We don't wish to talk about divisive matters over a meal because eating food among others is a social occasion that is best enjoyed cooperatively. Living in a polity where citizens have the right to vote for blue, red, orange, green, or whatever other colour creates division. We go to the polls every few years to roll the dice and compete with others, seeing if we can succeed in realizing our political aspirations. Even if these aspirations are constantly rolling around in our heads, we set them aside at times—such as meals with others who may not share our political beliefs—to foster social cohesion. "Social" and "political" are not synonymous, as you can have the former without the latter. Not talking about politics at the dinner table is customary.
But should this custom be accepted wholesale? Perhaps the problem is not so much talking about politics as it is talking about politics ineffectively. There's no more reason to ban political conversation in this context than there is to forbid the use of spoons simply because children tend to misuse them.
Of course, political participation is not necessarily graceful. Voters head to the ballot box, not a ballet performance. It is not an occasion for gingerly spinning, but for throwing fisticuffs into a cube of contradictory ideas.
Civil behaviour may not be able to render "equality"—"no quality" may be a more accurate term—but it covers a multitude of sins. One such sin would be name-calling. It is high time for indiscriminate insults like "Marxist" and "fascist" to stop being levelled against reasonable and ordinary New Democrats and Tories.
The Canadian federal election is upon us. What will happen tomorrow?