I was born in 1977, which means my political life began in a very specific America — one that feels almost like a parallel universe now. My first presidential vote was for Bill Clinton, and the truth is simple: I was a Democrat because I liked the Clintons. Not because of family pressure, not because of inherited ideology, not because of some grand political awakening. I just genuinely liked them.
My parents never talked much about who they voted for. They weren’t secretive; they were accepting. They didn’t treat politics as a moral sorting mechanism. They didn’t divide the world into “our people” and “their people.” They modeled something quieter and more generous: the idea that you could accept everyone, even if you didn’t agree with them. That atmosphere shaped me more than I realized. It meant that when I chose a political identity, it was mine — not a family heirloom. And it meant that even as I aligned with one party, I didn’t grow up seeing the other as an enemy. Republicans were simply the other team, the loyal opposition, part of the civic choreography that made democracy work.
Politics felt important, but not existential. Engaging didn’t require total emotional commitment. Disagreement didn’t require dehumanization. And belonging to a party didn’t require blind loyalty. Those early assumptions would be tested again and again as the political landscape shifted around me.
One of the first big shifts in my worldview didn’t come from politics at all — it came from dating a Canadian girl in high school. We met in 1995 and dated for about a year. It was teenage love, earnest and uncomplicated, but it quietly rewired my understanding of the world. She didn’t try to teach me geopolitics. She didn’t argue with me about America. She simply existed — with her own national context, her own media landscape, her own inherited narratives about the United States.
Through her, I learned something most Americans don’t encounter until much later, if ever: America is not the center of the world. And the world’s view of America is not always flattering. I heard how her family talked about U.S. foreign policy. I heard how her teachers framed American power. I heard how Canadian news covered events that American news treated very differently. It wasn’t hostile. It wasn’t anti‑American. It was simply another perspective — one that didn’t assume the U.S. was always the protagonist or the hero.
That experience didn’t make me less patriotic. It made me more aware. It gave me binocular vision: the ability to see my country from the inside and the outside at the same time. And once you’ve seen that, you can’t unsee it. It becomes part of how you process every election, every conflict, every headline.
Even in high school, I could tell the two parties weren’t the same. Not in a “one is good, one is bad” way — more in a “these institutions have different cultures” way. They handled conflict differently. They handled accountability differently. They had different internal expectations for how their leaders should behave.
When Bill Clinton was impeached, I believed the charge was serious. Not because I disliked him — I had voted for him — but because lying under oath struck me as a real breach of responsibility. I didn’t feel defensive about it. I didn’t feel the need to protect “my side.” I thought accountability mattered more than team identity.
Years later, when another president was impeached twice, I felt the same way: the charges were serious. But what struck me wasn’t the impeachment itself — it was the reaction around me. I struggled to find people in the Republican Party who were willing to say, “Yes, this is concerning,” the way I had been able to say it about my own party’s leader. That contrast stayed with me. Not as a judgment. Not as a talking point. Just as a lived observation about how political cultures evolve. It was one of the first moments when I realized that my relationship to politics wasn’t just about ideology. It was about how I believed adults should behave in a shared civic space.
Then came the information firehose. Cable news. Blogs. Social media. Smartphones. Push notifications. Infinite scroll. Outrage as a business model. The volume and velocity of political information changed faster than any human nervous system could adapt. Suddenly, “being informed” meant being constantly activated. Constantly vigilant. Constantly outraged. Constantly sorting the world into moral categories.
I didn’t change parties. I didn’t change values. But the experience of being a politically engaged person changed around me. And I developed a cycle — one I still live with today: inhale, saturation, burnout, withdrawal, return. I inhale news because I care. I burn out because I’m human. I withdraw because I need to stay whole. I return because I still believe democracy is a shared project. This cycle isn’t apathy. It’s self‑preservation. It’s the rhythm of someone who wants to stay engaged without losing themselves in the noise.
Over time, my dissatisfaction with both parties grew — not because I believed they were identical, but because neither one fully reflected the complexity of my values or the nuance of my lived experience. I became skeptical of institutions but more committed to democratic norms. I became less interested in party identity and more interested in accountability. I became more aware of how domestic politics reverberate globally. I became more attuned to the emotional cost of constant political vigilance.
And I became increasingly aware that the political culture around me was shifting in ways that made my old assumptions feel outdated. The idea of the “loyal opposition” felt harder to hold onto. The shared civic floor felt shakier. The space for good‑faith disagreement felt smaller. The emotional temperature of politics felt hotter, more personal, more totalizing.
I didn’t become more partisan. If anything, I became more discerning. I learned to hold two truths at once: I still see political opponents as human beings, and I also recognize that the stakes feel higher now than they did in the 90s. That dual awareness is exhausting, but it’s honest.
Sometimes I miss the political atmosphere of my youth — not because it was better, but because it was quieter. Slower. Less demanding. Less omnipresent. I miss the feeling that politics was something you could step into and out of, rather than something that followed you everywhere. I miss the idea that you could disagree with someone without needing to diagnose their moral character. I miss the assumption that accountability mattered more than loyalty.
But nostalgia isn’t analysis, and longing isn’t a political strategy. The truth is that my politics have changed without changing parties. My values have stayed consistent, but my relationship to the system has evolved.
I’ve learned that political identity is not a fixed point. It’s a moving relationship between you and the world you live in. It’s shaped by your experiences, your relationships, your disappointments, your hopes, and the emotional bandwidth you have at any given moment. It’s shaped by the times you inhale the news and the times you can’t bear to look at it. It’s shaped by the moments when you feel proud of your country and the moments when you feel uneasy about how it’s perceived. It’s shaped by the leaders you vote for and the leaders you critique. It’s shaped by the people you love, including the ones who live across a border.
If there’s a throughline to my political life, it’s this: I believe in accountability, even when it’s uncomfortable. I believe in disagreement without dehumanization. I believe in staying informed without sacrificing my mental health. I believe in stepping back when I need to, and stepping forward when it matters. I believe in holding complexity, even when the world demands simplicity. I believe in democracy as a shared project, not a spectator sport.
And I believe that political evolution doesn’t always look like switching parties or changing ideologies. Sometimes it looks like growing up. Sometimes it looks like seeing your country from another angle. Sometimes it looks like learning your limits. Sometimes it looks like refusing to surrender your nuance in a world that rewards certainty.
My politics have changed because I have changed — not in my core values, but in my understanding of what it means to live them out in a world that is louder, faster, and more polarized than the one I was born into. I’m still a Democrat. I’ve never voted Republican. But the meaning of those facts has shifted over time, shaped by experience, disappointment, hope, and the relentless churn of the news cycle.
I don’t know what the next decade will bring. I don’t know how my relationship to politics will continue to evolve. But I do know this: I want to stay engaged without losing myself. I want to stay informed without being consumed. I want to stay principled without becoming rigid. I want to stay open without being naïve. I want to stay human in a system that often forgets we are all human.
And maybe that’s the real story of my political life — not a shift from left to right, but a shift from certainty to complexity, from team identity to values, from constant vigilance to intentional engagement. A shift toward a politics that makes room for breath.
Scored by Copilot, Conducted by Leslie Lanagan
Stories That Are All True 