When politics breaks you apart: "I ended things with him, even though I loved him, because it was impossible"

That politics divides is nothing new, but that it causes breakups in relationships, friendships, and even families is truly concerning. Experts explain what affective polarization is and how it is manifesting in Spanish society.

“We’re going to take back our country.” With these words, Donald Trump fired up his supporters during his last mass rally before being inaugurated as President of the United States. A suggestion that raises the question: Who are they taking it back from? Who stole the nation? The “enemies of the country,” as Trump himself called his detractors during the election campaign. Yet another example of how “divide and rule” seems to have become a political priority. This polarization—understood as two clearly defined and distant blocks, locked in constant confrontation—spreads rapidly. And while the United States may currently be the epicenter of media attention, we cannot ignore that this division is beginning to seep into our personal relationships in Spain.

"In the U.S. Congress, party leaders have gradually drifted apart, both in their proposals and in their language," explains Thomas Nelson, a professor at Ohio University and an expert in political psychology—a little-known social science in Spain that seeks to answer how identity, values, and group influences shape our political opinions. Nelson notes that the polarized language used by political leaders has filtered down to voters, in turn driving a wedge between citizens.

Spain is no exception. Terms such as “traitor,” “corrupt,” “fascist,” or “communist” have made their way into the official records of Spain’s Congress of Deputies. When arguments become too heated, the Speaker of the House often demands the removal of insults from the session’s transcript. One of the most troubling scenes was the string of insults—some even xenophobic—that deputy Gerardo Pisarello received from Vox’s bench during a debate on the Amnesty Law. Francina Armengol, Speaker of the House, called for order and described the incident as a “spectacle the public doesn’t deserve”.

This politically driven hatred has seeped into society. According to the CIS (Center for Sociological Research) study on Ideology and Polarization, 38% of PSOE voters admit feeling disgust—the strongest negative emotion available on the questionnaire—toward Alberto Núñez Feijóo, leader of the PP. Meanwhile, 51% of PP voters feel the same repulsion toward Pedro Sánchez. These feelings intensify with wider ideological differences: 68% of Sumar voters express disgust toward Santiago Abascal, while 43% of Vox voters feel the same about Yolanda Díaz. When it comes to Sánchez, that figure rises to 69%.

According to the CIS, one-third of Spaniards claim that social media has influenced their political thinking. “Access to political information mainly happens through social media, which also shapes public debate in terms of the agenda, focus, and framing of issues,” says Pablo Simón Cosano, political analyst and professor at Carlos III University of Madrid. With Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg’s defense of “freedom of expression,” a void has been created in terms of monitoring the accuracy of information, as there are no clear mechanisms or independent institutions to verify the truthfulness of user-published content. “Nowadays, facts themselves have lost their value. What we’re mostly seeing is that people first form their political attitudes and preferences, then decide whether or not they believe the facts,” Simón Cosano adds.

In Spain, polarization has decreased in recent years, according to the European Union Political Barometer. This project, carried out by a team from Carlos III University, studies polarization trends in EU member states and the UK using electoral data and party posts on Facebook. However, a reduction in ideological polarization does not mean there isn’t a social divide among Spaniards. A study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace explains that, for example, Americans are not as ideologically polarized as they believe, but they are emotionally polarized—what is known as “affective polarization.” In other words, voters from one party feel strong rejection toward supporters of the opposing party. This trend is emerging in Spain, where it is increasingly common for people to group together based on political ideology.

Affective Polarization: How Politics Affects Our Relationships

“I ended things with him even though I loved him deeply because I knew it was impossible”, confesses Andrea, a 28-year-old who decided to end her relationship after five long years together. They met while working at a supermarket, balancing work with their studies. She was training to be a journalist; he, a national police officer. When he entered the academy, Andrea noticed a change in his thinking, but it wasn’t until after the pandemic that she felt he had become radicalized. “The things he said and the way he behaved didn’t align with who I am,” she explains.

The situation soon became unbearable. “I felt like every argument was linked to something political. These differences—maybe not now, but in the future, when you want kids—can be a problem. When it comes to raising them, you have to agree on so many things.” Andrea recalls a particularly heated argument where they nearly crossed the line of respect. “At first, I felt bad. How can a couple that loves each other break up because of opposing political ideologies? I couldn’t believe it,” she admits. But reality ultimately prevailed.

“We feel uncomfortable with conflict,” Nelson notes. “We don’t like talking to someone who disagrees with us because these disagreements often turn very unpleasant.” He adds that some people have a tendency to think the worst of those who don’t share their views. Julio, 33, is an example. He admits he’s cut back on friendships based on political differences. “I don’t like arguing,” he says, baffled as to why his friends bring up certain topics knowing they don’t see eye to eye. “I don’t meet friends for dinner to end up arguing. It makes me anxious and uncomfortable”.

Our ability to relate to others is shaped by our identity. Sergio García Soriano, a psychologist specializing in clinical and social intervention, explains that identity is built on various factors, such as family, society, and even politics. These elements shape who we are. “We seek people like us who share our values,” he notes. This doesn’t mean it’s impossible to connect with people who hold different political views, but García Soriano advises steering clear of topics that could lead to heated debates. Otherwise, these discussions can reinforce our identity more rigidly, causing us to see others “not as friends, but as enemies.”

But it’s not always possible to avoid conflict. Beatriz tells us how she spent several months not speaking to her father because his comments drove her crazy. “I would ask him questions to challenge what he was saying,” but he would take offense and invoke “freedom of expression.” “You can’t say anything anymore,” he would complain. Beatriz says the situation caused her a lot of stress, so she stopped responding—until one Christmas, when everything exploded. “We argued a lot. I told him I just wanted peace and that it was impossible like this.” Time passed, and while they tried to reconnect, they never reached an agreement. Beatriz doesn’t remember how they made up, but since that fight, they’ve never spoken about politics again. “I’m much calmer now because the stress I used to feel was unbearable.”

At the table, you don’t talk about politics, football, or religion. My grandmother would always bring this saying up whenever family conversations got heated. My uncles would grumble, my cousin would crack a joke, and my grandfather, always silent, would watch. In the end, we all laughed. Perhaps today, more than ever, we need to learn the difference between talking and respecting, between debating and fighting, between understanding and imposing. Maybe we’ve all experienced a situation like Beatriz and her father’s, but what matters most is the desire to reconcile—to recognize that conversation is a bridge, not a trench.