How to Hold Unpopular Positions Without Losing Everyone

I hold conservative positions because I believe they are true, not merely as one valid option among many. I am a Christian because Christ is Lord, not simply because Christianity works for me. These are not preferences; they are convictions.

But conviction does not require crusading. I know what I believe, and I do not need your agreement to validate it. I have also learned that most arguments do not change minds; they merely identify allies and enemies. Therefore, I choose my battles. Not because all positions are equal, but because not all moments are equally strategic.

The current cultural landscape demands constant vigilance. Every political development, social controversy, and theological debate becomes an opportunity to declare one's allegiance and denounce the opposition. Men feel pressured to engage in every disagreement, as if silence equates to surrender.

This approach destroys relationships, hardens opposition, and achieves nothing beyond tribal signalling. There is a better way that maintains conviction without constant crusading, holds firm positions without hectoring those who disagree, and recognises that influence requires relationships.

Why This Isn't About Tolerance

Some positions are objectively better than others. Some beliefs are true, while others are false. Some moral frameworks promote human flourishing, whereas others result in misery. I am certain of my convictions, and this certainty does not waver depending on who agrees with me.

The question is not whether you are right, but whether this conversation, at this moment, with this person, is the most effective setting in which to express your position. Wisdom lies in recognising when an argument will open minds and when it will only harden opposition.

Your uncle at Christmas dinner is unlikely to abandon a lifetime of beliefs simply because you corrected him over turkey. The friend who has been immersed in progressive ideology for a decade will not experience a conversion just because you posted a devastating tweet. The person who has already decided you are a bigot will not suddenly recognise your moral clarity through superior logic.

The truth does not require constant defence; it requires consistent embodiment.

Conviction Without Crusading

Confident men do not need constant validation. If you are certain you are right, you do not require everyone else to agree. A man who hectors everyone about his beliefs reveals insecurity, not conviction. He needs converts to validate his position and interprets disagreement as a threat demanding immediate defence. Every conversation becomes a referendum on his identity.

Genuine conviction permits restraint. You can hold strong views while recognising that most people will not change their minds through argument. You can be certain of your position while understanding that relationships matter more than rhetorical victory. You can know the truth while accepting that not every moment is the right time to express it.

When someone directly asks for your perspective, answer honestly. When the conversation naturally shifts towards topics you care about, contribute authentically. When decisions affecting you or those for whom you are responsible are being made, speak up clearly. However, do not treat every social interaction as an opportunity for conversion.

The Difference Between Truth and Tactics

I am a Christian who does not go around hectoring people about their need for salvation. Why? Because genuine persuasion rarely occurs through argument. People do not reason their way into faith through superior logic. Instead, they observe how Christians live, form impressions over time, and occasionally become curious enough to investigate further. The relationship precedes the conversation, and the conversation precedes the conversion.

The same applies to political positions. I hold conservative views because I believe they more accurately reflect reality and lead to better outcomes. However, political arguments rarely change minds. What does change minds is sustained exposure to people whose lives are successful, whose families flourish, and whose character commands respect.

If my neighbour mentions his progressive politics, I do not launch into a critique of his worldview. Instead, we talk about the weather, discuss local issues, and help each other with practical problems. Over time, he sees how I live, observes my family, and notices the choices I make along with their consequences.

Occasionally, he asks questions. Those conversations matter because they are genuine rather than performative. He is not defending a position; he is exploring an alternative. I am not trying to win an argument; I am explaining my reasoning. These moments are rare. They occur in private and require trust built over time.

When to Engage

Strategic restraint requires the wisdom to know when to speak.

Genuine questions deserve honest answers: If a colleague asks for your opinion on a controversial policy, tell them. If your son wants to know why you vote as you do, explain. True curiosity creates opportunities for authentic dialogue.

Issues directly affecting you or those for whom you are responsible: school policies impacting your children, workplace decisions affecting your team, and local developments changing your community. You have both the right and the responsibility to engage with matters within your authority or influence.

Private conversations with someone who trusts you: a friend struggling with his marriage who knows yours works; a young man seeking direction who respects your choices; a person who has seen your life and wonders how you think. These conversations happen quietly, without an audience, between people with an established relationship.

