It is generally accepted - especially in the area in which I work (DC Metro high tech) - that one does not openly discuss one's politics with colleagues and co-workers.
Well, I've never bowed to the "generally acceptable". I managed to keep my political alignment at least opaque until the last Presidential election. I spent so much time on the ground in Virginia for Obama - it was as much a part of my life as my co-workers' children were a part of theirs. It was simply impossible for it not to bleed into day-to-day conversations, particularly with the protracted and heavily covered primary between Clinton and Obama and then the equally historic general election campaign that followed.
Simply, it was impossible, for me, to hide my politics.
While we openly criticize/revile/call bullshit on rightwing lies and Fox talking points here at Daily Kos, my approach to those in my professional realm is entirely different. My goal, generally, is persuasion - and the best path to persuasion, even when I know for a fact that the person with whom I am engaged will not change their mind, is to find those areas where we more or less share essentially the same point of view.
Much more over the fold.
Let me explain that last statement. Until recently in the entirety of my professional career, I have met a multitude if Republicans. The DC Metro area is lousy with them, frankly (think defense contracting). But they aren't the screaming, raging lunatic types of Republicans. They're more the dying breed of Republicans - fiscally conservative, more hawk than dove, but almost uniformly socially liberal. All but a few I have encountered (again - until recently) I would describe as decidedly UN-dogmatic. Of that lot, I can name a majority that crossed over and voted for Obama in 2008 primarily for two reasons:
1. McCain looked utterly hapless in the economic meltdown
2. Sarah Palin
Hopefully I've painted for you a picture of people with whom one can disucss, even if the discussion highlights fundamental disagreements. While the disagreements win the day, there is also a fair amount of discussion of areas of mutual agreement.
One of the things I learned early on in my career is that maintaining and expanding one's professional network has nothing but upside (at least, not in my experience). For one, it helps with ongoing business activities. By necessity, people in my field tend to work together on opportunities - so the more you network, the more you expand your potential field of partners. For another, expanding your network can yield more opportunity personally down the road should one ever find oneself in need of a new job.
So. I keep myself active in "community activities". As such, I found myself a few weeks back at a conference that brings together like-minded people for three days of networking, partying, socializing, and learning (pretty much in that order). I've been active in this community for a while, and I know a bunch of people in the industry. These conferences, to me, unfold on two tracks: it's an opportunity to re-engage with people you already know, to touch base with them and discuss items of mutual interest, and also an opportunity to get around and meet the new faces that turn up at these events.
So it was that at this conference I made my way to a group of people where I only knew two of the 12 or so people who were sitting together and talking. It was late - midnight on the second night - and we were all out in front of the conference facility on these wonderful rocking chairs. Many of the men in the group were smoking cigars (yuck to me, but it's pretty common at these events), and everyone was just generally chatting.
This evening gathering occurred on the same day that The Donald - King of the Birthers and hero to conspiracy theorists everywhere - announced that he would not be running for President. This is what the topic of conversation turned to - not initiated by me. The general consensus of everyone in the group was that Donald Trump was a) ridiculous; and b) deleterious generally. The tone of the conversation was amiably incredulous - a "can you believe how nuts that guy is" kind of feel.
Bear in mind - there were non-Obama types in the group as well. Their general observation was that Birtherism and all the associated Conspiracism was ridiculous - that there was plenty on a policy basis with which to disagree with Obama's actions and decisions and that those issues were best addressed rather than fantastical and subtly racist items as those that had been in the news.
So we were all having a good laugh about the whole Birther controversy when another female member of the group commented that it didn't matter to her a whit where any President was born, that all she cared about was whether or not he was getting the job done.
And this was where it got interesting.
The seemingly eldest member of the group - male - said that the fact was the Obama wasn't getting the job done. I turned to him and asked to what he was specifically referring. The answer I received was that Obama had raised his right hand and swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States and then turned around and (I'm paraphrasing) "tore up the Constitution" and announced that the US would "follow international law".
I didn't even touch that - I didn't have time (more on that in a moment). But I felt my eyes widen a bit as I realized that there was a true enemy in our midst (at least from my point of view).
The reason why I didn't go into the whole issue of "Constitution supplanted by transnational law" thing was because the man's next statement sucked the air out of my lungs:
HIM: "His birth certificate is a fake, too." (referring to the recently-released long-form version)
I do believe my mouth fell open and the look of shock on my face must have been so profound that he felt compelled to rush forward:
"It is. Why does it say that his father was born in Kenya when Kenya didn't become a country until 1963 but Obama was born in 1961?"
Now I can feel my anger flashing. I've seen these nutty-ass, dangerous, racist Birthers on TV. But honestly - I had never actually met one face-to-face. Before I even spoke my temper was gone. Here was how I replied:
"Would you like me to answer that?"
No response from Mr. Birther.
Me: "Yes, it's true that Kenya itself did not become an independent country until 1963, known as the Republic of Kenya. Prior to that it was a British protectorate - referred to since 1920 as the Kenya Colony. So stating "Kenya" on the birth certificate as the birthplace of his father was completely accurate. Next?"
Let me just tell you. My response was sharp and immediate and exact and unforgiving. What had been a lighthearted gathering of 12-14 people who were sober (mostly) but had also been drinking wine suddenly got very silent. All eyes moved to me. My eyes on were on Mr. Birther. And then all eyes moved to Mr. Birther.
His response was as follows:
Mr. Birther: "Well, then why did he spend $2M on lawyers trying to keep his birth certificate from being public?"
I lost my shit.
Me: "No response to the Kenya thing? Ok. Moving along. The $2M figure you and others like you love to put out there comes from an FEC report where the line item is "legal expenses". And yes, Barack Obama listed about $2M on his FEC report for legal expenses. But it might interest you to know that John McCain listed about $1.5M in legal expenses on his FEC report. And while I can run around asking why John McCain spent $1.5M on lawyers to cover up the fact that he was molesting underage boys, that wouldn't make it true."
Dead silent around the circle. Mr. Birther tried to just yammer on about legal fees to cover up his birth certificate, and I wasn't having a word of it:
Me: "If you want to have a substative discussion about why you disagree with Barack Obama's actions as President, I'm all for it. But if you're going to sit here and spew Fox News lies and conspiracy theories and expect me not to call you on your intellectually ignorant bullshit, you've underestimated me."
It was actually physically, palpably uncomfortable around the group at this point. God love one of my two friends present - to lighten the mood he basically laughed and said "so.... this is uncomfortable!". What followed was tension-relieving laughter and an attempt to return to less confrontational areas of conversation. We never actually got there. And I'll tell you - neither Mr. Birther nor myself were smiling.
I spent the better part of the week after returning from the conference feeling like I'd made a mistake in allowing myself to lose my temper so completely. Don't get me wrong - I'm all up for keeping the record straight and factual. But in a business setting, with a group of people whom I am just meeting for the first time, it's probably not the best idea to a) lead so obviously with my politics; and b) be so completely pissed and humorless about it. In my business heart, I know this was a mistake.
But.
I've also decided that while I may pay a price for my reaction, I generally defend it. I don't think there's ever a time, morally, where you can hear someone spouting hate speech and let it go unchallenged. To me, it's like watching someone abuse an animal, child, or otherwise helpless being and turning away. If you can't stand up to injustice and its perpetrators, I don't know if you can ever truly stand up.
So on the one hand, I think my reaction was totally appropriate as well as accurate. I may pay a price for it, but I don't know how I could have done otherwise and live with myself.
Time will tell what price is to be paid.