Civil discourse and the art of disagreement

Civil discourse and respectful disagreement are essential to a free and thriving society. The ability to say “I disagree” defines individuality, protects liberty, and drives progress. Throughout history, leaders such as Thomas Jefferson, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr., and Winston Churchill shaped history through principled disagreement.

Today, however, disagreement has become increasingly hostile. Public debates over race, immigration, gender, healthcare, and politics are often marked by shouting, insults, and division rather than thoughtful conversation. We no longer disagree; we demonize. As Proverbs 18:2 reminds us, “Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions.”

This decline in meaningful dialogue is not new. Nearly 40 years ago, philosopher Allan Bloom warned of “The Closing of the American Mind,” arguing that education and public discourse were losing their commitment to open inquiry and critical thinking. Today, many people treat disagreement as disrespect rather than an opportunity to learn. We no longer talk TO each other and work toward resolution, we talk AT each other and work toward blame.

The rise of social media has accelerated this problem. Platforms intended to connect people now encourage outrage, misinformation, and tribalism. Instead of constructive conversations, we increasingly encounter echo chambers that reinforce our existing beliefs.

I think that a fundamental part of the problem is that we simply do not trust anyone or anything. We don’t trust the government to be open and transparent. We don’t trust the news media to report the facts. We don’t trust public education to teach a balanced curriculum. We don’t trust the police to be fair, and we should NEVER trust social media for facts!

A recent poll reported that only the military and small business earned a high level of trust from most North Carolinians. The same is true from a Gallup national sampling. Less than half (48%) of North Carolinians trust the police “quite a lot,” whereas 47% said: “some” or “very little.” Nationally, it was only 45% that said “quite a lot,” while 54% responded “some” or “very little.”

Banks, public schools and even the United States Supreme Court are considered less than 60% trustworthy!

We simply do not trust each other. THAT is the fundamental challenge. We need to distinguish between trust and support, and especially between trust and credibility — in particular when it comes to our inter-personal relationships.

Yet disagreement itself is not the enemy. Intelligent disagreement is the lifeblood of democracy. A healthy society depends on citizens who can respectfully challenge one another, evaluate ideas honestly, and tolerate differing perspectives. Freedom of speech must remain truly free, even when speech is unpopular or uncomfortable.

Americans have always disagreed, but historically we have also united during moments of great challenge and triumph. From national tragedies to historic achievements, we have repeatedly demonstrated our ability to come together despite deep differences.

To restore healthy public discourse, each of us must become better listeners. Civil discourse is not a competition with winners and losers; it is a deliberate and respectful exchange of ideas. It requires humility, patience, critical thinking, and a commitment to truth over outrage. Facts matter, and while we are entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts.

If our democracy is to remain rational, free, and strong, we must relearn the art of respectful disagreement and model it for future generations.

“Civil discourse and the art of disagreement” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.