Topics in which you possess unique expertise or experience: When the conversation concerns something you genuinely understand, your input adds value. Otherwise, it is merely opinion masquerading as insight.

When to Remain Silent

Most situations do not warrant engagement.

Group settings where disagreement leads to division without resolution. Family gatherings, work events, social occasions. You're not going to change your brother-in-law's mind in front of his wife; you'll only create tension that lingers long after the argument has ended.

Heated emotional moments cause people to dig into their positions, and defending them emotionally will not suddenly lead to reason simply because you have made a clever point. It is better to wait for calmer conditions or to avoid the conversation altogether.

Online pile-ons and viral controversies have become performance art for allies rather than genuine attempts at persuasion. Your scathing take on the controversy of the day signals your tribal affiliation to those who already agree with you.

Bad-faith arguments are designed to make you appear extreme. The person is not interested in your actual views; they aim to defeat a caricature. Do not engage.

How to Disagree Effectively

When you engage in disagreement, do so effectively.

State your position without demanding agreement. Saying, "Here's what I think and why" carries more weight than "you must agree with me, or you are wrong." The former invites consideration, while the latter provokes defence.

Ask questions rather than delivering speeches. Questions reveal thought processes and help you understand the other person's perspective, while sometimes prompting them to examine their own assumptions.

Acknowledge the valid points in opposing views. Most positions contain some truth, even when you disagree with their conclusions. Recognising this demonstrates that you are genuinely listening.

Know when to end the conversation. Not every discussion reaches a resolution. Sometimes, you articulate your position, listen to the other perspective, and agree to disagree. The goal is mutual understanding, not rhetorical victory.

The Long Game

Influence is established over years, not through arguments. Trust, built on consistent character, matters more than winning debates. People remember how you made them feel, not your superior logic.

The colleague who disagrees with your politics but knows you are reliable, competent, and fair will eventually reconsider whether their stereotypes about conservatives are accurate. The neighbour who thinks Christians are judgemental bigots but sees you treat everyone with respect will eventually question that narrative.

This process unfolds gradually. It requires patience and demands that you live by your convictions rather than merely articulate them. It involves accepting that most people will never agree with you, and that is perfectly acceptable.

Your children are watching. They learn more from observing how you handle disagreement than from hearing your stated opinions. Do you remain calm when challenged? Do you maintain relationships with people who disagree? Do you treat opponents with respect, even when you believe they are wrong? These lessons shape them more than your political speeches or theological lectures.

When Silence Enables Evil

Strategic restraint is not a universal principle. Some moments demand that you speak out, regardless of the consequences.

Direct attacks on your faith require a response. When someone mocks Christianity in your presence or demands that you compromise your beliefs, silence implies agreement. Stand firm and accept the social consequences.

Threats to your family are non-negotiable. Policies that endanger your children, ideologies targeting your household, and forces undermining your authority as father and husband. These battles choose you. Fight them.

Evil that can genuinely be opposed deserves your engagement. Not every outrage on social media, but injustice within your sphere of influence where your voice might make a difference: the vulnerable person being exploited, the wrong being committed in your community, or the corruption you have the standing to challenge.

Are you remaining silent because this is not the right moment, or because you fear the consequences? Are you choosing your battles wisely, or avoiding all conflicts out of fear? Honest self-examination reveals the difference. A man confident in his convictions knows which hills are worth dying on. Most arguments are not among them.

The Path Forward

The present moment calls for men who can hold unpopular views without alienating those who disagree. Men who are confident in their beliefs and do not require constant validation through argument. Men who understand that influence depends on relationships, and that relationships require restraint.

Your convictions remain unchanged. Your tactics have improved. You still understand what is true. You have simply ceased expending energy on arguments that achieve nothing beyond tribal signalling.

The world needs men who can disagree without damaging relationships; men who hold firm positions while maintaining friendships across ideological divides; men who understand that conviction and crusading are not the same.

Hold your ground. Choose your battles wisely. Build influence through character rather than argument. And observe what unfolds over years, not tweets.

Richard Morrissey