters who said the same about a Biden voter. The report highlights increasing political polarization in dating preferences, with partisan alignment playing a significant role in romantic compatibility.

• Disinviting a speaker: In a Gallup and Knight Foundation survey of 3,014 U.S. college students, 90% said it is never acceptable to use violence to silence a speaker, but 10% still considered it acceptable at least sometimes. Additionally, 37% judged that shouting down speakers is sometimes or always acceptable, while 62% opposed it. When asked about disinviting speakers, only 28% supported doing so due to student opposition, and 72% opposed disinvitations. Conversely, 69% favored canceling planned talks if there were concerns about possible violence.

• Decreasing contact: In Public Religion and Research Institute’s December 2024 post‑election survey, 23% of Democrats and 5% of Republicans reported that they were spending less time with certain family members because of political disagreements—meaning Democrats were nearly five times more likely than Republicans to decrease contact over political differences.

• Dropping the relationship completely: The Survey Center on American Life found that very liberal Americans are twice as likely compared to others when it comes to cutting off communication with a family member due to political differences.

These dynamics result in a growing group of people who feel increasingly isolated in their own families or social circles. They censor themselves to keep the peace, or worse, say nothing and still get shut out. While the Six Ds may seem excessively hostile, it’s important to note that many liberals feel morally justified because they view conservatives as racist and other “dealbreakers” in relationships (for example, a Public Religion and Research Institute survey found that 78% of Democrats believe the Republican party has been taken over by racists).

When “Safety” Stops Making Sense

One of the more disorienting trends I’ve observed is the shifting definition of “safety.” What once meant freedom from violence now often means freedom from discomfort.

A conservative comment in the family group chat isn’t “disagreement”—it’s “violence.” Asking a good-faith question about gender policy isn’t “curiosity”—it’s “hate speech.”

As I explore in my upcoming book, Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly, this conflation of words with physical harm is doing real damage. When we teach people to fear a viewpoint as if it were a punch, we create unnecessary anxiety, justify extreme responses, and ironically make people more fragile, not stronger.

What once meant freedom from violence now often means freedom from discomfort.

We’re also worsening the loneliness crisis. The U.S. Surgeon General has declared loneliness a public health threat, and it’s not hard to see why. If we can’t speak openly to the people who love us, we lose not only our voice but our sense of belonging.

The Mental Health Costs of Going “No Contact”

To be clear: sometimes going no contact is the healthiest choice, especially in cases of abuse, addiction, or manipulation. But “no contact” is becoming a default reaction to ideological discomfort, not just dysfunction.

And that’s dangerous. We need disagreement to grow, and we need relationships to stay emotionally stable. When you sever ties with someone over who they voted for, you don’t just lose a viewpoint, you lose history, identity, emotional support, and often, a chance for mutual growth.

Patients on the receiving end of these cutoffs often describe feelings of guilt, helplessness, and even grief. They haven’t lost a loved one to death, but they’ve lost them all the same.

Dialogue Doesn’t Require Agreement

The good news? Families can disagree deeply and still remain intact.

But resilient communication goes both ways. Just as it's important to speak up with care, it's equally important to listen with resilience, especially when a loved one is saying something we find challenging. One technique I teach is called "Reflective Listening," which helps prevent misunderstandings and keeps conversations constructive.

Reflective Listening:

• Let them speak without interrupting.

• Then summarize what you heard, using phrases like "So you're saying..." or "It sounds like you feel…" Even if you don’t agree with what they have said, make sure to use a tone of voice that conveys respect for the person.

• Ask if you got it right, and be willing to try again if not.

This approach, borrowed from couples therapy, slows down heated exchanges and builds trust. It shows the other person they’ve been heard, which often makes them more willing to hear you out in return.

Now, back to the courage it takes to speak up...

In my practice, I coach people through difficult conversations using structured tools like the "WAIT Test", which I introduce in Can I Say That?. It helps people decide when and how to speak up effectively.

The WAIT Test:

• W is for Want: Do you genuinely want to speak up, or are you just reacting in the moment?

• A is for Appropriate: Is this the right time and place?

• I is for Inoculate: Can you preview your thoughts with a light comment before diving in?

• T is for Trust: Can you trust yourself, and the other person, to handle the conversation with maturity?

With the right approach, even heated conversations can be fruitful. And even when dialogue doesn’t change minds, it can preserve hearts.

What We Lose When We Cut Each Other Off

Part of being human is disagreeing, but when we treat disagreement as abuse and discomfort as danger, we destroy the bridges we need to keep our families and our country together. Worse, we teach younger generations that intolerance is a virtue and that love must be conditional on ideological purity. That’s not self-care. That’s cultural self-harm.

We teach younger generations that intolerance is a virtue and that love must be conditional on ideological purity.

Let’s be honest: your cousin’s Facebook post might be cringe. Your aunt might forward one too many conspiracy-laden chain emails. But your family is still your family. And if you truly want to change someone’s mind, you’ll have far more luck at the dinner table than from the block button.

The Bottom Line

You don’t have to choose between family and your convictions. With the right tools, you can stay true to yourself and preserve the relationships that matter most.

That’s a win worth working for.

Dr. Chloe Carmichael is a clinical psychologist, USA Today bestselling author of Nervous Energy, and a visiting fellow at Independent Women. Her upcoming book Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly (Skyhorse, Nov. 2025) explores the mental health benefits of open dialogue and the costs of self-censorship.